Revision as of 10:04, 27 October 2011 editMkativerata (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,905 edits →How strong is the opinion you expressed at AE?: re← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:00, 5 October 2022 edit undoChris troutman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers54,800 edits now listed missing | ||
(784 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Not around|left Misplaced Pages|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|March 1, 2020}} | |||
{{wikibreak|message=Am away for a while and only checking in intermittently.}} | |||
'''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.''' | '''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.''' | ||
Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
*] (June 2011 to August 2011) | *] (June 2011 to August 2011) | ||
*] (September 2011) | *] (September 2011) | ||
*] (October 2011) | |||
*] (November 2011) | |||
*] (December 2011 to January 2012) | |||
*] (January 2012 to July 2014) | |||
*] (July 2014 to October 2014) | |||
== November 2014 == | |||
== ] == | |||
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
Please be particularly aware that ] states: | |||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. | |||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''{{Break}}''reported other party to edit warning noticeboard''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 14:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
===Roman 888=== | |||
The closing statement was: | |||
This looks a lot like our old pal Roman888. "serial vandaliser" is a favorite expression of his. --] (]) 15:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{quote|The result was no consensus. Reasonable minds often differ on whether sources are sufficient to establish a subject's notability. It's especially the case when there are many sources that mention or quote the subject but not so many that are actually about him. Here, reasonable minds differ quite evenly and there is no consensus either way.}} | |||
:Oh yes, it's definitely him. It's just easier to roll back each edit than go through the tedious report-block-new sock-report-block cycle, right? Best to keep him on one account too. Protecting the page wasn't the right move either. I've been slowly improving that article for weeks and now I can't... --] (]) 19:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:: The admin poo-poo'd my comment on the edit warring message board, too. This is ban evasion so the warning above is inappropriate; you might want to note that in your edit summary so you aren't blocked when you shouldn't be. I'm watching the page now, too. How do you want to handle this? If I'm reading this right, you're good to leave him alone on this one account for now. I'm happy to do what you prefer. --] (]) 19:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ec}} I was just about to write another reply to you, having now seen the AN3 thread. "Open an SPI"? I mean, really... As if you don't have better things to do. From memory filing an SPI takes forever. The account should have been blocked on your request, the case being so clear. Although I reckon the best way to respond to this case, when neither blocking nor protection is going to be an appropriate medium-to-long-term solution (as we both know he's been socking for four years and won't go away) is to have multiple people watching the target articles, and roll back every single edit of the sock on sight. This article is of a sitting Prime Minister, so there should be (but aren't) multiple watchers anyway. Perhaps {{U|Avono}} and {{U|Bbb23}} might volunteer? --] (]) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::: fine, will put it in my watchlist ] (]) 19:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::: Sounds like a plan to me. I'm watching him, and the PM's page. I also left a note on Bbb23's page suggesting minimal due diligence might be in order next time. This one ain't rocket science. But in truth, I can see the merit of keeping the one account active so we can keep Roman corralled. I haven't left a message outing him (my usual practice) on his talk page for just that reason. --] (]) 20:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
How can reasonable minds be said to differ when we don't know what they think about the evidence? None of the first three delete !voters reported any research, and these !votes were refuted during the AfD on this point. Subsequent to these !votes, more than 40 references were discovered. Only one delete !voter made a statement after this discovery. This one !voter reported nothing was found on Google news, yet there are numerous sources on Google news, and I reported five of them at the AfD. When challenged on this point, there was no explanation given. So all delete !votes stand refuted for not having considered the evidence. Please revert your closing to "keep". Thank you, ] (]) 02:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I disagree. The difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is so inconsequential that, with respect, I'm not inclined to give any further explanation for my close. --] (]) 08:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Given your position that the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" "is so inconsequential", then would you be ok with changing the result to "keep"? Thanks, ] (]) 11:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::No, sorry. --] (]) 14:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Then it is not inconsequential, right? ] (]) 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::You are confusing meaning and consequence. There was no consensus in the debate and I'm not changing it to "keep". --] (]) 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::: I just left a message for Moonriddengirl. Hopefully she can take out the trash. --] (]) 01:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::Sounds to me like you are trying to end this conversation before it has started, which would start with your response to my first question. We had a good conversation at ]. I was the one that later recreated ] as a redirect by writing a new subsection of ]. ] (]) 00:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Yes, I am trying to end it. I don't mean to be impolite, but I have limited time to engage in a totally inconsequential debate whether an AfD should have been closed as "keep" versus "no consensus". I'm just not doing it. --] (]) 01:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I understand that you don't mean to be impolite, and we have a good conversation behind us to confirm it. I think the drag on this conversation is your insistence or implication that some of the choices that you make don't have consequences. If your choice was truly inconsequential, I think you would have found a way out of this conversation that doesn't disrespect the work I did during the AfD in improving the encyclopedia and analyzing relevant guidelines and policies. As per your statements, this will be my last post in this section without some feedback. Perhaps you have some suggestions. ] (]) 13:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== UMNO Islamist ideology? == | |||
==Pregnancy RFC closure== | |||
I ask that you reconsider of the Pregnancy lead image proposal. It is faulty on several grounds, the primary consideration being Issue #2, where the photographer, the husband of the subject, has submitted to use the photo of his wife, with her knowledge and consent. If this is insufficient, which no one involved in the RFC has advanced, then please explain why. The RFC should have been closed as 'no consensus'. ] <small>]</small> 16:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:The summary of the OTRS ticket is that it gives permission for use, not that the subject of the photo has directly consented to its use. Having said that, I don't have the OTRS ticket. I have just added an important proviso to the close about the eventuality of proper consent being obtained. --] (]) 16:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Then you can't close it as conensus for change based on a technical issue into which you have no view and has not become an issue until right now, at closure. Please reverse the closure until we can confirm what, if anything, is necessary to show the consent of the subject. ] <small>]</small> 17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::No, it was an issue raised by a number of editors in support of the proposal that was not adequately dealt with and in combination with other issues caused there to be a consensus. See in particular Steven Walling and Viritidas' contributions and the others that relied on them. I'm not going to speak for OTRS here, but I would ordinarily seek not just the consent of the subject of the photograph but reasonable evidence that the subject of the photograph is indeed the person giving consent. --] (]) 17:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::That was before there was an OTRS ticket, all arguments were based on that. Once the OTRS ticket was in place, there were no further objections. Until now. Otherwise, I would have requested extra OTRS permission weeks ago. I'm writing them now. I merely asked for a little time to verify if the current OTRS is ok or if we need more, and to obtain that extra permission if needed. ] <small>]</small> 17:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::And can you point me to the instructions on how to obtain and verify this 'personality rights' consent? I'm not seeing instructions on how to accomplish this and I want to make sure it's done right. ] <small>]</small> 17:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::That is not an accurate reflection at all. The OTRS diff is from 7 September. A number of the contributions raising concerns about consent post-dated that diff significantly. In any case, as to your question, ] suggests the use of a "model release". But I can understand you wanting to get the terms of any such consent and supporting evidence "right" first. I'd suggest you contact OTRS yourself or one of the OTRS administrators listed at ]. --] (]) 17:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::Certainly the one you pointed out was well before the OTRS ticket, , so I don't know that it's an inaccurate reflection at all. I don't see arguments that the OTRS ticket is insufficient. ] <small>]</small> 17:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Viritidas' contribution, to take one example, was well after the OTRS ticket came in. --] (]) 17:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Apparently, even she is unclear on what is needed. At any rate, I agree that we'll investigate and I'm doing that now. Better late than never, I guess... :) Although I still think you should reverse your close and wait, the image has been there since 2006. ] <small>]</small> 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
(EC)I think it was a well thought out and measured response... but I would ask that you modify your last sentence... I think you should explicitly state what the proposal was for, to reiterate the conclusion.--- ''']''' '']'' 17:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks, and done. --] (]) 17:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks, I find that reiterating the conclusion helps to aleviate ambiguity later on... it also ensures that when somebody says "I support the proposal" that they understood the proposal.---''']''' '']'' 17:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I would also suggest boxing the entire discusison to include discussion not labelled "support/oppose," but the whole thing as it should have been weighed in your final decision... and preserved in that condition. Right now it is already ], let any future discussion start with a clean slate.---''']''' '']'' 19:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Hmm... I'm a bit hesitant shutting down more discussion than needs to be shut down, and it would be difficult to work out where to draw the lines. --] (]) 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
You know, all this and I still don't know what the proposal entails. (I deliberately didn't read which side was up and which side was down), but I wanted to say I was extremely impressed with your writing in your close. It reveals a tempered, restrained, and sensible mindset and clearly communicated what was being decided, why, and was respectful to all sides. I think you might have managed to thread the needle.--] (]) 18:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks very much, I guess we'll see if this outcome "works". --] (]) 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Discussion should be made and getting input from other wiki members, before any changes. Again you define in which ever you want because wikipedia is not your POV for editing war. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
*I don't see a direct release from the subject for either. Please explain the difference. ] <small>]</small> 08:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
**Obviously the image is not of a naked person so concerns about consent are far less signifcant. It also appears that the photo has also been published on a US government website. I doubt very much that we have stronger privacy protections than government websites. --] (]) 20:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== RFA == | |||
== ] == | |||
I think your oppose was in the wrong place, fixed it for now , if I've inadvertently crossed a line feel free to revert. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
This user has been slow edit-warring over a reference in the article ]. He has been continuing the work of ] which is why I sense a connection between the two accounts and the subject. It has been exasperating to keep on reverting his unexplained removals of a source. Warnings on his talk page have gone unheeded. Please deal with him, thanks. —'']'' <small>'''] ~ ]'''</small> 14:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I'm glad I saw this, I was on my way here to lambast you for an obviously frivilous Oppose !vote... Moved it back, also: ha ha, very funny. ] ]] 13:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I've blocked him for one month. Normally I'd suggest going to ] to avoid accusations of picking your admin but this is more vandalism than edit-warring so I'm happy to do it myself. I'll watchlist the page in case he/she comes back with a different account. My fear is that the account actually is Nazor or someone close to him and he's removing incorrect content (not that the article is incorrect, but perhaps the source is). Still, he/she needs to tell us that and not edit-war! --] (]) 20:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Ah apologies, red faced, I will be flagellating myself with a large wet trout etc. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 17:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. I was unsure whether it should have been reported for edit-warring or vandalism so I just brought it to your attention. The source seems pretty harmless (it was a pat-on-the-back softball interview) which is what baffles me so much. —'']'' <small>'''] ~ ]'''</small> 15:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Don't worry, I got as far as moving it and almost pressing save page before my joke detector kicked in. ] (]) 17:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Hehe, this is an old prank and, WCM, if it makes you feel any better, someone always falls for it and usually much harder than you did (like writing a strong rebuttal of the 'oppose'). ] (]) 22:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Editor of the week== | |||
Thank you for the very kind nomination, you made my day. ] (]) 20:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Don't thank me at all -- I genuinely couldn't think of anyone ''more'' deserving (and I could think of many who would be deserving!) --] (]) 20:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== |
==You've got mail!== | ||
{{you've got mail|subject=|ts=02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
] (]) 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Grammar Police == | |||
Might ask how broadly construed (I believe that is how it is termed) Is it just articles I am banned from are talk pages still allowed? I ask as I am currently in a mediation regarding Holodomor? ] (]) 21:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I am just about to post it on your talk page... The short answer is that it is the whole lot. --] (]) 21:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Short and painless is always good, thank you. ] (]) 21:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
This is to inform you that the Misplaced Pages Grammar Police have detected a split infinitive in one of your edits. This type of behavior gives the encyclopedia a bad name and will emphatically not be tolerated. ]<sup>♦]</sup> 22:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Well that was fast. Anyway, are Igny and TLAM still allowed to participate in the Holodomor mediation? Since that may - let me stress the *may* - have potential long run benefits perhaps it should be exempt from the topic ban?<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Thanks for the warning. So if I get caught doing it again, I'll have to humbly submit myself to Arbcom? --] (]) 22:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
::Indeed -:). I thought a little levity was in order after the last week's RfA dramas. Hopefully, you're next one will be free of such things. And yes, there's another grammar error in the foregoing sentence just for good measure. Cheers, ]<sup>♦]</sup> 23:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== RfA comments == | |||
::Sigh. Once again, "you're banning the wrong people". Igny, however much I disagree with him and however irritating I found his comment about the EEML (I AM the EEML, a mailing list of one!) is actually one of the good guys. In the sense that he actually tries to discuss things, brings sources to the table etc. (yes, yes, he can be stubborn and tentedious and even rude at times when frustrated, but this is sort of par for the course in this topic area...I was gonna close this parentheses but then realized that that was actually the main point... | |||
::Ok, look, this is a messy topic area where you will ALWAYS have disagreements. I would rather have disagreements with intelligent knowledgeable people, like Igny or Paul Siebert, than clueless vicious psychopaths, which is sort of the norm in this area. So please bring back people "I disagree with but respect" and try to figure out who the "people who are useless and just cause nothing but trouble" are next time. I'd give you some clues but there's some restrictions in place. Yes, yes, yes, I know it's hard and we all Eastern European sound alike and we bicker and oh my goodness it's such a pain to sort it out, but since you get paid the big bucks for being and admin... I mean ... it's your job, right? | |||
::The above is worded in a slightly obnoxious way. BUT. I wouldn't even bother posting it if I didn't think there was at least a chance that you would think about it. I actually have a ... more-than-average regard for your past admin actions at AE which is why I have bothered typing all them letters. If it was one of the other AE admins, I would not have even bothered. | |||
::Anyway, blah blah blah, I would like it if Igny particpated in the Holodmor mediation, since I want to know what he has to say, and if you're going to be all ] about it, I'm just going to email him for his opinions. Which would be like "canvassing" except I'd be "canvassing" someone whom I know disagrees with me, but in this wacky world of Misplaced Pages, that too can be used against me. So heads up. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, thank you for your unsolicited opinion. It flies in the face of the clear impression I have of Igny's editing behaviour based on the objective evidence discussed at the AE. Behaviours change. Maybe your opinion would have been well-founded a few months ago (for even a few weeks ago, check out the edit-warring on ], which would have been sanctionable in and of itself). But not, in my view, now. I won't re-litigate this further. --] (]) 09:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Mkat, I've been following the RfA for Czar, including some of the back-and-forth in the oppose section. Comments have been made about "badgering" of the "oppose" !voters, including yourself. Given that I was one of the commenters in that section, I hope that you did not perceive my comments as badgering you because that was certainly not my intent. I thought your concerns were worthy of being addressed. ] (]) 16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Arbitration requests for amendment == | |||
*Not at all... So far as I can tell, the criticism of "badgering" is criticism directed at one or two others, and not at you. --] (]) 18:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:*Good. I value our working relationship. You're handy to have around, and I would hate to lose that. ] (]) 19:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Mkativerata, your oppose vote wasn't enough to prevent me supporting, but it was well researched and politely formulated. Thank you. --] (]) 15:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Hi Mkativerata, I wanted to thank you for putting the time, effort, and detail into researching and writing about my AfD experience. It's certainly made my RfA better and I appreciate the feedback. If you are no longer following the page, I think you might appreciate my answers to Q5–7 (questions by Dirtlawyer1, prompted by your concerns, and about my breadth of editing experience). Have a happy Thanksgiving, and see you around. <span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em "Avenir";color:#909'>czar</span> ] 15:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for your note, Czar. Yes - I did see you responses to the questions, and thanks for taking the time to do that. I don't think my oppose ever had a chance of causing a pile-on—if it did, I might have done something different—but your answers ensured that would be the case. Anyway, I look forward to seeing you around (perhaps, if you are interesting in performing AfD closures, you might visit ] some time?) --] (]) 19:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for December 9== | |||
Hello, I have mentioned you in a Requests for Amendment at arbitration, you can find the discussion . I have requested that the topic bans of TLAM and Igny be modified, but realise that these requests need to be made to ArbCom directly. Feel free to comment at RFAR of course. Thanks, <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 05:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
== Deletion review for Amanda Knox == | |||
Good morning, Mkativerata. I was reading the above discussion again today and it struck me as an excellent candidate for a triumvirate close: contentious, fraught, numerically split, and very long indeed. So I thought I'd ping you and see if you agreed?—] <small>]/]</small> 10:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Yes I reckon it fulfils all those conditions. My only doubt is whether there's any dispute as to which way it could be closed. I can really see only one way myself, but I've participated in the discussion so perhaps my judgement is clouded. --] (]) 15:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Well, I think that you and I agree on what the only proper close is—but there are certainly vocal and passionate editors on the other side.—] <small>]/]</small> 15:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::As an uninvolved editor, while the discussion is contentious, I'm not sure that a triumvirate close is needed here. Based on the numbers and the strengths of arguments at ], there is an overwhelming consensus to overturn. Triumvirate closes should generally be reserved for when an outcome is unclear and the discussion can be closed either way. ] (]) 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
== Best wishes for a happy holiday season == | |||
As an uninvolved admin, would you review ], regarding {{user|Alpha Quadrant}}'s non-admin relist of ]? I believe that the criteria for relisting at ] has not been met and that consensus at the AfD has been achieved. ] (]) 22:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I can see where AQ may have been coming from. But the problem with re-listing in these circumstances it that it jams up an admin who now might want to close it. If one neutral party has said the consensus isn't clear, it's very tough for another to come over the top and close it if there haven't been any more substantial contributions. And there may very well not be any more contributions to this debate in the next seven days: it is TLDR and no-one likes to jump into TLDR. So what is an admin to do in seven days time? That's why re-lists shouldn't be done as readily as they are. At the least, debates like this should be allowed to slip well off the last day of the log, to give as many patrolling admins as possible the opportunity to close them. It seems to me this was re-listed after the standard 168 hours, which is good, but it would have been better to give it more time on the last day of the log for an admin to close if the admin saw a consensus. Re-listing should actually be kind of a last resort. | |||
:I also agree with you that the statement "Discussions that have unclear consensus can be relisted" is not correct. Having said that, re-listing is very discretionary. There may very well have been admins who would have re-listed this, but had it been left to slip off the log I think it would have been closed and closed as "delete". --] (]) 22:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Judging by Alpha Quadrant's comments, it seems that he did not read the discussion. | |||
::#He stated: "Currently there is two users (you and the nom) arguing deletion". – there are three users arguing for deletion. Myself, {{user|MER-C}}, and {{user|DonCalo}}. | |||
::#He later wrote: "Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote is '''not''' clear consensus." – I think he meant to write "Two delete !votes", but he again repeated his earlier false statement that there were two—not three—delete votes. His comment also indicated that he is counting the votes and not assessing the argument. | |||
::My attempt at having Alpha Quadrant review his relist has been unsuccessful. He at first ignored my replies and then was unable to justify the relist. When admin {{user|The Bushranger}} made two questionable relists, he was willing to review his decisions (see ). Because this was a non-admin relist, I think you as an uninvolved admin can override it. {{user|Spartaz}} overrode a non-admin close at ]. And {{user|Sandstein}} Alpha Quadrant's non-admin closure of ]. Sandstein commented at ] (), and he doesn't seem to have acknowledged the message.<p>Since the discussion ran for at least 168 hours (prior to the relist), it can be closed at any time. Would you either assess the consensus in the debate or restore it to the 2 October log for another admin to close? ] (]) 23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Sorry, it's (hopefully) not that I don't have the balls that Sandstein or Spartaz have, it's that as a general rule I only act upon procurements for admin assistance from involved editors on my talk page in uncontroversial circumstances. Even if I did, I'd probably say in this case that whatever my view of the merits of the re-listing, now that it has been done, it may be better to let it lie than unilaterally reversing it. I'd revert a dodgy NAC any day of the week, but re-lists like this do much less damage. --] (]) 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::*Personally, I've just been closing the various debates that Alpha Quadrant relisted. . So far, users seem to be quite happy with that. I'm a bit reluctant to do any more in case it starts to look personal, but I don't see any reason why either of you shouldn't simply close any debate in which you're uninvolved, irrespective of the relisting, if you think the consensus is clear.—] <small>]/]</small> 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::*Certainly agree with what you did in those! --] (]) 23:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::*Mkativerata, letting the relist remain perpetuates the error and the perception that the relist was valid. I think a poor relist does as much damage as a poor NAC because the latter can be reviewed at DRV while the former cannot.<p>S Marshall, had I been uninvolved in this AfD, I would have reverted Alpha Quadrant. I hope that as uninvolved editors, either you or Mkativerata will undo the relist. ] (]) 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::*Sure, I can see your point. But the difficulty I have is that I have made comments before in other venues about the merits of re-listing. If I act on your request here it may be thought that my assistance was procured here because my views on such re-listings were known to you (which of course I'm 100% sure is not the case). Perhaps I'm more conservative than most, but it is a norm I've applied to myself for some time. Perhaps AQ will see the views that S Marshall and I have expressed here, and my own view that S Marshall's examples are even more egregiously off-base re-lists, and reconsider his call not to revert this re-list himself. Of course the other possibility is that a TPS, if I have any, might be inclined to consider acting. --] (]) 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::*I contacted you because you were the most recent admin to edit ]. I understand your position that there may be accusations of impropriety if you were to undo the relist. S Marshall, would you undo it? Or one of the ? ] (]) 23:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::*Cunard, normally I would be delighted to do exactly as you ask. However, I'm concerned that I've unilaterally overruled Alpha Quadrant four times today already, and if I did it any more, I might appear to be victimising him. I feel that I need to back off now. (I don't normally stalk Mkativerata's talk page, but I just happened to have talked to him directly above. So there are 109 others!)—] <small>]/]</small> 23:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::*After thinking about this some more, I've spotted that Timotheus Canens seems to be online and I've drawn his attention to this discussion. He may feel able to act here.—] <small>]/]</small> 23:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::*I think you might have misread the timestamps. Timotheus Canens' most recent edit was on 23:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC), over a day ago, so he might not be online.<p>It's unfortunate that none of us can revert this inappropriate relist. If Alpha Quadrant continues to make poor decisions (like the four times you've overruled Alpha Quadrant, which I endorse) and does not heed editors' suggestions, perhaps an RfC/U will be necessary. Also note the ongoing discussion with {{user|Kww}}. ] (]) 23:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::*Oops. Tim's got a little green light at the top right of his talk page that says "online"; I looked at that, saw it was green and believed it. My mistake.<p>I think we're a way short of an RFC/U on this user. He appears to be trying to edit in good faith, even though we differ from him in a matter of judgment, so I think the first port of call should be DRN.—] <small>]/]</small> 23:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::*Okay. I agree that an RfC/U would be premature. If he continues to make mistakes, a DRN report might be needed. But looking at ], I find all of the listings to be articles, not problematic user conduct. ] (]) 00:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::*Maybe WQA would be the right venue, I don't know. Something low-level, if it's necessary at all.—] <small>]/]</small> 00:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Ok, I was a away for about an hour, and I see that a lengthy discussion has started. I am reading it now. @S Marchall, I relisted because as stated in the debate, OTRS had received complaints from the subject of the article. I felt that it needed wider input. The other three that you linked had blanket !votes protesting the mass nomination. I closed some of these as debates as keep, but these particular discussions only had the blanked comments. I'll look and see what the other issues and reply shortly. ] ] 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I think that almost all the debates that ever make it to AfD need wider input. The outcome is, all too often, a lottery based on who shows up and !votes. The system's creaking and tottering under the sheer number of AfD nominations we get every single day, and it's fair to say that most AfDs are seriously underattended. But we can't just relist everything, because then what happens is we flood the next day with debates that nobody's interested in, which reduces the participation in ''that'' day's debates. Where it's reasonably possible to close an AfD, that AfD should be closed. Relisting is for when a reasoned close is not possible based on the debate before you.—] <small>]/]</small> 00:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Agreed, as you said above, relisting should only be done when it isn't reasonable possible to close an AfD. I closed ] as keep, as there were two editors with good keep arguments. (Contrary to Cunard's above claim, I do not simply count !votes). However, the nom asked me to reopen it, and I ] that consensus could have been clearer, and I relisted it. Due to the nature of the Zachary Stone AfD, I relisted. If there hadn't been the ], I would have closed it as keep. The other three that you closed I relisted because both the arguments for keeping or deleting the articles was weak. I felt that they needed wider input before closing one way or another. ] ] 01:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::Because multiple editors have stated that your relist of ] is inappropriate, please revert it. Thank you, ] (]) 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::I closed it. @S Marshall: That little green light depended on a page that I was too lazy to update - it hasn't been updated since 2010 {{=)}}. ] (]) 10:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
<center> | |||
== iPhone 5 == | |||
{| style="border:1px solid 3px; background-color: red;<!--#FF0000;--> width: 755px;" | |||
|rowspan="2" valign="center" | <!--]-->] | |||
|rowspan="2" | | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |<font color="gold"><span style{{=}}"font-family:Segoe Script">'''Happy Holiday Cheer'''</span> | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align:top; border-top:1px solid gray; color:#FFA060" | <font color="white">'''Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes ], and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an ] and a ], whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! ''Joys!''''' ] (]) 23:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
|}</center> | |||
== 2015 already == | |||
Hi Mkativerata. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Misplaced Pages for a long time to come. --] (]) 12:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== 2015 already == | |||
Hi Mkativerata. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Misplaced Pages for a long time to come.--] (]) 15:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks Kudpung - you too! --] (]) 10:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Your vote at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/MelanieN == | |||
Hi, re {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/MelanieN|prev|642541753|this vote}} - it's being counted as a support, not an oppose, because you put it in the wrong section. See ] (updated frequently) - no opposes are counted. --] (]) 11:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/MelanieN|prev|642835181|fixed it}}. --] (]) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Mkat, aren't you joking? --] <sup>]</sup> 23:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I've un-"fixed" it because I'm pretty sure you're clever enough to know what you're doing, but just revert me if I'm wrong. ] | ] 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Yeah sorry I just can't help myself. The candidates never seem to mind. --] (]) 11:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I got a kick out of it myself. I have seen you play this game before; I felt honored that you played it at my RfA. --] (]) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Three years == | |||
<div style="margin: left; max-width: 21.5em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> | |||
<div> | |||
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0.5,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;">]</div><small> | |||
<center>{{nowrap|This user has been ] as an}} ''']''' {{nowrap|on ]}}.</center></small> | |||
</div></div> | |||
--] (]) 10:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Well earned recognition -- then and now, Mkat. Glad to have you back. ] (]) 14:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*Thank you both - glad to be back :) --] (]) 19:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
==SoV's RfA== | |||
Regarding your extended comment on the ArbCom case. Sarek wasn't admonished for edit warring, but for . We have developed processes for dealing with problematic users. Suicide bombing is not an appropriate method for anyone to use. It is harmful to the project and to all users involved, including the suicide bomber. Sarek is still having to deal with the consequences of that. From various comments he has made, I think Sarek is now at a stage where he is unlikely to go rogue again, and I did briefly consider supporting, though I would like a little more evidence of emotional detachment (or, rather, evidence of appropriate tactics to deal with the emotional stress of editing Misplaced Pages - as there is inevitable emotional involvement). Looking at Sarek's unnecessary responses to some of the oppose comments, I'm not sure he is quite there yet. ''']''' ''']''' 02:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Noted, thanks. My intention isn't to second-guess the Arbcom findings; far from it. It is to take the evidence presented to show that he is a very competent editor. For me, competence is the most important trait in a candidate for administrator. I'm far more willing to forgive and forget non-malicious behavioural indiscretions than I am to turn a blind eye to incompetence. --] (]) 04:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
You do realize that linking iPhone 5 to the ] is a violation of ], since all ] state that the 4S is not the iPhone 5. Calling it the iPhone 5 is ]. Both ] and ] are wikipedia core content policies and should not be violated.--] ]</font> 17:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:This is an argument to be had elsewhere: the talk page or ]. --] (]) 19:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Talkback== | ==Talkback== | ||
{{talkback|Misplaced Pages: |
{{talkback|Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Only Girl (In the World)/archive1|ts=11:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)}} | ||
I made some changes based on your comments, but I have questions about some others. — ] 11:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 18:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] FAC == | |||
{{talkback|Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/archive4|ts=10:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)}}--] (]) 10:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Could you please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have any further concerns? The review seems to have stalled (for the fourth times), so your help would be very much appreciated.--] (]) 09:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for the reminder. I'll re-visit the article over the weekend and try to force myself to arrive at a view. --] (]) 12:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Caracal article== | |||
Regarding the changes made on the ] article, please see my comment on the talk page. ] (]) 19:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Little India,Ipoh listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Little India,Ipoh'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks == | |||
{{smiley|happy}} ]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 13:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
:No worries! --] (]) 01:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Hello. I re-nominated "]" for FAC 8 days ago, but I haven't had any comments. As you commented in the previous one, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind re-reading and seeing if I have address your comments from the previous nomination. Thanks. — ] 10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
I responded to your comments nearly a month ago. Any chance you could follow up on your original comments and help get the article over the line to FA status? – ]] 23:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
== You <s>win</s> rock == | |||
Thanks ;) ] (]) 07:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Epic, Dude. ] (]) 08:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
* I liked the comment a lot, but I don't like the header here, because it reminds me of ], - I created ] yesterday, with thanks for support. --] (]) 09:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Hadn't seen that either. Header improved :) ] (]) 07:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:* My pleasure :) Of course, it's a serious point too: I have a great deal of sympathy with . --] (]) 20:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
::* I don't think "pleasure" referred to an admin who protected an article in an edit war, was accused of abuse (because he had expressed an opinion) and left blocking himself. I seriously miss him and his ]. - Would you dare to close Beethoven? I asked Opabinia regalis before, who declined - which made a lot of sense to me, but you already survived the moonlight ''(])'' ;) --] (]) 21:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::*No, "pleasure" did not refer to that! I will have to decline the Beethoven invitation, I'm afraid; I just don't have the time to do a proper job on that kind of thing at the moment. --] (]) 07:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
==New question raised regarding ] == | |||
== Essay on AE == | |||
Some opposers of this move ], which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! ] ] 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
I just wrote a ] of what is intended as some advice on how to make one's case at AE. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== A beer for you == | |||
==My RfA== | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | ||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | |
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" |{{#switch:{{lc:Support}} | ||
|support= ] | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... ] (]) 15:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
|neutral= ] | |||
|oppose = ] | |||
|] | |||
}} | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |<center><u><big>'''Pavlov's RfA reward'''</big></u></center>{{Break}} | |||
Thank for !voting at my recent ]. You voted '''Support''' so you get {{#switch:{{lc:Support}} | |||
|support= a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! | |||
|neutral= a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off. | |||
|oppose= only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) | |||
| ... to have a cookie anyway. | |||
}}{{Break}} | |||
All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 18:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
|} | |} | ||
== You might be interested in this == | |||
== Question == | |||
Hey mate. Got a question for you about attribution—I know you frequently deal with copyright issues so I'm hoping the knowledge is basically the same. I've been <span class="plainlinks"></span> of plagiarising ] to create ]. Would you please confirm whether I have in fact made a copyright infringement and whether this <span class="plainlinks"></span> is warranted? Many thanks, '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 09:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I don't think it's clear: parts of our speak of the article space but others don't. ] speaks of "pages" generally, so it would seem to cover all pages. So the other user might strictly have a point. But I think it is over the top to have a crack at someone for copying a brief template instruction of all things. I mean, really. We have ''actual'' plagiarism problems on this project. --] (]) 10:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Okay thanks, I guess I probably should have just linked to the source template in my original edit summary. Yeah it seems I've gotten myself a bit of a supervisor. He's ended up on the wrong side of a DR process I instigated, so he's decided to take a sudden interest in my contribution history—this is just one fault he's found. Thanks again. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 10:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Pukimkativerata | |||
== Cleanup needed == | |||
The ] needs some attention re club colors, sorry. ] (]) 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Done, thanks. --] (]) 19:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== File:Manly Colors (1950-2007).svg listed at ] == | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''File:Manly Colors (1950-2007).svg'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 20:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== File:Manly colours.svg listed at ] == | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''File:Manly colours.svg'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 20:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== File:Manly Colors (2009-).svg listed at ] == | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''File:Manly Colors (2009-).svg'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Not sure if that qualifies as an inappropriate username. ] (]) 09:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks, it's an old friend! I don't know what your Malay is like, but "puki" is, well, a rather rude word. Maybe an admin talk page stalker will block him: I couldn't be arsed filing another SPI!! --] (]) 10:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Team Colors == | |||
::UAA report filed after they edited again. ] (]) 17:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
This article might need looking over as well, | |||
] | |||
== Hiya == | |||
] (]) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:That one looks ok, actually. The Wynnum-Manly colours are showing correctly. Another complicating factor is that two Queensland clubs, the ] and ], use Manly's colours and should link to the Manly file name. But I think that's all looking correct now. --] (]) 20:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hey. I hope you're just taking a little time off to recharge the batteries. Still hoping to see you around. ] (]) 05:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
: Thanks for the message. Yes - just time off - not due to WP but being busy at work. Hopefully I can drop back in come the new year. I hope all is well. --] (]) 19:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: Good to hear. January 1, 2016 is coming up fast. ] (]) 19:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
::Ah... I'll see if I can have a look at that when I have some time tomorrow. It may need an AWB run. The Gold Coast team had multiple sets of colours in its brief and inglorious history... --] (]) 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi,<br> | |||
== Clarification needed == | |||
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692071653 --> | |||
== ] == | |||
*] | |||
*](as vector ]) | |||
Hi,<br> | |||
Given what happened with the Manly rename, I figured I'd ask someone to clarify which teams these refer to as they aren't the same colors. ] (]) 15:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692225944 --> | |||
== Precious anniversary == | |||
Also | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
{{User QAIbox | |||
Thanks ] (]) 16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| title = Four years ago ... | |||
:Hmm. I'll have to do some research on this one. I'll put it on my to-do list. Thanks. --] (]) 20:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg | |||
==Manly Colours== | |||
| image_upright = 0.55 | |||
Just want to say a big thank you for your effort in cleaning up the Manly mess! Cheers ] (]) 20:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| bold = bold decision | |||
:No worries. I'm surprised I managed to avoid the temptation of vandalising Manly's colours :) --] (]) 20:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| normal = ... you were recipient<br /> no. ''']''' of ],<br /> a prize of QAI! | |||
}} | |||
--] (]) 10:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Seven years now! ]! --] (]) 07:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Toast and Vegemite for you == | |||
Nice to see you here again. You may {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/RexxS|890508188|890507778|like this}}. --] (]) 22:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Vegeimite on toast for you.''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Just thought I'd leave some thanks for the work you did on sorting out the Manly colors issue. ] (]) 21:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
:Thanks very much - I have vegemite on toast for breakfast every day, so you chose well! --] (]) 07:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Fai-Fai Loa== | |||
Hey, I was going to be bold and move this but seeing as you've done some work on ] lately I thought I'd run it by you first for a second opinion. Both the NZ media and the Cowboys official page use Faifai Loa spelling of his name. Any objection if I move it to that? ] (]) 04:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, I'd definitely support that. As I was researching the article it struck me that the vast majority of sources say "Faifai Loa", especially in his native New Zealand. --] (]) 08:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Done. ] (]) 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Excellent, thanks. I'll do an AWB run if you like (to change references in all other articles). --] (]) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Great, Thanks, I don't have AWB as I refuse to use IE. ] (]) 21:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for the message - I hope you are well! —] (]) 22:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Close requests == | |||
:: Yes, I am, only too many die. Did you check out Happy 2019 then? Click again, am I happy I wrote his article for birthday not funeral. --] (]) 22:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
Hi Mkativerata. As a frequent closer of contentious AfDs and DRVs, would you be able to help clear the RfC backlog at ]? ] and ] are two merge discussions that have been on AN for a while. I in either of these discussions. Best, ] (]) 09:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Cunard, I'd be happy to. I won't have the time for another 10 hours though, but I'll see how I go then. --] (]) 10:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::No worries. They've been open for weeks, so another 10 hours won't hurt. If you could close any of the other discussions I listed at AN (I have not participated in any of the RfCs currently listed there), I'd be grateful. If you don't have the time or inclination after closing the merge discussions, then don't worry about it. ] (]) 10:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I've done the Indian one, but when I read through the Iranian one I felt in a better position to !vote than to close the discussion. I'll have a look at AN for the other ones but I might not have much time left today. Cheers --] (]) 19:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you for the close! ] (]) 22:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: eight years now, - same for ], - I ], would like to add images ... - hope ''you'' are well! --] (]) 07:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Yadava merge discussion == | |||
== Dato Param Cumaraswamy listed at ] == | |||
Thanks for reviewing the merge discussion at ]. - ] (]) 05:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
:You're welcome. --] (]) 07:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Dato Param Cumaraswamy'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 03:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Still around? == | ||
Hi. Just noting so that you know I've noticed: I haven't seen you around much for quite a while now. I hope everything is OK. Miss your votes at RfA. --] (]) 12:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
you said "Indeed, you'll see that the reference to Inked (magazine) is dated 2006, a year in which its wikipedia article appears to concede the magazine was not published" but magazine debut in 2004 per inked's wikipedia page <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: |
:Thanks for checking in, {{ping|Kudpung}}. I hope you are well. The day job has been getting in the way for some time now, but maybe there will be light at the end of the tunnel soon! I've certainly not disappeared for good. --] (]) 21:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
::Good to know everything is OK. See you around soon. --] (]) 23:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
== ]: Voting now open! == | |||
"The magazine was purchased by Downtown Media Group in 2006" but that didn't specify when in 2006 it was purchased. I have that magazine <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:If it was first published in 2004, and published for one year, it must have stopped in 2005, right? In any case, the article on ] may very well be misleading or just plain wrong and you may very well be right: that's why I say in the deletion discussion that the "wikipedia article ''appears to'' concede the magazine was not published". --] (]) 20:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Mkativerata. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. | |||
No I have the 2006 spring issue. It could have been purchased in the summer of that year or even winter. Is there a way to upload a scanned copy? | |||
:I don't think there's any need to: what you should do is go to ] and make a note there where everyone in the deletion discussion can see it. --] (]) 20:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
== ] DOB == | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
I've left a message on the DOB-master's talk page. ] (]) 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
:It'd surely be on some public document somewhere (a candidate registration form, for instance). --] (]) 22:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/27&oldid=750603218 --> | |||
== Disruptive Edits == | |||
== ] == | |||
] Please stop your ]. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's ] by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-npov3 --> -- ] (]) 22:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
Hi Mkativerata. Thank you for closing ]. Would you close the related discussion ]? I've unarchived it to allow for closure, which was requested at ]. ] (]) 22:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Hmm... is this poll meant to be a binding request for comment? The poll says it is "to test consensus" not to determine consensus and it doesn't seem to follow RfC format (discussions later on the page do). I wonder if it shouldn't just be closed, by anyone, with no result or closing statement. Sorry I don't mean to be pedantic, I'm just cautious about making a decision where one is not called for. --] (]) 22:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I don't know. Sswonk requested a closure at the bottom of the poll, but you are right that the discussion doesn't seem to be binding. It also might have been superseded by ]. ] (]) 23:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== ANI-notice == | ||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 23:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
First off, I'm not involved in the dispute and I couldn't care less which direction it goes. My question is more of a question about consensus. You stated that because there was "no consensus" in the previous RFC that the status quo should remain. When reading the RFC (and counting), I see 27 in favor of clothed image and 20 in favor of nude image. My question is, why does a "no consensus" result in the same as a "keep" where the minority point of view is retained? I understand that a no consensus is no consensus for action, but I don't see why that can be pointed to as consensus to keep or retain the nude photo either. Does my question make sense?--v/r - ]] 15:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I think it is well established that first, consensus is not determined by a head count, and secondly, subject to some exceptions (such as where there is not a stable status quo),a "no consensus" result causes the retention of the status quo. The words "majority" and "minority" have no place in the equation. --] (]) 19:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, so back to the original question. Where does "no consensus" equal "consensus to keep"? I don't see why folks are calling for the close of a new RFC based on your close and from my perspective you appear to support it.--v/r - ]] 21:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::"No consensus" does not equate to a "consensus to keep". Anyone who is saying that is misguided. I would support a close of the new RfC not because there was a consensus in the last RfC, but because the new RfC is so soon after the old one and in a highly contentious discussion, that is not conducive of a productive outcome. --] (]) 21:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::It's been a couple weeks.--v/r - ]] 22:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::A couple of weeks is nothing. And it's actually only been a couple of days since the "no consensus" part of the close kicked in. --] (]) 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::''sigh'' I still support a new discussion. I couldn't care one way or another on the images, I actually think a partially clothed would be preferable, but I feel like the folks supporting the nude image are trying to game the system and I feel like you're buying into it. Regardless, we're now arguing in three different places so we mine as well consolidate to the AN thread or on the talk page. I'm sure you're ready for the "New Message" link to stop popping up.--v/r - ]] 22:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Sure. :) --] (]) 22:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== 3 reverts == | ||
You know you've hit 3 reverts. You probably would do best to stop that. --]] 03:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
I have asked for the topic ban you applied to be modified so we may take part in the Holodomor mediation. ] (]) 22:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
: |
:you're clearly a big-picture man eh --] (]) 03:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
Hi Mkativerata. You've been talking a lot about cock-ups and fake news and the big picture, but never actually explained, in specific terms, your profound objections to this most reprehensible of ITN blurbs. Why not try to make things better instead of edit warring over the archival of a thread that should have ceased to be active days ago? You're far more likely to cause the item to be reworked or pulled by calmly explaining where we went wrong than simply cursing at us and accusing people of admin abuse. – ''']''' | ] 04:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
*Read Andrew D's comments, which the posting admin should have done. Then look around to see just how controversial among experts, and hedged by the paper's own authors, the claim that these are the oldest fossil is: , . And yet, in our proud amateur voice we say "making them the oldest known fossils of life on Earth." This should never have been posted and most certainly not with a blurb in those terms. I should not need to explain this to experienced administrators. Thank you for being the first admin to engage with the substance. --] (]) 04:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
:*I don't think it's fair to fault the posting admin – ITN operates by consensus, and after more than a day of discussion, there was a strong consensus for posting and no objections having been posted in several hours. It's not as if ] took action during the middle of an active discussion that seemed poised to sway consensus. Having read the articles you linked, it does seem like the scientific community has put up some resistance to these claims. I'm genuinely not sure whether this sort of skepticism is typical in the wake of extraordinary discoveries or breakthroughs, regardless of their credibility or level of scientific rigor, or if the guys are quacks and we're helping them advertise their fringe theories. I do suspect that the latter is exceedingly unlikely for findings published in ''Nature'', but if you think it's a legitimate risk, then discussion at ] would be warranted. Out of curiosity, if you knew the blurb had to stay, how would you reword or improve it? – ''']''' | ] 04:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
::*Your last question gets to another corker: the nomination itself uses caveats, including "which would make them the oldest fossils of life on Earth." Yet the posting admin unilaterally went for broke () despite all evidence to the contrary. This shouldn't need to go to WP:ERRORS. I oppose the posting in its entirety - not even the caveats are enough - so put it in ITN/C rather than WP:ERRORS. Post-posting opposes are a common practice. --] (]) 04:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::*Look. Misplaced Pages operates on collaboration and consensus. You already know that. ] is the place to have a discussion about main page items. I know that any action will take longer than you'd like, but that's by systemic design. | |||
== Jessie Stricchiola deletion rational == | |||
:::*Now, on your attacks on other editors. Never forget that we're all here for the same ]. We're all working to contribute to the sum of all knowledge. But it's a lot harder to do that when someone is lobbing bombs all over the place. Please, a little collegial discourse can go a long way. | |||
:::*And on a final administrative note, I or another admin will block you if you choose to revert over on ITNC again. Do note that you should be blocked already. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 08:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
== March 2017 == | |||
] | |||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''31 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 08:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
:Thanks Ed, fair call, it's just that unlike the numerous admins who have ignored my pleas for accuracy over many hours now, I'll put accuracy over 3rr and would do so again. We still have a fucked-up ITN item.--] (]) 08:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Which is, on my incredibly cursory look at the content dispute, a fair viewpoint to hold. But we don't go disrupting the whole place just to make a point. We have processes like ERRORS in place for situations like this. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 08:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Clpo13 RfA == | |||
Your closing rational is odd. "That those delete !votes have stood for between 7 and 13 days without any challenge leads me to conclude that there is a consensus to delete." | |||
:That makes absolutely no sense at all. Should those of us saying keep just repeat what we already said? Some stated the coverage in the book wasn't notable, while I stated already that I felt it was. Some saw the coverage is proof she was notable, some did not. There was no consensus one way or the other. You stated that "DGG, ItsZippy and Metropolitan90" convinced you. ItsZippy admitted that one of the news sources demonstrates notability, but felt the rest are just minor mentions. DGG comments on how few libraries have her book, but I don't recall that ever a measurement of notability. As for Metropolitan90 he didn't respond to anything regarding notability at all, only talking about "sexism", and ignoring Google hits. But no one was referring to Google hits, only Google news results where reliable sources were shown to cite this person as an expert in their field. If the final few votes had said keep, and no one bothered to respond to them, would that make them more valid than every statement already made? ] 10:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Given that the factual assertions in your own contribution were demonstrated to be wrong, yes I would assume you would have re-visited your position. And good on editors for ignoring Google news results and actually discussing the coverage therein. --] (]) 10:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi Mkativerata. I've ] for your joke support-opposes before, but ] actually looks like a genuine oppose (it would be easy to miss when those edits were made). Could you clarify a little if your vote is meant to be sarcastic? Thanks, ] (]) 10:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Key Points For Article Acceptance == | |||
:You could see it as a joke. Or you could see it as a semi-regular test of the levels of idiocy on wikipedia. Quite high at the moment, it seems. --] (]) 10:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Or it could be seen as near-trolling. An interesting choice to present other editors with. — ]] 12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::I think it would be beneficial to confirm whether it is a joke or not. Please note that at the top of an RfA the votes are tallied based on how many votes are in the section (the page can't detect what's actually written), and it says the same on the RfA page, so according to the tallies it's S80, O0, N0. If you are genuinely opposing the candidate, please move the vote to the oppose section, so that it can be tallied as an oppose. Thanks. ]]|] 14:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
== ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
Please let me know, where i need to improve while creating the 'ISBR bangalore' Page. As previous one was deleted, and my account is showing error message 'G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.' I read the available information twice but still confuse about the error. Please specify some key point which helps me in better contribution. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:The best guidance we have is ]. I'd highlight two important things: (1) basing the article on reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article; and (2) adopting a neutral tone. So instead of telling the world about everything a university offers (which is an advertisement), tell us the key facts about the university as they're reported in things like news sources. looks useful. --] (]) 10:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Mkativerata. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
== How strong is the opinion you expressed at AE? == | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
When reading your , I was not sure how strongly you object to allowing the two editors to participate in mediation. There is a lot of support for letting the closing admin (yourself) decide what should happen, but in your AE comment you seem to express mixed feelings. Can you elaborate at all on what bad things you believe could happen if you let them join in the mediation? I don't see anyone wanting to overturn or question the topic ban that you imposed. Personally, I could go either way on allowing them to participate in mediation. I would just like to know your rationale. Thanks, ] (]) 17:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I don't have mixed feelings about my decisino -- looking at the behaviour that led to the sanctions I maintain the position that involving the editors in mediation would not be a good move. But the extent to which I care about having that aspect of the sanction upheld: not strong. I say that only to indicate that I won't take any issue with being overturned on that point, not that my personal feelings should be relevant anyway! --] (]) 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
Regarding this, there's a request by Tznaki at AE for you to comment, are you able to take a look at AE? Thanks, <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
Done -- I have it watchlisted. --] (]) 07:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/07&oldid=813406947 --> | |||
== Jakiw Palij == | |||
*As all other avenues have been exhausted I supposed I am reduced to trying to convince you to change your mind. Before I do so, is there any way I can persuade you to do so, if I was to give an extraordinary reason or decent rationale, or is this something you won't consider at all? I say this as someone who realises the necessity for discretionary sanctions at times, but also say it as a mediator. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 08:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi, I am not sure if this is the right way to make this request, but after hearing this morning about the deportation of ] to Germany for prosecution, and discovering that every news outlet is covering the story, I was surprised to see that this man has no Wiki article. I discovered that he did have one, but it was deleted and a redirect put in its place. Since you are the editor that oversaw the deletion debate, I thought you would be the address to request that now that he has been deported, he is worthy of his own page. I think his history and life merits an article. I for one, and I am sure many others, would like to know more about this person whose deportation has been in the making for decades, and has finally been achieved. Let me know what you think. Here are some of the sources: , , and . Thanks. ] (]) 08:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
**I thought AE was approaching a consensus to give an exception? I'm not inclined to act unilaterally while both AE and Arbcom are considering and a number of admins and arbs have supported my decision. --] (]) 08:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Australia's head of state, again == | |||
***Nope, ArbCom basically said AE is the correct venue and AE seems to have come to a consensus that it's your call. Which brings me to appeal to you directly. I know what I ask is quite a lot, but I give my word that if poor behavior occurs within the MedCab case I'll be the first to report it, but tying the hands of us three mediators makes our jobs harder than it already is. I hope you understand. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 09:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Howdy, an Rfc has opened at ] concerning the topic ''head of state''. ] (]) 20:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
****Hmm... well as I read it, T. Canens and NW seem to be in favour of your approach and they've got good heads on their shoulders. Those on "my side", including the arbs, are more deferring to my discretion than explicitly agreeing with my decision. Shall we call the AE "no consensus, default to Mkativerata caving?". We'd then put Igny and TLAM under a double-or-nothing rule. --] (]) 09:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
*****I think that approach would work, but just so I am sure we're on the same page, their topic bans would be modified to allow MedCab participation, and if they disrupt MedCab (though would hope that this be left to our discretion as to what is disruptive) then their topic bans are reset and doubled, which we're fine to oversee if that works, additionally they lose the right to dispute results in the MedCab at a later stage. The last part is especially important. My goal here is to give the dispute resolution the best chance at being resolved. If they behave thry get to participate. If not, they get kicked out. Part of me thinks if they disrupt the process then maybe they should be permanently topic banned, but that seems unwieldy. What do you think? <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 09:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ArbCom 2018 election voter message == | |||
:Yes, that sounds fine to me and consistent with the ideas floated by some arbs and at the AE appeal. Maybe leave it for 24 hours though in case anyone has any issues. --] (]) 09:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Mkativerata. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
::If you could make a note at AE and at Amendment it might be more visible than say here. I think another 24hrs won't hurt. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 09:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
:::I'm just going offline now though and won't be back for some hours - I'm happy for you a drop a note below the line (in the admin area) of the AE. --] (]) 10:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
==New Page Patrol survey== | |||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
{| style="background-color: #dfeff3; border: 4px solid #bddff2; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/07&oldid=866998231 --> | |||
| ] | |||
== Nomination for deletion of Template:MalaysiaFedDeleg == | |||
<big>'''New page patrol – ''Survey Invitation'''''</big> | |||
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ''']''' (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 21:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
Hello {{PAGENAME}}! The ] is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. | |||
== Inappropriate edit summaries == | |||
*If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. | |||
*If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. | |||
Hi Mkativerata, | |||
'''Please click to take part.'''<br> | |||
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. | |||
Your edit summary on of an edit of mine is unacceptable in tone and in content. Even assuming you knew that Faulkner's coming out was allegedly false (as suggested ), neither of your earlier edit summaries reverting other editors ( and ) actually indicate your objections, which I took to refer to sourcing. Do not ever address another editor (whether a fellow account-holding editor or an IP editor) in the terms you addressed to me, and please try to provide edit summaries that make clear to others your objection to an edit. As soon as I saw the edit summary from {{u|The Pope}} with a link to the article suggesting Faulkner's coming out was a hoax, I self-reverted, which shows that clear and civil comments are much more appropriate and effective. WP is a much nicer place when colleagues treat one another with politeness and consideration, and I hope that you will reflect on this and modify your approach. | |||
---- | |||
<small>You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see ]</small> | |||
Thank you, | |||
] (]) 00:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
I didn’t read this message it was too long I assume it’s a mea culpa for fucking up a blp in which case no worries. —-] (]) 01:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
Oh and by the way, you clearly thought it was REALLY IMPORTANT that JF’s page URGENTLY record the fact of him being gay and the identity of his partner. Now you know that it’s all wrong and that he is straight, will you edit the page to record that fact? And in an equal hurry? Why not? —] (]) 02:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
==Warning== | |||
Mkativerata, your unprovoked attack in is unacceptable. Please speak decently to others, and give reasons when you revert them. I hope this message isn't too long to read. ] | ] 18:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC). | |||
:no that was succinct - thank you. Succinct but stupid: the real problem with Misplaced Pages isn’t the people who swear at shit editing but, of course, the shit editing. —] (]) 20:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Zozo2kx CCI == | |||
Just informing you that I've completely cleared out the "top priority" portion of the case. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks mate, that's great. That's a big one from memory. I hope the priority system kind of worked. --] (]) 21:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
== June 2019 == | |||
] Please stop your ]. If you continue to remove ] notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at ], you may be ]. ''You have more than enough experience here to know this - it is currently at AFD, it cannot be blanked or removed, which includes redirection. ''<!-- Template:uw-afd3 --> ] (]) 20:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
:Well done on your spirited defence of spam. Keep up the good work. --] (]) 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you remove an ] notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at ]. <!-- Template:uw-afd4 --> ] (]) 20:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
:I don't keep spam however it is against the giant bolded template on the page to remove an AFD notice that is still active. Stop. ] (]) 20:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
::It's also against wikipedia policy -- far more important policy -- to insert spam, which you have done on three occasions. --] (]) 20:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::If you think I'm a spammer, go file a report at ] or ] and stop edit warring. You may not blank, redirect or remove the AFD notice. Period. ] (]) 20:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::I don't think you are a spammer. You are just editing incompetently and getting in the way of spam removal. --] (]) 20:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::::Then go file a report at ANI, because right now all you're doing is casting aspersions which is ]. Either substantiate it or strike it. ] (]) 20:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
== RfA thanks comment == | |||
Hi. I'm not sure why you think it's bad form for a candidate to thank people. It cannot conceivably count as canvassing. And thanking opposers could appear insincere and sarcastic. Or would actually be insincere. In any case, I think it's a bit over the top and would gently invite you to remove the comment. --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 14:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
:It's certainly not canvassing. But it also isn't a "thanks for doing something good for wikipedia", because they would be sent to opposes, neutrals and neithers. So it's a "thanks for doing me a favour", which is ok in some contexts doesn't sit well with me in the RfA context. Having said that, precisely no-one has said that they share this reservation. The comment has been sent off to the talk page anyway for some unknown reason. Thanks for dropping me a note here rather than there (and that's not a "you did me a favour" thanks but a "the approach you took is the better approach for wikipedia" thanks!). --] (]) 19:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for the reply. --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 08:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Hello! == | |||
I remember you - saw your name pop up and thought I'd say hello. You might not remember me, I used to be known by a different name (Steve Zhang). Hope you're well! <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 18:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
:G'day Steven -- it's great to hear from you. I hope that you, too, are well. At the moment I seem to duck in here for a few weeks or so every couple of years. --] (]) 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
::It just dawned on me from your edit to Cameron Smith and the G'day above that you might be from ] as I am! Not enough of us around here! <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 06:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::Haha, yes, well, maybe one has to be Australian, or perhaps alternatively from select industrial towns in northern England, to understand why ] and ] aren't entirely comparable! --] (]) 10:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::Heh, yup. I don't think I'll ever run for RFA, simply because there's no need (and also because the thing is frankly torture, I remember 2011) but even to this day it baffles me that some people don't understand that a majority vote does not necessarily equal consensus. I was encouraged to read that there was an RFC some time ago about non-admins closing discussions wasn't to be unilaterally reverted simply because the person isn't an admin. I've always felt I've been a decent judge of consensus but in the past the rule was always "unless consensus is so mind numbingly obvious that a complete moron would come to the same consensus that the result is X, don't close it" so glad that there's some leeway now. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 15:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Oops == | |||
Hi. Sorry about , and thanks for ... I always right-click copy/paste names to avoid spelling errors, and I must have pasted instead of copying. It's actually par for the course for me today - so far I've dropped and broken my coffee cup, tripped over a shelf in a supermarket and burst a bag of apples in a different shop - I must have caught a "clumsy virus" or something... Just call me ]... --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 08:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
:Haha, no worries, and it is good to hear from you again. I’m sorry in particular to hear about the coffe cup! —] (]) 08:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
::Actually, I have 6 more identical ones so I cared more about cleaning up the 200 pieces it shattered into than the fact that it was broken. The apples were more of a problem because I'd already paid for them and now they are bruised... Ah well, things can only get better... --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 09:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Kudos == | |||
I thought your was surprisingly refreshing. In my opinion, opposed to what I've seen to a great extent on Misplaced Pages, you overcame your own biases and sided with policy. Because of your clarity, I hope that you might be open if I reach out to you for feedback every once in awhile regarding my own editing. Thank you --]] 16:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for that. I appreciate the kind note. And yes, happy to field any questions. Don't take too many cues from me, though: ! --] (]) 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
::That's funny, but maybe with the blocks comes even more wisdom. Thanks! --]] 01:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
==Mahathir Bin Mohammad== | |||
Recently, you've revertd my edit on that page. When he has come to Bangladesh for last time he had said that his grandfather was from a village of Chittagong. Later, it was found by Bangladeshi newspapers that his grandfather was from Moriomnogor Village of Chittagong. Malaysian ] has said that he is Bangladeshi descent. | |||
Probably it is a misunderstanding among Malaysian dailies. When his grandfather had come to Malaysia, Bangladesh was under Indian Subcontinent.--] (]) 06:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:Kerala is not in Bangladesh. All non-Bangladesh sources say his grandfather was from Kerala. That includes his biography. The Bangladesh sources must be wrong. You’re reverting against the vast majority of the reliable sources. Stop it. —] (]) 06:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
::You have said "all Bangladeshi sources". Ok in (Malaysia) and (India) it was said that his grandfather was from Chittagong. And Chittagong is not India. If you have done again, it will be complained.--] (]) 06:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::that malaysiakini link is not a news article. Stop editing on topics you know nothing about.—] (]) 06:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::you’ve just broken ]. You’d better revert yourself to avoid a block.—] (]) 06:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::::Here are some of the many sources you are reverting against. , , , , (somewhere in 'southern India' but Kerala uncertain), . Are you saying they're all wrong? Including academic books? It's all very well for you to edit, but not to charge in on a well-settled biography of a serving head-of-government and push your ill-informed agenda against editors who have read all the sources and know what they're talking about. As I said, you have better self-revert your last revert, because you have made four effective reverts in 24 hours and could be heading for a block. --] (]) 07:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::::I am repeating again Chittagong is situated in the southern Part of Bangladesh and Bangladesh was under Indian Subcontinent at that time. You are saying that all references of notable Bangladeshi dailies are false? He has said that his grandfather was from Chittagong, see in English on . In that article, it was said that it will be a surprise news to Malaysian that he is of Bangladeshi descent. I have given 5 Bangla references (one is from Indian Dailyhuny)--] (]) 07:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::::::All the sources other than your Bangladesh sources say he is from Kerala or southern India. That's the vast majority. Go and edit something you are competent to edit. --] (]) 07:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
I'll outline the sources in a bit more detail: | |||
*. This is the leading biography on Mahathir, written by Barry Wain. He says in the linked page: "A forbear, most likely Mohamad's father Iskandar , had emigrated from '''Southern India''' to begin a new life in Malaysia." Mahathir is then quoted as saying "Frankly, we don't know which part of India we came from." | |||
*. This is an academic history of modern Asia. It says: "Though through his father's side he could trace his origins to Kerala in Southern India..." | |||
*. An academic book on Malaysian foreign policy. It says "Mahathir's paternal grandfather of Kerala Indian descent..." | |||
*. New Straits Times, one of Malaysia's leading newspapers: "Dr Mahathir‘s grandfather, Iskandar, was brought to Malaya from the South Indian state of Kerala by the British East India Company to teach English to the royal Kedah household." | |||
All of these sources state not only that Mahathir's grandfather is from India but from '''southern India''' or Kerala. That's why, for about a decade, our article has said Mahathir's paternal ancestry is partly Indian. Until you showed up today.--] (]) 08:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::::::In (most circulated Bangladeshi daily), (8th most circulated Bangladeshi daily), (3rd most circulated Bangladeshi daily), , (6th most circulated newspaper in Bangladesh) (15th most circulated newspaper in Bangladesh), (newspaper's sub editorial) it was mentioned about his Bangladeshi ancestors. Even in and (India) it was mentioned too. Chittagong was under Indian Subcontinent at that time. And it is in southern part too. He himself said his Bangladeshi ancestors (see Malaysiakini article). You have 2 sources about his clear Kerala link. I have more about clear Chittagong link. You have said, "Go and edit something you are competent to edit" it doesn't seem good to me. I didn't provide info without references.--] (]) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Chittagong is ''nowhere near'' southern India. I know you have some sources, but they amount to very little when stacked up to those I've set out above. It's not a matter of numbers; it's about quality. My sources are mostly academic and in one case is a biography based on interviews with Mahathir and his family. None of your sources are academic. Anyway. One possibility that will allow us both to have our way is just to say "Mahathir's father, Mohamad, was Malay but also had ancestors from the Indian subcontinent". The term "Indian subcontinent" is useful because it accords with the first source I listed above, that Mahathir has no idea where in India his ancestors were from. And it covers your sources because Bangladesh is part of the Indian subcontinent.--] (]) 08:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Probably, it is the best option. He had once said he had no idea about his ancestor's home. Some researchers have found his Kerala link too. But in 2014 he had said about his Chittagong link when he had come in Bangladesh. My references are based on his speech in Bangladesh.--] (]) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Ok, thanks, I have made that suggested edit. --] (]) 08:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Have you considered... == | |||
...becoming an administrator? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 20:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
*Thanks for the note, Atsme - I used to be one, but I couldn't do that to myself again, and, for a number of entirely valid reasons including recent block log, I would fail an RfA resoundingly! --] (]) 20:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
::Ahhhh...the old haunting block log - ] - things aren't always what they seem. Your's would not have changed my mind. Common sense is not so common anymore, so when I see it, it's exciting...like watching the ] after your team wins. 😂 ] <sub>]</sub> ] 21:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::Haha, indeed: "edit-warring" and "disruptive editing" (I just checked your log; looks like mine) are what I like to think of as "honourable blocks". It's that extra revert because you cared too much, or because the other editor was so ridiculously wrong. I've always thought there to be one important missing element from our blocking policy: admins don't block editors for making bad edits --] (]) 21:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::One I consider to be the unsurpassed of honorable block logs, and who would probably be a favorite at RfA - including admin votes...and mine!! 😂 ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Happy First edit day! == | |||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px dashed #FF0000; background-color: gold;" | |||
| style="text-align:center;" |] | |||
| style="text-align:center;" width="100%"|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:darkblue">Hey, '''Mkativerata'''. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the ]!<br />Have a great day!</span> '''] ]''' 11:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| style="text-align:right;" |] | |||
|} | |} | ||
:A new userright? Oh dear. --] (]) 09:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Unblock policy violation == | |||
== ArbCom 2019 election voter message == | |||
:You appear to have violated the blocking policy with the unblock on Malleus: | |||
::''Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.'' | |||
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
:As far as I can determine in your contributions history and the ANI discussion, you made no attempt to participate in that discussion or to contact Ryan to discuss the matter. | |||
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
:The block was controversial and asymmetrical, but was not unambiguously wrong (roughly 50/50 split on ANI discussion) and there's no evident reason that you couldn't have made a good faith effort to contact Ryan or participate in the ANI discussion prior to unblocking. | |||
:Whether Malleus should have been blocked for that, for how long, whether Tbhotch should have been as well or instead, and so forth are all open questions. Whether that unblock complies with policy seems rather unambiguously "no". | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
:Coming slightly late to the game, one might consider this a form of a form of a ]. However, there has been significant historical discussion and general consensus that A) enabling serial abusers is a serious problem, and B) that admins who are short-circuiting process to enable that are themselves causing a problem that is actionable. | |||
:Given the outcome of the ANI discussion and other discussions, I am not sure what an appropriate remedy is here. At the very least IMHO you owe Ryan an apology, though we don't traditionally insist on those here. Right or wrong, failing to attempt to consult him, or engage in the community discussion, was a disservice to him and the community. | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
:] (]) 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
</td></tr> | |||
::I: (1) refer to my entry in the block log and comment on ANI; (2) say that if I contravened a policy (that I note says ''should'') I was right to do so; and (3) say that I would do the same thing again in the same circumstances. --] (]) 06:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
</table> | |||
:::I saw your comment on ANI and in the block log. Neither of those contravenes nor overrides the block policy. The block policy is unambiguous - "Except in cases of unambiguous error" - for a reason. | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=926750323 --> | |||
:::Failure to at least make an effort to contact the blocking administrator or seek noticeboard consensus is disrespectful to the admin community and community as a whole. The policy was written and carefully crafted and recrafted to keep admins behaving civilly and constructively towards each other. Your action was neither constructive nor civil towards the other admin involved nor the complexity of the noticeboard consensus. It was the one step short of technically being wheel warring, but in intent and tone was exactly that. | |||
==Happy First Edit Day!== | |||
:::This is not how we can continue to administer Misplaced Pages. It's not Bold, it's not "doing the right thing". It's disruptive and destructive. | |||
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
:::If you really feel that it was appropriate and that you'd do it again, I would like to respectfully request that you surrender the admin bit at this time. This is not OK, and all the good works you have done (and I expect you will do in the future) do not outweigh the need for this not to stand and not happen again. I would be extremely unhappy to be forced to march you down the road to Arbcom over this, but if you force the issue then I see no way to avoid it. | |||
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center">]<span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:125%;">Happy First Edit Day!</span>] | |||
:::] (]) 08:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Have a very happy first edit anniversary! | |||
::::Well I am open to recall. --] (]) 08:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
From the ], ]<sup>]</sup> 06:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
==Happy First Edit Day!== | |||
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px dashed #FF0000; background-color: gold;" | |||
| style="text-align:center;" |] | |||
| style="text-align:center;" width="100%"|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:darkblue">Hey, '''Mkativerata'''. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the ]!<br />Have a great day!</span> ] ] 07:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| style="text-align:right;" |] | |||
|} | |||
== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message == | |||
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
</td></tr> | |||
</table> | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=990308186 --> | |||
==Happy First Edit Day!== | |||
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center">]<span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:125%;">Happy First Edit Day!</span>] | |||
Have a very happy first edit anniversary! | |||
From the ], ]<sup>]</sup> 04:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
== Always precious == | |||
] | |||
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. take care and enjoy what you do --] (]) 06:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
==missing== | |||
Hi. You are now ], as we seek to recognize those editors who impacted the project and are no longer contributing. Should you ever return or simply don't want to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Please do not see this message as any sort of prod to your activity on wiki, as we all would hope to enjoy life after having edited here. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center">]<span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:125%;">Removal from member list</span>] | |||
You have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee ]. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself. | |||
Best wishes, <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
</div> |
Latest revision as of 21:00, 5 October 2022
This user left Misplaced Pages. Mkativerata has not edited Misplaced Pages since March 1, 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Am away for a while and only checking in intermittently. |
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)
- /Archive17 (January 2012 to July 2014)
- /Archive18 (July 2014 to October 2014)
November 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Najib Razak. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
reported other party to edit warning noticeboard Avono (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Roman 888
This looks a lot like our old pal Roman888. "serial vandaliser" is a favorite expression of his. --Drmargi (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yes, it's definitely him. It's just easier to roll back each edit than go through the tedious report-block-new sock-report-block cycle, right? Best to keep him on one account too. Protecting the page wasn't the right move either. I've been slowly improving that article for weeks and now I can't... --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- The admin poo-poo'd my comment on the edit warring message board, too. This is ban evasion so the warning above is inappropriate; you might want to note that in your edit summary so you aren't blocked when you shouldn't be. I'm watching the page now, too. How do you want to handle this? If I'm reading this right, you're good to leave him alone on this one account for now. I'm happy to do what you prefer. --Drmargi (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was just about to write another reply to you, having now seen the AN3 thread. "Open an SPI"? I mean, really... As if you don't have better things to do. From memory filing an SPI takes forever. The account should have been blocked on your request, the case being so clear. Although I reckon the best way to respond to this case, when neither blocking nor protection is going to be an appropriate medium-to-long-term solution (as we both know he's been socking for four years and won't go away) is to have multiple people watching the target articles, and roll back every single edit of the sock on sight. This article is of a sitting Prime Minister, so there should be (but aren't) multiple watchers anyway. Perhaps Avono and Bbb23 might volunteer? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- fine, will put it in my watchlist Avono (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was just about to write another reply to you, having now seen the AN3 thread. "Open an SPI"? I mean, really... As if you don't have better things to do. From memory filing an SPI takes forever. The account should have been blocked on your request, the case being so clear. Although I reckon the best way to respond to this case, when neither blocking nor protection is going to be an appropriate medium-to-long-term solution (as we both know he's been socking for four years and won't go away) is to have multiple people watching the target articles, and roll back every single edit of the sock on sight. This article is of a sitting Prime Minister, so there should be (but aren't) multiple watchers anyway. Perhaps Avono and Bbb23 might volunteer? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- The admin poo-poo'd my comment on the edit warring message board, too. This is ban evasion so the warning above is inappropriate; you might want to note that in your edit summary so you aren't blocked when you shouldn't be. I'm watching the page now, too. How do you want to handle this? If I'm reading this right, you're good to leave him alone on this one account for now. I'm happy to do what you prefer. --Drmargi (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan to me. I'm watching him, and the PM's page. I also left a note on Bbb23's page suggesting minimal due diligence might be in order next time. This one ain't rocket science. But in truth, I can see the merit of keeping the one account active so we can keep Roman corralled. I haven't left a message outing him (my usual practice) on his talk page for just that reason. --Drmargi (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I just left a message for Moonriddengirl. Hopefully she can take out the trash. --Drmargi (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
UMNO Islamist ideology?
Discussion should be made and getting input from other wiki members, before any changes. Again you define in which ever you want because wikipedia is not your POV for editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.74.4 (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
RFA
I think your oppose was in the wrong place, fixed it for now , if I've inadvertently crossed a line feel free to revert. Regards, WCMemail 13:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad I saw this, I was on my way here to lambast you for an obviously frivilous Oppose !vote... Moved it back, also: ha ha, very funny. Yunshui 水 13:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah apologies, red faced, I will be flagellating myself with a large wet trout etc. WCMemail 17:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I got as far as moving it and almost pressing save page before my joke detector kicked in. Sam Walton (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hehe, this is an old prank and, WCM, if it makes you feel any better, someone always falls for it and usually much harder than you did (like writing a strong rebuttal of the 'oppose'). Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I got as far as moving it and almost pressing save page before my joke detector kicked in. Sam Walton (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah apologies, red faced, I will be flagellating myself with a large wet trout etc. WCMemail 17:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Editor of the week
Thank you for the very kind nomination, you made my day. Mattlore (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Don't thank me at all -- I genuinely couldn't think of anyone more deserving (and I could think of many who would be deserving!) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Mkativerata. Please check your email; you've got mail!Message added 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Grammar Police
This is to inform you that the Misplaced Pages Grammar Police have detected a split infinitive in one of your edits. This type of behavior gives the encyclopedia a bad name and will emphatically not be tolerated. Philg88 22:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning. So if I get caught doing it again, I'll have to humbly submit myself to Arbcom? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed -:). I thought a little levity was in order after the last week's RfA dramas. Hopefully, you're next one will be free of such things. And yes, there's another grammar error in the foregoing sentence just for good measure. Cheers, Philg88 23:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
RfA comments
Mkat, I've been following the RfA for Czar, including some of the back-and-forth in the oppose section. Comments have been made about "badgering" of the "oppose" !voters, including yourself. Given that I was one of the commenters in that section, I hope that you did not perceive my comments as badgering you because that was certainly not my intent. I thought your concerns were worthy of being addressed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all... So far as I can tell, the criticism of "badgering" is criticism directed at one or two others, and not at you. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good. I value our working relationship. You're handy to have around, and I would hate to lose that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Mkativerata, your oppose vote wasn't enough to prevent me supporting, but it was well researched and politely formulated. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mkativerata, I wanted to thank you for putting the time, effort, and detail into researching and writing about my AfD experience. It's certainly made my RfA better and I appreciate the feedback. If you are no longer following the page, I think you might appreciate my answers to Q5–7 (questions by Dirtlawyer1, prompted by your concerns, and about my breadth of editing experience). Have a happy Thanksgiving, and see you around. czar ⨹ 15:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note, Czar. Yes - I did see you responses to the questions, and thanks for taking the time to do that. I don't think my oppose ever had a chance of causing a pile-on—if it did, I might have done something different—but your answers ensured that would be the case. Anyway, I look forward to seeing you around (perhaps, if you are interesting in performing AfD closures, you might visit WP:DRV some time?) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reezal Merican Naina Merican, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kepala Batas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Best wishes for a happy holiday season
Happy Holiday Cheer | ||
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC) |
2015 already
Hi Mkativerata. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Misplaced Pages for a long time to come. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
2015 already
Hi Mkativerata. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Misplaced Pages for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Kudpung - you too! --Mkativerata (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Your vote at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/MelanieN
Hi, re this vote - it's being counted as a support, not an oppose, because you put it in the wrong section. See User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report (updated frequently) - no opposes are counted. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mkat, aren't you joking? --AmaryllisGardener 23:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've un-"fixed" it because I'm pretty sure you're clever enough to know what you're doing, but just revert me if I'm wrong. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah sorry I just can't help myself. The candidates never seem to mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I got a kick out of it myself. I have seen you play this game before; I felt honored that you played it at my RfA. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Three years
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well earned recognition -- then and now, Mkat. Glad to have you back. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you both - glad to be back :) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
SoV's RfA
Regarding your extended comment on the ArbCom case. Sarek wasn't admonished for edit warring, but for deliberately focusing on a user, and engaging in edit wars with that user with the intent of getting them blocked. We have developed processes for dealing with problematic users. Suicide bombing is not an appropriate method for anyone to use. It is harmful to the project and to all users involved, including the suicide bomber. Sarek is still having to deal with the consequences of that. From various comments he has made, I think Sarek is now at a stage where he is unlikely to go rogue again, and I did briefly consider supporting, though I would like a little more evidence of emotional detachment (or, rather, evidence of appropriate tactics to deal with the emotional stress of editing Misplaced Pages - as there is inevitable emotional involvement). Looking at Sarek's unnecessary responses to some of the oppose comments, I'm not sure he is quite there yet. SilkTork 02:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks. My intention isn't to second-guess the Arbcom findings; far from it. It is to take the evidence presented to show that he is a very competent editor. For me, competence is the most important trait in a candidate for administrator. I'm far more willing to forgive and forget non-malicious behavioural indiscretions than I am to turn a blind eye to incompetence. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Mkativerata. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Only Girl (In the World)/archive1.Message added 11:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I made some changes based on your comments, but I have questions about some others. — ₳aron 11:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
City of Angels FAC
Hello, Mkativerata. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/archive4.Message added 10:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Earthh (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have any further concerns? The review seems to have stalled (for the fourth times), so your help would be very much appreciated.--Earthh (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. I'll re-visit the article over the weekend and try to force myself to arrive at a view. --Mkativerata (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Caracal article
Regarding the changes made on the Caracal article, please see my comment on the talk page. Drakenwolf (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Little India,Ipoh listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Little India,Ipoh. Since you had some involvement with the Little India,Ipoh redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
Aditya 13:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- No worries! --Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Only Girl (In the World)/archive2
Hello. I re-nominated "Only Girl (In the World)" for FAC 8 days ago, but I haven't had any comments. As you commented in the previous one, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind re-reading and seeing if I have address your comments from the previous nomination. Thanks. — ₳aron 10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/2008 UEFA Champions League Final/archive2
I responded to your comments nearly a month ago. Any chance you could follow up on your original comments and help get the article over the line to FA status? – PeeJay 23:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You win rock
Funniest RfA comment. Thanks ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Epic, Dude. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I liked the comment a lot, but I don't like the header here, because it reminds me of a dreadful loss, - I created de:Dreadstar yesterday, with thanks for support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hadn't seen that either. Header improved :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- My pleasure :) Of course, it's a serious point too: I have a great deal of sympathy with this. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think "pleasure" referred to an admin who protected an article in an edit war, was accused of abuse (because he had expressed an opinion) and left blocking himself. I seriously miss him and his explosions. - Would you dare to close Beethoven? I asked Opabinia regalis before, who declined - which made a lot of sense to me, but you already survived the moonlight (pictured) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, "pleasure" did not refer to that! I will have to decline the Beethoven invitation, I'm afraid; I just don't have the time to do a proper job on that kind of thing at the moment. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! |
You might be interested in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Pukimkativerata
Not sure if that qualifies as an inappropriate username. Banedon (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's an old friend! I don't know what your Malay is like, but "puki" is, well, a rather rude word. Maybe an admin talk page stalker will block him: I couldn't be arsed filing another SPI!! --Mkativerata (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- UAA report filed after they edited again. BethNaught (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hiya
Hey. I hope you're just taking a little time off to recharge the batteries. Still hoping to see you around. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. Yes - just time off - not due to WP but being busy at work. Hopefully I can drop back in come the new year. I hope all is well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Good to hear. January 1, 2016 is coming up fast. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
bold decision | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 9a of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Seven years now! Happy 2019! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Nice to see you here again. You may like this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message - I hope you are well! —Mkativerata (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I am, only too many die. Did you check out Happy 2019 then? Click again, am I happy I wrote his article for birthday not funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- eight years now, - same for Volker David Kirchner, - I began a list, would like to add images ... - hope you are well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Dato Param Cumaraswamy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dato Param Cumaraswamy. Since you had some involvement with the Dato Param Cumaraswamy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Still around?
Hi. Just noting so that you know I've noticed: I haven't seen you around much for quite a while now. I hope everything is OK. Miss your votes at RfA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking in, @Kudpung:. I hope you are well. The day job has been getting in the way for some time now, but maybe there will be light at the end of the tunnel soon! I've certainly not disappeared for good. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good to know everything is OK. See you around soon. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Mkativerata. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Disruptive Edits
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Trans-Pacific Partnership, you may be blocked from editing. -- Galestar (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 103.41.177.49 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
3 reverts
You know you've hit 3 reverts. You probably would do best to stop that. --Jayron32 03:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- you're clearly a big-picture man eh --Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mkativerata. You've been talking a lot about cock-ups and fake news and the big picture, but never actually explained, in specific terms, your profound objections to this most reprehensible of ITN blurbs. Why not try to make things better instead of edit warring over the archival of a thread that should have ceased to be active days ago? You're far more likely to cause the item to be reworked or pulled by calmly explaining where we went wrong than simply cursing at us and accusing people of admin abuse. – Juliancolton | 04:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Read Andrew D's comments, which the posting admin should have done. Then look around to see just how controversial among experts, and hedged by the paper's own authors, the claim that these are the oldest fossil is: , . And yet, in our proud amateur voice we say "making them the oldest known fossils of life on Earth." This should never have been posted and most certainly not with a blurb in those terms. I should not need to explain this to experienced administrators. Thank you for being the first admin to engage with the substance. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it's fair to fault the posting admin – ITN operates by consensus, and after more than a day of discussion, there was a strong consensus for posting and no objections having been posted in several hours. It's not as if Stephen took action during the middle of an active discussion that seemed poised to sway consensus. Having read the articles you linked, it does seem like the scientific community has put up some resistance to these claims. I'm genuinely not sure whether this sort of skepticism is typical in the wake of extraordinary discoveries or breakthroughs, regardless of their credibility or level of scientific rigor, or if the guys are quacks and we're helping them advertise their fringe theories. I do suspect that the latter is exceedingly unlikely for findings published in Nature, but if you think it's a legitimate risk, then discussion at WP:ERRORS would be warranted. Out of curiosity, if you knew the blurb had to stay, how would you reword or improve it? – Juliancolton | 04:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Your last question gets to another corker: the nomination itself uses caveats, including "which would make them the oldest fossils of life on Earth." Yet the posting admin unilaterally went for broke () despite all evidence to the contrary. This shouldn't need to go to WP:ERRORS. I oppose the posting in its entirety - not even the caveats are enough - so put it in ITN/C rather than WP:ERRORS. Post-posting opposes are a common practice. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Look. Misplaced Pages operates on collaboration and consensus. You already know that. WP:ERRORS is the place to have a discussion about main page items. I know that any action will take longer than you'd like, but that's by systemic design.
- Now, on your attacks on other editors. Never forget that we're all here for the same purpose. We're all working to contribute to the sum of all knowledge. But it's a lot harder to do that when someone is lobbing bombs all over the place. Please, a little collegial discourse can go a long way.
- And on a final administrative note, I or another admin will block you if you choose to revert over on ITNC again. Do note that you should be blocked already. Ed 08:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at WP:ITNC. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ed 08:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed, fair call, it's just that unlike the numerous admins who have ignored my pleas for accuracy over many hours now, I'll put accuracy over 3rr and would do so again. We still have a fucked-up ITN item.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Which is, on my incredibly cursory look at the content dispute, a fair viewpoint to hold. But we don't go disrupting the whole place just to make a point. We have processes like ERRORS in place for situations like this. Ed 08:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Clpo13 RfA
Hi Mkativerata. I've almost fallen for your joke support-opposes before, but this one actually looks like a genuine oppose (it would be easy to miss when those edits were made). Could you clarify a little if your vote is meant to be sarcastic? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- You could see it as a joke. Or you could see it as a semi-regular test of the levels of idiocy on wikipedia. Quite high at the moment, it seems. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Or it could be seen as near-trolling. An interesting choice to present other editors with. — O Fortuna 12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be beneficial to confirm whether it is a joke or not. Please note that at the top of an RfA the votes are tallied based on how many votes are in the section (the page can't detect what's actually written), and it says the same on the RfA page, so according to the tallies it's S80, O0, N0. If you are genuinely opposing the candidate, please move the vote to the oppose section, so that it can be tallied as an oppose. Thanks. Linguist|contribs 14:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Or it could be seen as near-trolling. An interesting choice to present other editors with. — O Fortuna 12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Mkativerata. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Jakiw Palij
Hi, I am not sure if this is the right way to make this request, but after hearing this morning about the deportation of Jakiw Palij to Germany for prosecution, and discovering that every news outlet is covering the story, I was surprised to see that this man has no Wiki article. I discovered that he did have one, but it was deleted and a redirect put in its place. Since you are the editor that oversaw the deletion debate, I thought you would be the address to request that now that he has been deported, he is worthy of his own page. I think his history and life merits an article. I for one, and I am sure many others, would like to know more about this person whose deportation has been in the making for decades, and has finally been achieved. Let me know what you think. Here are some of the sources: here, here, and here. Thanks. Stregadellanonna (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Australia's head of state, again
Howdy, an Rfc has opened at Monarchy of Australia concerning the topic head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Mkativerata. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:MalaysiaFedDeleg
Template:MalaysiaFedDeleg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (/What I been doing) 21:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Inappropriate edit summaries
Hi Mkativerata,
Your edit summary on this revert of an edit of mine is unacceptable in tone and in content. Even assuming you knew that Faulkner's coming out was allegedly false (as suggested in this article), neither of your earlier edit summaries reverting other editors (yeah nah and Nope) actually indicate your objections, which I took to refer to sourcing. Do not ever address another editor (whether a fellow account-holding editor or an IP editor) in the terms you addressed to me, and please try to provide edit summaries that make clear to others your objection to an edit. As soon as I saw the edit summary from The Pope with a link to the article suggesting Faulkner's coming out was a hoax, I self-reverted, which shows that clear and civil comments are much more appropriate and effective. WP is a much nicer place when colleagues treat one another with politeness and consideration, and I hope that you will reflect on this and modify your approach.
Thank you,
EdChem (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn’t read this message it was too long I assume it’s a mea culpa for fucking up a blp in which case no worries. —-Mkativerata (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, you clearly thought it was REALLY IMPORTANT that JF’s page URGENTLY record the fact of him being gay and the identity of his partner. Now you know that it’s all wrong and that he is straight, will you edit the page to record that fact? And in an equal hurry? Why not? —Mkativerata (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Warning
Mkativerata, your unprovoked attack in this edit summary is unacceptable. Please speak decently to others, and give reasons when you revert them. I hope this message isn't too long to read. Bishonen | talk 18:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC).
- no that was succinct - thank you. Succinct but stupid: the real problem with Misplaced Pages isn’t the people who swear at shit editing but, of course, the shit editing. —Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Zozo2kx CCI
Just informing you that I've completely cleared out the "top priority" portion of the case. 💵Money💵emoji💵 22:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks mate, that's great. That's a big one from memory. I hope the priority system kind of worked. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Bashir Ahmad Abdul Majid, you may be blocked from editing. You have more than enough experience here to know this - it is currently at AFD, it cannot be blanked or removed, which includes redirection. Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well done on your spirited defence of spam. Keep up the good work. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Bashir Ahmad Abdul Majid. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't keep spam however it is against the giant bolded template on the page to remove an AFD notice that is still active. Stop. Praxidicae (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's also against wikipedia policy -- far more important policy -- to insert spam, which you have done on three occasions. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you think I'm a spammer, go file a report at WP:COIN or WP:ANI and stop edit warring. You may not blank, redirect or remove the AFD notice. Period. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you are a spammer. You are just editing incompetently and getting in the way of spam removal. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Then go file a report at ANI, because right now all you're doing is casting aspersions which is a personal attack. Either substantiate it or strike it. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you are a spammer. You are just editing incompetently and getting in the way of spam removal. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you think I'm a spammer, go file a report at WP:COIN or WP:ANI and stop edit warring. You may not blank, redirect or remove the AFD notice. Period. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's also against wikipedia policy -- far more important policy -- to insert spam, which you have done on three occasions. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
RfA thanks comment
Hi. I'm not sure why you think it's bad form for a candidate to thank people. It cannot conceivably count as canvassing. And thanking opposers could appear insincere and sarcastic. Or would actually be insincere. In any case, I think it's a bit over the top and would gently invite you to remove the comment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's certainly not canvassing. But it also isn't a "thanks for doing something good for wikipedia", because they would be sent to opposes, neutrals and neithers. So it's a "thanks for doing me a favour", which is ok in some contexts doesn't sit well with me in the RfA context. Having said that, precisely no-one has said that they share this reservation. The comment has been sent off to the talk page anyway for some unknown reason. Thanks for dropping me a note here rather than there (and that's not a "you did me a favour" thanks but a "the approach you took is the better approach for wikipedia" thanks!). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
I remember you - saw your name pop up and thought I'd say hello. You might not remember me, I used to be known by a different name (Steve Zhang). Hope you're well! Steven Crossin 18:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- G'day Steven -- it's great to hear from you. I hope that you, too, are well. At the moment I seem to duck in here for a few weeks or so every couple of years. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- It just dawned on me from your edit to Cameron Smith and the G'day above that you might be from the same neck of the woods as I am! Not enough of us around here! Steven Crossin 06:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, yes, well, maybe one has to be Australian, or perhaps alternatively from select industrial towns in northern England, to understand why Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1998) and Cameron Smith aren't entirely comparable! --Mkativerata (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Heh, yup. I don't think I'll ever run for RFA, simply because there's no need (and also because the thing is frankly torture, I remember 2011) but even to this day it baffles me that some people don't understand that a majority vote does not necessarily equal consensus. I was encouraged to read that there was an RFC some time ago about non-admins closing discussions wasn't to be unilaterally reverted simply because the person isn't an admin. I've always felt I've been a decent judge of consensus but in the past the rule was always "unless consensus is so mind numbingly obvious that a complete moron would come to the same consensus that the result is X, don't close it" so glad that there's some leeway now. Steven Crossin 15:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, yes, well, maybe one has to be Australian, or perhaps alternatively from select industrial towns in northern England, to understand why Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1998) and Cameron Smith aren't entirely comparable! --Mkativerata (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- It just dawned on me from your edit to Cameron Smith and the G'day above that you might be from the same neck of the woods as I am! Not enough of us around here! Steven Crossin 06:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Oops
Hi. Sorry about that, and thanks for that... I always right-click copy/paste names to avoid spelling errors, and I must have pasted instead of copying. It's actually par for the course for me today - so far I've dropped and broken my coffee cup, tripped over a shelf in a supermarket and burst a bag of apples in a different shop - I must have caught a "clumsy virus" or something... Just call me Mr. Bean... -- Begoon 08:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, no worries, and it is good to hear from you again. I’m sorry in particular to hear about the coffe cup! —Mkativerata (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I have 6 more identical ones so I cared more about cleaning up the 200 pieces it shattered into than the fact that it was broken. The apples were more of a problem because I'd already paid for them and now they are bruised... Ah well, things can only get better... -- Begoon 09:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudos
I thought your RfC opinion here was surprisingly refreshing. In my opinion, opposed to what I've seen to a great extent on Misplaced Pages, you overcame your own biases and sided with policy. Because of your clarity, I hope that you might be open if I reach out to you for feedback every once in awhile regarding my own editing. Thank you --UberVegan🌾 16:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I appreciate the kind note. And yes, happy to field any questions. Don't take too many cues from me, though: ! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's funny, but maybe with the blocks comes even more wisdom. Thanks! --UberVegan🌾 01:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Mahathir Bin Mohammad
Recently, you've revertd my edit on that page. When he has come to Bangladesh for last time he had said that his grandfather was from a village of Chittagong. Later, it was found by Bangladeshi newspapers that his grandfather was from Moriomnogor Village of Chittagong. Malaysian Malaysiakini has said that he is Bangladeshi descent.
Probably it is a misunderstanding among Malaysian dailies. When his grandfather had come to Malaysia, Bangladesh was under Indian Subcontinent.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Kerala is not in Bangladesh. All non-Bangladesh sources say his grandfather was from Kerala. That includes his biography. The Bangladesh sources must be wrong. You’re reverting against the vast majority of the reliable sources. Stop it. —Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- You have said "all Bangladeshi sources". Ok in Malaysiakini (Malaysia) and Dailyhunt (India) it was said that his grandfather was from Chittagong. And Chittagong is not India. If you have done again, it will be complained.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- that malaysiakini link is not a news article. Stop editing on topics you know nothing about.—Mkativerata (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- you’ve just broken WP:3RR. You’d better revert yourself to avoid a block.—Mkativerata (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Here are some of the many sources you are reverting against. , , , , (somewhere in 'southern India' but Kerala uncertain), . Are you saying they're all wrong? Including academic books? It's all very well for you to edit, but not to charge in on a well-settled biography of a serving head-of-government and push your ill-informed agenda against editors who have read all the sources and know what they're talking about. As I said, you have better self-revert your last revert, because you have made four effective reverts in 24 hours and could be heading for a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am repeating again Chittagong is situated in the southern Part of Bangladesh and Bangladesh was under Indian Subcontinent at that time. You are saying that all references of notable Bangladeshi dailies are false? He has said that his grandfather was from Chittagong, see in English on Malaysiakini. In that article, it was said that it will be a surprise news to Malaysian that he is of Bangladeshi descent. I have given 5 Bangla references (one is from Indian Dailyhuny)--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- All the sources other than your Bangladesh sources say he is from Kerala or southern India. That's the vast majority. Go and edit something you are competent to edit. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am repeating again Chittagong is situated in the southern Part of Bangladesh and Bangladesh was under Indian Subcontinent at that time. You are saying that all references of notable Bangladeshi dailies are false? He has said that his grandfather was from Chittagong, see in English on Malaysiakini. In that article, it was said that it will be a surprise news to Malaysian that he is of Bangladeshi descent. I have given 5 Bangla references (one is from Indian Dailyhuny)--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Here are some of the many sources you are reverting against. , , , , (somewhere in 'southern India' but Kerala uncertain), . Are you saying they're all wrong? Including academic books? It's all very well for you to edit, but not to charge in on a well-settled biography of a serving head-of-government and push your ill-informed agenda against editors who have read all the sources and know what they're talking about. As I said, you have better self-revert your last revert, because you have made four effective reverts in 24 hours and could be heading for a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- you’ve just broken WP:3RR. You’d better revert yourself to avoid a block.—Mkativerata (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- that malaysiakini link is not a news article. Stop editing on topics you know nothing about.—Mkativerata (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- You have said "all Bangladeshi sources". Ok in Malaysiakini (Malaysia) and Dailyhunt (India) it was said that his grandfather was from Chittagong. And Chittagong is not India. If you have done again, it will be complained.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll outline the sources in a bit more detail:
- . This is the leading biography on Mahathir, written by Barry Wain. He says in the linked page: "A forbear, most likely Mohamad's father Iskandar , had emigrated from Southern India to begin a new life in Malaysia." Mahathir is then quoted as saying "Frankly, we don't know which part of India we came from."
- . This is an academic history of modern Asia. It says: "Though through his father's side he could trace his origins to Kerala in Southern India..."
- . An academic book on Malaysian foreign policy. It says "Mahathir's paternal grandfather of Kerala Indian descent..."
- . New Straits Times, one of Malaysia's leading newspapers: "Dr Mahathir‘s grandfather, Iskandar, was brought to Malaya from the South Indian state of Kerala by the British East India Company to teach English to the royal Kedah household."
All of these sources state not only that Mahathir's grandfather is from India but from southern India or Kerala. That's why, for about a decade, our article has said Mahathir's paternal ancestry is partly Indian. Until you showed up today.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- In Bangladesh Pratidin (most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Shomoy (8th most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Kaler Kantho (3rd most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Janakantha, (6th most circulated newspaper in Bangladesh) Nayadiganta (15th most circulated newspaper in Bangladesh), Azadi (newspaper's sub editorial) it was mentioned about his Bangladeshi ancestors. Even in Malaysiakini and Dailyhunt (India) it was mentioned too. Chittagong was under Indian Subcontinent at that time. And it is in southern part too. He himself said his Bangladeshi ancestors (see Malaysiakini article). You have 2 sources about his clear Kerala link. I have more about clear Chittagong link. You have said, "Go and edit something you are competent to edit" it doesn't seem good to me. I didn't provide info without references.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Chittagong is nowhere near southern India. I know you have some sources, but they amount to very little when stacked up to those I've set out above. It's not a matter of numbers; it's about quality. My sources are mostly academic and in one case is a biography based on interviews with Mahathir and his family. None of your sources are academic. Anyway. One possibility that will allow us both to have our way is just to say "Mahathir's father, Mohamad, was Malay but also had ancestors from the Indian subcontinent". The term "Indian subcontinent" is useful because it accords with the first source I listed above, that Mahathir has no idea where in India his ancestors were from. And it covers your sources because Bangladesh is part of the Indian subcontinent.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Probably, it is the best option. He had once said he had no idea about his ancestor's home. Some researchers have found his Kerala link too. But in 2014 he had said about his Chittagong link when he had come in Bangladesh. My references are based on his speech in Bangladesh.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, I have made that suggested edit. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Probably, it is the best option. He had once said he had no idea about his ancestor's home. Some researchers have found his Kerala link too. But in 2014 he had said about his Chittagong link when he had come in Bangladesh. My references are based on his speech in Bangladesh.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Chittagong is nowhere near southern India. I know you have some sources, but they amount to very little when stacked up to those I've set out above. It's not a matter of numbers; it's about quality. My sources are mostly academic and in one case is a biography based on interviews with Mahathir and his family. None of your sources are academic. Anyway. One possibility that will allow us both to have our way is just to say "Mahathir's father, Mohamad, was Malay but also had ancestors from the Indian subcontinent". The term "Indian subcontinent" is useful because it accords with the first source I listed above, that Mahathir has no idea where in India his ancestors were from. And it covers your sources because Bangladesh is part of the Indian subcontinent.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- In Bangladesh Pratidin (most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Shomoy (8th most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Kaler Kantho (3rd most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Janakantha, (6th most circulated newspaper in Bangladesh) Nayadiganta (15th most circulated newspaper in Bangladesh), Azadi (newspaper's sub editorial) it was mentioned about his Bangladeshi ancestors. Even in Malaysiakini and Dailyhunt (India) it was mentioned too. Chittagong was under Indian Subcontinent at that time. And it is in southern part too. He himself said his Bangladeshi ancestors (see Malaysiakini article). You have 2 sources about his clear Kerala link. I have more about clear Chittagong link. You have said, "Go and edit something you are competent to edit" it doesn't seem good to me. I didn't provide info without references.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Have you considered...
...becoming an administrator? Talk 📧 20:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, Atsme - I used to be one, but I couldn't do that to myself again, and, for a number of entirely valid reasons including recent block log, I would fail an RfA resoundingly! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ahhhh...the old haunting block log - User:Atsme/Blocking policy proposal - things aren't always what they seem. Your's would not have changed my mind. Common sense is not so common anymore, so when I see it, it's exciting...like watching the Super Bowl parade after your team wins. 😂 Talk 📧 21:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, indeed: "edit-warring" and "disruptive editing" (I just checked your log; looks like mine) are what I like to think of as "honourable blocks". It's that extra revert because you cared too much, or because the other editor was so ridiculously wrong. I've always thought there to be one important missing element from our blocking policy: admins don't block editors for making bad edits --Mkativerata (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- One I consider to be the unsurpassed winner of honorable block logs, and who would probably be a favorite at RfA - including admin votes...and mine!! 😂 Talk 📧 22:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, indeed: "edit-warring" and "disruptive editing" (I just checked your log; looks like mine) are what I like to think of as "honourable blocks". It's that extra revert because you cared too much, or because the other editor was so ridiculously wrong. I've always thought there to be one important missing element from our blocking policy: admins don't block editors for making bad edits --Mkativerata (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ahhhh...the old haunting block log - User:Atsme/Blocking policy proposal - things aren't always what they seem. Your's would not have changed my mind. Common sense is not so common anymore, so when I see it, it's exciting...like watching the Super Bowl parade after your team wins. 😂 Talk 📧 21:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Happy First edit day!
Hey, Mkativerata. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 11:20, 5 October 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 Misplaced Pages 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 |
Happy First Edit Day!
Happy First Edit Day!Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU 06:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Hey, Mkativerata. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan☺️ 07:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2020 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 |
Happy First Edit Day!
Happy First Edit Day!Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU 04:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. take care and enjoy what you do --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
missing
Hi. You are now listed as missing, as we seek to recognize those editors who impacted the project and are no longer contributing. Should you ever return or simply don't want to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Please do not see this message as any sort of prod to your activity on wiki, as we all would hope to enjoy life after having edited here. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Removal from member listYou have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee birthday list. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself.
Best wishes, Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Categories: