User talk:Mkativerata

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 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5

another old Aus law FA

Same retired author as al Kateb v Godwin, do you think Robert Garran needs an overhaul? Most sources autobiog and it seems a bit short for a guy who is tagged as being so famous and influential. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just having a look at the moment - some of the autobio sourcing might be ok - it's being used for direct quotes from Garran. But some look problematic and the article does rely quite heavily on the autobio. I wonder if the article can be reworked to rely much more on the Francis book. I'll see if I can access the Francis book myself. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I found Francis. About 150 pages, but the word density is sparse and most of it is actually about Garran's poetry hobbies. Only about 20 pg on his political work YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm afraid I don't have ready access to it. I guess the next question is where to from here. I'll have a close look at exactly what statements the article is using the autobio references to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can email you the parts from Francis if you want. You'll have to email me first though as wikimail doesn't allow attachments YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Delvered YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm having a bit of trouble loading the images and I'll need to find somewhere to print it all off - I'll let you know when I've had a look. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's easier to just use whatever the image viewer on your computer is YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten to this yet. I haven't forgotten. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

CSD

Hi Mkativerata, FYI I've quoted some CSD tags in an RFA !vote, including one that you deleted - you might want to come back to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wifione. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 22:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I take the point about the Erdos number but considering what the Erdos number is and what it means (nothing) I don't think it is a credible claim to significance. 8,162 have an Erdos number of 2. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Mkativerata, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Darius Incident

I'm utterly unfamiliar with CCI and so forth, but saw the whole Darius incident as a result of the banner message. Due to my unfamiliarity, I figured I'd reply on your talk page, rather than risk posting somewhere where posts from uninvolved users would be unwelcome. Anyway, long story short: in regards to your statement here, it seems that even your example of Rishat Shafikov may have been lifted from an online source, though with so little text, it's hard to be certain. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I suspect (or perhaps I just hope) that this is reverse copying - the website is lifting text from WP. The website's entry on Shafikov says "for more, visit wikipedia". --Mkativerata (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. In that case, you're probably right. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 67th Venice International Film Festival

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Rugby league & Youndbuckerz

Can you have a look at Youndbuckerz (talk · contribs) and his new articles. Think we may be heading towards another bulk AfD, none of them (of the few I have checked) seem to meet the WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though YB is attempting to get these through on the basis that the players are "internationals" - they represented the US or Canada. I think the proposed NSPORT wording rightly and explicitly excludes US and Canadian internationals. I could probably live with US and Canadian internationals if they played in a World Cup, but not in ordinary matches against each other. Otherwise, I certainly agree they fail the GNG. As NSPORT is apparently designed to help editors apply the GNG (how that statement works in practice I have no idea), the GNG would seem to be intended to "trump" NSPORT in a way that it didn't trump the old WP:ATH.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a full list of them to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league#More Youndbuckerz RL players (I have tagged all the articles) unless someone comes up with some refs for notability I suspect that a bulk AfD awaits them all. Codf1977 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Camila Batmanghelidjh

Wikipedia needs an article about this extremely notable woman - I was alerted to its absence by her red link in Great Lives. I see that you deleted the article on 1st Sept as a "close paraphrase". Could you let me see a copy of that article in case it's useful in working on an improved replacement? (I wasn't familiar with the article so have no idea what it was like). Thanks. I'll set up a stub with a good source for the moment. PamD (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that the copyvio was with a speakers' agency - do we know for sure in which direction the copying was done? PamD (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to find the set of redirects which were deleted when her page was deleted? I've just created one obvious one (2 Ls in Camila) but I would guess that there may have been a full set from assorted mis-spellings and it would be nice to be able to reinstate them rather than re-create them one by one (surname variations x both spellings of Camil(l)a). PamD (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As a general point, when there are so many incoming links to an article, would it not serve Wikipedia better to leave at least a minimal stub of factual info, and an EL to the source of the copyvio, rather than delete the article and all its associated redirects? This woman is clearly notable (check some of the incoming links), and I imagine that the previous article reflected this, so the article was obviously likely to be re-created. PamD (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - it was listed at WP:CP for seven days. That procedure is there to (a) give people the chance to demonstrate it is not a copyvio (eg by showing it is a reverse vio) and (b) give people the chance to re-write it. Neither happened. Admins don't have the time to re-write or stubbify every copyvio (believe me I do re-write on occasions). I would like to make the text available, but doing so would re-publish the copyvio. The best I can do is post the sources:

• Kids Company
• Articles from The Guardian
• Colourful character Camila Batmanghelidjh on her unique approach to charity work, The Independent
• BBC News profile
• Happy list
• Business Woman of the Year Award

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered two of my questions: is there any indication that the copyvio was actually in the direction you think, and can we salvage the network of redirects?

I find it difficult to believe that the article about such a notable person would have only been a copyvio, especially when such a range of sources was given: was there an earlier non-copyvio version in the page history? PamD (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The copyvio/suspect material was introduced on the first revision of the article and the article only built on it. There is no "indication" that it was not a "reverse copyvio" other than that when both texts are compared, it appears much more likely that the WP text lifted and closely paraphrased the off-wiki text, not vice versa. But the off-wiki text does not have a date of upload so we can't be sure. According to the deletion log at the time, I did not delete any redirects. Another admin deleted Camilla Batmanghelidjh but that has now been restored. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I should add that just about all of the links posted above were "external links" tacked onto the end of the article rather than sources that supported article content. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The redirects were removed by a bot as pointing to a non-existent page, I think - which is an argument to encourage you and other admins to please consider leaving a stub, in the case of a clearly notable person/topic where the article is obviously likely to be re-created. Surely there was at least a lead sentence which could have been left? You say the article "built on" the copyvio text, so other material must have been added. I'm just feeling frustrated because I know she is notable, I know Wikipedia needs an article on her, and I feel sure that useful work by other editors has been thrown out with the bathwater here.

If you look at "Specialist speakers" piece on Bill Bryson, I suspect that they have based their text on Wikipedia's and not vice versa. It may be that they make a habit of basing their texts on ours. PamD (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure I can understand your view. Philosophically I have a different view - foundational copyvios that haven't been attended to in the 7 day period should get deleted. The "building" on text here was insignificant - there was nothing of sense that could be extracted from the foundational suspect text.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list of sources, anyway. Could you give us the categories? Was there an infobox? Any image? PamD (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Found the image. PamD (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Not entirely keen on the unsourced birthdate but at least "1963" can be sourced.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. PamD (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Again

Since you deleted Tuareg Rebellion (1961-1964), you're the one who should do research on it since it was a real conflict. Instead of deleting it, you should have researched it. What you did was dumb. B-Machine (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No. It was a copyright violation. It gets deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I could have sworn

...That I left a talk page message for you here after my RfA got passed. I even remember typing it out, clicking on the save link and thinking it must have been posted. It might not have gotten saved then. I didn't want to send a thank-spam note to you. I wanted to personally thank you (actually, I wanted you to be amongst the first three people to receive my thanks note) for the lovely support in my RfA. The way you argued was one of the main reasons the RfA succeeded. Seeing your aggression and confident support, was unbelievable. Thanks Mkativerata for the wonderful support. I'm overwhelmed - and I think you're awesome. My wishes always and sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and congratulations! I'm delighted that you passed. I've seen RFAs totally collapse on genuine CSD problems before, so I wanted to do what I could to stop yours going a similar way on the basis of negligible to non-existent issues. But speaking of confidence - props for the self-nom! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Favonian was the primary reason for the self-nom. She typically allowed me use her RfA template for a self-nom. So I think that's what worked. Warm regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Supporters" sections in rugby league team articles

Hello. I was wondering if you could do me a favour and clarify your position on including mention of notable fans in rugby league team articles at the Sydney Roosters' talk page. I've brought up the ambiguity here. Cheers.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - I think what I've said is fairly clear although good arguments have been raised against it (politicians not being real fans, etc). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just that you've said, "Clearly, some can and should be mentioned". But because your name is listed under remove, it is being read as no notable fans at all being allowed a mention. It would appear that this isn't what you intended.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your question

I answered your question in AFD. Thanks Secret ^account 04:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't asking that question for my own support/oppose decision, but I do appreciate the very candid response. Best of luck - I'm going to check back in a while, I have resolved not to !vote early on RfAs anymore.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: 25 August 2010 Iraq bombings

Good faith? The first time, yes, a repeatedly is not good faith by stretch of the imagination. Please see the page, my addition to the consensus debate, and calls thereof and then see his multiple edits WITHOUT attempting to discuss.

Well he hadnt responded or mentioned anything to my statement. A new discussion didnt give me chance to offer my views. anyhoo..Lihaas (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I take this edit[1] as an indication that you have read the content of my post on your talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

re ChaosMaster16's block and ANI discussion

Hi. As mentioned, there is a discussion regarding the above editor at WP:ANI#ChaosMaster16 again etc. As you will note there, I am querying whether the ANI discussion and the rationale for the block cover the same grounds and noting I am not in the habit of varying other sysops actions without discussions. I would be grateful if you could comment at the ANI section in respect of this, and the request there if possible. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've responded at ANI. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Baby sitting?

Hi. :) I'm off to a conference this weekend, and I'm wondering if you can help babysit WP:CP. I'm here to work on it today, but won't be able to touch it again until probably Monday. (Unless I get back much earlier than expected on Sunday. Keep your fingers crossed for me. :D) If you're not available, no worries; I've asked another admin who does copyright stuff as well. And if nobody gets to it, oh, well. It's only a couple of days. It won't be that big a backlog. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure that's no problem - I'm not busy this weekend. I hope you enjoy the conference! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. :) I'll enjoy the somewhat exotic food (meaning: not cooked by me :D), but I'll still be plenty happy to get back! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The exotic food was very good. I'm not quite as happy to get back as I anticipated. :) That said, I'm very happy to get back to no backlog. Thank you very much for helping out. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it went well! Welcome back. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bumping elbows

Hi, Mkativerata. Sorry if I got in your way at CP today. I didn't mean to bump your elbows -- I guess we just hit it at about the same time. But thanks for zipping through there. It was nice to see that list dwindle so quickly. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you! I'm sorry it seems I got in your way - deleting an article while you were trying to stubbify it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no problem at all. I can go either/or on whether to delete or stub a lot of those articles -- mostly depending on the extent of the work involved. Anyway, see you around the shop while MRG is off gallivanting. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dragonman1986

I've now become the 4th editor he's reverted the exact same thing for on the St. George Dragons article (not including probable anon IP edits before that). Perhaps a block is needed?--Jeff79 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked him for edit-warring. Just be careful though - you're in edit-war danger zone as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI 216.228.241.29 (talk · contribs) is requesting relief from the related autoblock. Bovlb (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm pretty sure it's a socking attempt. I'll leave the rfu for an admin more familiar with the workings of autoblocks. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

mfd

Very fair well-expressed close. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DGG for your input into the discussion. It was at a difficult place between "delete" and "no consensus" but yours and a couple of other late !votes made a delete close untenable, and therefore made my job much easier.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and belated thanks for the welcome! [2] --Mkativerata (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP and Jonathan Cook

In general, I agree that mere 'political criticism' of a public figure is hard to exclude under WP:BLP. But the literal text of BLP seems to imply that a reliable source must be used for the criticism. Camera.org would not meet that hurdle. With some patience, I imagine that an editor who believed that our article on Cook was unbalanced might be able to put together a similar critique based only on things published in newspapers. But someone would have to do that. Nobody is likely to step forward to claim that CAMERA has a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I well understand that CAMERA couldn't be a reliable source for statements of fact. But it is being used as a source here for its own views - in that respect, the source has to be reliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Thompson

I'm going to give you an opportunity to reconsider your decision to keep the article. I'd like to remind you that precisely 0% of keep articles actually took the fact that NSPORTS specifically requires that articles meet the GNG into account, that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that although made in good faith, it was very clearly established that votestacking had taken place. Regards, —WFC— 07:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but both NSPORT and GNG are guidelines, of equal weight, are subject to the community's consensus, and I haven't seen any evidence that this consensus was affected by votestacking. Bear in mind WP:N says right at the top "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right." The view that NSPORT is a mere "guide" to GNG has never been accepted by the community despite what editors have inserted into NSPORT. It was certainly never the way WP:ATH was applied. I was well involved in NSPORT's development and that was never its intent or purpose. But of course feel free to fire up a DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If you were heavily involved in the development of NSPORTS, then how did you consider yourself fit to close? Vested interest if you ask me. You are certainly in no position whatsoever to judge the relative merits of NSPORTS and the GNG. —WFC— 08:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok well you can raise that at the DRV with any diffs that suggest improper involvement on my part.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I did not see the AfD when open, if I had would have !voted Delete as fails WP:GNG, however the close is correct, in the case of Adam Thompson, it looks like the consensus is to keep even absent significant coverage. However consensus can change over time. Codf1977 (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect, for reasons I have explained in the DRV. Regards, —WFC— 09:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Adam Thompson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adam Thompson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —WFC— 09:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I have commented there. Regarding this edit summary, I should note that I am open to recall.[3] I'd advise that it might be best to see how the DRV plays out before pursuing that, however.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for quickly looking into and dealing with that disruptive user. Financestudent (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries - thank you for the report. He/she's requested unblocking so we'll see how that goes. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Mary MacKillop

Thanks for protecting Mary MacKillop, it really is a waste of all our time reverting nonsense edits multiple times, every day. Just to give you a heads up that she will be canonized in Rome this coming Sunday, on 17 October 2010, by Pope Benedict XVI. The protection ends on 18 Oct, so you may need to extend it for a few weeks after she is made a saint. When the date of the canonization was announced earlier this year, we saw a huge increase in vandalism. Cheers! – S Masters (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'm not sure what triggered the rush of vandalism over the last few days, but it sounds like it will definitely be worth considering an extension of the protection on the 18th.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect her impending canonization to become Australia's first saint has resulted in increased media coverage, and possibly additional attention from school children studying in MacKillop educational institutions. – S Masters (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should add a {{pp-protected}} template to the page in case there are any reasonable new contributions? – S Masters (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. On the one hand, it's good to have a clear explanation for potential IP editors that the page is protected and that edit requests can be made on the talk page. On the other hand, a large template on the top of the article distracts readers (and on a high traffic article, readers will outnumber potential IP editors thousands to one). In such circumstances I prefer avoiding the big template, and instead using the small siverlock in the top right corner. But it's a matter of preference, I certainly won't revert anyone who puts up the big template.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I was just wondering because I've also been working on the 2010 Commonwealth Games (with the template), which has a far bigger audience. As I believe MacKillops' vandalism is due to an upcoming event (i.e. short term), perhaps it's something to consider. – S Masters (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As Mary MacKillop is now officially known as Mary of the Cross as decreed at her canonisation, we will need to move the page, and redirect Mary MacKillop to Mary of the Cross. I'm not sure how this will work with the page being semi-protected. - S Masters (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That move would need to be done by an admin because it will require the deletion of the Mary of the Cross redirect. I'm happy to do it but is that kind of move correct? Just looking through Category:20th-century Christian saints there doesn't seem to be a precedent for it. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me check and get back to you. - S Masters (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In the most recent instance (they don't happen often), would be Padre Pio, where his official canonised name is used. - S Masters (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I think it would be best to propose the move on the talk page through Wikipedia:Requested moves because it doesn't seem clear-cut. Then after seven days or so it will get closed depending on the consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will make the proposal. Cheers. - S Masters (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested revision for Network Automation Company Page (including external link section below) I am independent and have no affiliation with the company

Network Automation, Inc. is a Los Angeles-based software company. The company develops business process automation software to simplify repetitive IT processes. Founded in 2004 and based in Los Angeles, the private company claims over 9,000 clients in over 40 countries. As of October 2010, the company claims 34 employees.

Products

The company’s main products are AutoMate and AutoMate BPA Server, which run on Windows operating systems. The products are designed to simplify repetitive IT tasks, which can include job scheduling, automated FTP, batch processing, automated backups, scripting, automated testing, event log monitoring and automated reporting.

• Automate – Automate software presents a GUI-based interface for automating IT processes. The base version is called Automate Professional, and an enhanced version is called Automate Premium.

• AutoMate BPA Server - AutoMate BPA Server software provides centralized management of process management across the entire enterprise. The base version is called Automate BPA Server Standard Edition, and an enhanced version supporting more than 10 machines is known as Automate BPA Server Enterprise Edition.

History

In 1995, founder Dustin Snell started Unisyn Software, a developer of desktop automation software for Windows systems. In July of 2004, Mr. Snell renamed and relaunched the company as Network Automation, Inc.

External links

• NetworkAutomation.com, official corporate site for Network Automation

Timtempleton (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I assume you're asking about the deletion of Network Automation? You're free to recreate the article but it is going to need reliable independent sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I'm suggesting an update for the Network Automation Wiki entry that was deleted for being too sales-pitchy. I'm researching the company for a job search, and noticed their entry was removed. I tried to rewrite it in a non-advertising way, removing all subjective claims and keeping with information that is readily available on their website. If I can find some third party sites that also feature similar information, will that suffice? Perhaps a press release on another site with the info in the footer?

Timtempleton (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Press releases are something to avoid because they're not reliable. Looking through Google news, it's difficult to find non-promotional material among the press release stuff. All you need to do to avoid speedy deletion is (a) make a credible assertion that the company is significant; and (b) avoid the article being promotional in nature. But to survive a deletion discussion the article will need reliable sources.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

To avoid the speedy deletion, I'm going to submit a recent Community Choice Gold medal the company won from Windows IT Pro Magazine http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/services/2009-windows-it-pro-editors-best-and-community-choice-awards/9.aspx. It also won an Editor's choice award from CNET http://download.cnet.com/AutoMate/3000-2084_4-10000220.html?tag=mncol and product of the week from NetworkWorld. http://www.networkworld.com/slideshows/2009/110909-products-of-the-week.html#slide12 This should establish that the company is significant. The text I posted above is the rewritten entry, which was designed to be neutral and non-judgmental in tone. Does this satisfy your criteria to remove the speedy deletion flag, and to post the entry I've written? I also found a few reliable third party sources to attest to the content in the entry: an article from Processor validating the soltution http://www.processor.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/P3129/13bp29/13bp29.asp&guid and the CEO's profile from Spoke describing the formation of the company www.spoke.com/info/p7Cgar9/DustinSnell. As a small but rapidly growing private company, there won't be SEC or other financial filings, which is why I used the neutral verbiage "the private company claims over 9,000 clients in over 40 countries. As of October 2010, the company claims 34 employees." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What I'd suggest is to work on the text, including all the sources you've linked, here. That will allow you to improve the article without the threat of it being deleted, and once you think it's ready, move it onto the mainspace. You don't need an administrator's permission to recreate the article, but I'd be happy to have a look. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I rewrote the article using your suggestions and moved it to the mainspace.

Timtempleton (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Craigery Morgan

This article may have been promotional or had promotional verbage. This young man has promoted himself well enough to have nearly 5 million views on YouTube, along with being the subject of newspaper and TV news stories. I understand that this doesn't make him a household name, or even a celebrity. I also understand that few of these views occurred before your deletion. But it seems to me that he is, indeed, noteworthy enough to pass Wikipedia guidelines. If you enter his name in a search engine, you might be satisfied that criteria is now met to warrant such a page. mp2dtw (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure - if you can write a non-promotional article demonstrating coverage in reliable sources go for it. The old article was deleted because it was promotional. That doesn't in any way stop anyone from creating a non-promotional article. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3#User:Sulmues reported by User:Athenean (Result:2 weeks)

Do you mind if I add a WP:ARBMAC sanction on top of the block? I'm thinking about renewing the 1RR that expired in June. T. Canens (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely I was just thinking of an appropriate sanction, and that sounds fine. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. T. Canens (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - given my total lack of experience in AE, better you than me. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

BIZ INDIA - "Hang On" tag placed here

Re: Article on BIZ INDIA Here is the {{hangon}} tag for BIZ INDIA Kumar (Kem) Balani

I suggest writing an article here. Make sure that the article isn't worded in a promotional tone and uses reliable sources. You might also want to read WP:COI. When the article is ready, you can move it back to BIZ INDIA. But make sure it has sources and is neutral, otherwise someone will delete it again. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to remove PC when semiprotecting?

You recently extended the protection of Mary MacKillop, however, Pending Changes is still active on the page. Is this the desired effect?  Ⓢock  19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - fixed! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Pixar film references

Hey if you don't mind can you also restore the talk page or at least send me a copy of it? It might help the DRV. JDDJS (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I've restored the talk page. If the DRV is closed as "endorsed", it'll get deleted again by whoever closes the DRV. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

David Helfenbein

requesting permission to edit David Helfenbein, removing all criticisms that existed prior to initial deletion. Thank you. -Walks22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walks22 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop recreating this page - doing so will get you blocked. As you know, the page was deleted following a community discussion. You can only have that reviewed by asking for a deletion review. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mkativerata

Hi, thanksyou for your message. Things are going well on Wikipedia, still finding my feet, but will let you know if i need any help.Akmar1979 (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong allegations

I'm obviously in the minority on this, but am having a very hard time understanding something that many others apparently see as a blatantly obvious. Can you help?

You wrote, "The first sentence of the article starts "Although Lance Armstrong has never been found guilty...". Obviously a BLP nightmare will follow." So, because the article says that, it's obviously going to be a BLP nightmare? It is my understanding that as long as the material presented is "written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources", it's compliant with BLP, and not a problem at all, much less a nightmare. OJ Simpson was never found criminally guilty of murder, yet we have O. J. Simpson murder case. Is that a BLP nightmare too?

The content in question was first introduced in 2004 in the main article, where it remained (and evolved as the list of well documented allegations grew) until it was so large it was decided to spin it out into a separate article last month. The content did not change once that happened. If there was no BLP nightmare for all those years, what makes you so certain it will become one that a deletion is warranted? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't neutral. An entire article devoted to untested allegations of criminality or cheating against an individual is anything but neutral. It can only be neutral if it is presented in context, ie on the Armstrong page where it can be appropriately balanced. In any case, let's discuss at DRV not here. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to respond there under the entry I highlighted with a bold Question. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:sulmues

This is user:Sulmues. Please unblock me: I apologize for using the term "vandal" and for edit warring. Won't happen in the future. In the meanwhile I have lost my password for user:Sulmues, so would possibly like to edit under this new account. Please review also this. Thanks Makaperqafe (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this has been dealt with by others during my sleep. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

e-mail

Hello, Mkativerata. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sorry should have left this when I sent it. Codf1977 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I don't check mail often - I've replied now. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Flowers Gallery

Hi there, you suggested that I get in touch to make our page Flowers Gallery ok to display. I'm a bit confused... a colleague set-up and it was our first addition to Wikipedia. We followed the template of another significant London gallery - White Cube. Grateful for your help with making the page ok. Thanks, Jeanette 86.166.229.178 (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - the problem with the page was that it relied on material copied from the gallery's website. There are two issues with this: first, copyright; and second, the text came across as being promotional. I saw the note on the talk page that the gallery had given permission for the text, but that can only overcome the first problem (and even then, permission needs to be established by an email to wikipedia).

The way to overcome this is to write a new article based mainly on sources other than the gallery's website. Sources like this and this and there seem to be quite a lot of news stories searchable in google that mention the gallery. The White Cube article relies on independent sources like the Daily Telegraph and The Independent.

The best thing to do might be to work on an article here and then move it to Flowers Gallery when ready. I'd be happy to help.--Mkativerata (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mkativerata/Ahmad_Nasharuddin&diff=next&oldid=392844019

Could the person you're reverting possibly be an impersonator, or are you just edit warring with yourself? The account's userpage says that it's "a disclosed alternate account of User:Mkativerata." The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha I wondered if someone would pick up on this. I'm just edit-warring with myself for the purposes of creating an RFA test example. I've confirmed the alternate account as mine here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

...and within minutes the sock is warned for making a personal attack against his master :) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I caught the incivility in the edit summary when I was patrolling edits from new accounts. I googled the name and there do seem to be people named that from Malaysia. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have picked a more obscure name. It's hard because there aren't many permutation of Malay names. Would you mind if I deleted the article and restored it without the last two revisions? It will be a cleaner test example that way. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, sorry I messed up your test hehe. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for the comment on the talk page - that will be a useful addition to the example.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

There's a message for you on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/The_Utahraptor_2#Q4. Hey at least I didn't mess this one up ahead of time. :P Gigs (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I toned down the edit summaries to slip it past you :) --Mkativerata (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice RfA questions

Really well thought out. Perhaps hard enough that no one will agree on the right answer (in at least a few cases), but really nicely done and get to the heart of things much more than most any other I've seen. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I'm glad at least one of the RfAs is now turning around despite the question. THe problem is as you say different views and different expectations. The Utahraptor is getting pummelled for one unwise statement in an otherwise good answer. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the offer! I think it is something I want to do, but honestly given my job not for a bit (summer is much lighter for me, I'm unlikely to have a week I can be easily available at all times) and I fully expect to get shot down the first time for fairly valid reasons. But no reason not to try it. Hobit (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt you'll get shot down. I would expect opposes for your focus on the project space but other deletion specialists like Tim Song and Ron Ritzman sailed through despite the same issues. Let me know if/when you're keen. I agree you definitely want to have a fairly light off-wiki week. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Deletion specialist"? :) I don't think I like describing myself that way. I actually hate hitting the delete button. About question 4 though. My take on the opposes it generated is that some were expecting him to say he'd block a fellow admin. However, the way you phrased it, the hypothetical admin has a reasonable good faith belief that he's enforcing WP:BLP. I would be reluctant to block anybody, admin or not, in that case. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a clear answer. The BLP exception to 3RR is meant to be narrowly concerned so doubt the exception applied, but a block would arguably have been unwarranted. I'm not sure the opposes wanted a block, just that the answer should at least discuss the admin's poor conduct. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, point taken on the part about discussing the admin's poor behavior. However, I've always felt that too many people think that WP:BITE means we have to dismiss poor behavior by newbies and the most common poor behavior exhibited by newbies is "obstinance". When new to a wiki, a webforum, a usenet newsgroup or other net venue, (or a "real life" venue) it's wise to sit back and observe how things are done before "diving in" just to see how things work. Now here at WP we have be bold which means we encourage "diving in" but that doesn't mean you keep trying to do something over and over and over again no matter how many times you are reverted or how many people object. Doing so is wrong, not because of WP:3RR or any of our other TLAs but because it's disrespectful. It's the same as if an American tourist goes to another country, ignores and makes no attempt to learn the local customs and demands that everybody do things "his" way. The newbie should have stopped at "revert 1" and attempted to discuss the matter, not because of our "rules" but because it's the right thing to do for anybody in any new situation. (however, I'll concede that one of the major flaws here is that it's harder for some newbies to figure out how to use talk pages then it is to edit articles. LiquidThreads might help with that) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes the answer shouldn't dismiss the actions of the newbie either. He should get a helpful (not template) warning/notice on his/her talk page.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's A Good Life"

Nobody had yet added the opening and closing narrations on your page until I noticed it. I "transcribed" Rod's narration directly from the episode itself...and perhaps I literally emphasized his punctuation and pauses while doing so. But that's how I heard it- and that's how it came across. Thanks for noticing my additions! (I'm also happy someone else added "Next week's preview" of "Deaths-Head Revisited" from the end of the episode as well- I've never seen it, because it was never included in off-network film prints of the series)- Informationfountain, 5:27, 29 October 2010

Second opinion needed

Hi. A contributor is requesting the input of another administrator on the question of non-free quotations, not related to the above at all. But your involvement in the above brought you to mind. :) He seems to be intending to be reasonable; you can see what it looked like before he cut it down. My concern is that while he has appropriately shortened the quotes, they are still used baldly. He feels as though WP:NFC does not require that the quotes be incorporated into a critical analysis. I'm looking for an impartial opinion on the question. Are you up for it? If so, please see his talk page. If not, please let me know, and I'll look for another admin with copyright experience who might be. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure I'll head over there now. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. :) If you happen to have any other spare time, in wake of the latest plagiarism/copyright uproar on ANI, User:SandyGeorgia has suggested that we do something that can be publicized in the Signpost. I'm collecting thoughts at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Copyright. Yours would be most welcome! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep an eye on the page. The message I get from that TL;DR on ANI (sorry I haven't been up to date on this - I made a personal pledge not to watchlist ANI and I only glance at it once every couple of days) is rapid content creation for reward and recognition is a problem. I'd certainly agree with that, working through the CCI for User:De Administrando Imperio it seems we've had quite a lot of copyvios on the main page through ITN over time. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn you!

For beating me in asking the best questions in RfAs :):):) The effort you are making in posting such questions is highly appreciated, as I believe (and I think others do too) that such questions are necessary to test a prospective admin perfectly well. Thanks and best regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Wifione. I've got another one up my sleeve. :) --Mkativerata (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You won't believe it. I search for your questions these days in RfAs... :) Great work. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RNB Research

hi mkativerata : RNB Research is market research company and is the company which is prdeciting election for last 15 years accurately. We want this to be added to wikipedia be noted we are not promoting or advertsing anything we request you to please consider the same. if you found anything in approprate please let us know we will let u knw the same. its reports are also published in Washington post as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnbradhey (talk • contribs) 05:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - the problem with this article was that it appeared promotional. For example, "a leading provider for online research globally" is a promotional phrase, and it was also unsourced. It is always difficult writing about an organisation that you have connections to: see WP:COI. It's critical to ensure that each part of the article is supported by a reliable source and not a press release. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

HI MKATIVERATA: THANKS FOR YOUR OPINION : WE DO NOT WANT TO PROMOTE OUR COMPANY AS I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER.WE JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION THAT RNB RESEARCH IS THE ONLY RESEARCH ORGANISATION IN INDIA WHICH IS PREDICTING OPNION POLLS ACCURATELY SINCE LAST 15 YEARS. OUR CEO INTERVIEW ALSO HAS BEEN IN WASHINGTON POST. PRESS RELEASE ARE FACTS OF FINDINGS ON THE ORGANISATION. WE HAVE JUST GIVEN GENREAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPANY. AND IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES REQUIRED WHICH YOU CONSIDER AS PROMOTION WITH REGARD TO WIKIPIDEA TO LET US KNOW WE WILL RECORRECT AND PUBLISH AGAINST APPROVAL FROM YOUR END. WOULD APPREACITE IF YOU COULD BUT THE PAGE BACK AND WE WOULD REWRITE AND GET APRROVAL FROM YOU. WE ASSURE YOU THERE WILL BE NOT PROMOTINAL MATERIAL ALL WILL BE ACTUALS FACTS AND INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnbradhey (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't need approval from anyone to re-write the page. Just re-write it without relying on press releases and including promotional material, and will have a better chance of survival. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

RAdhey Thanks for your info will rewrite the page and assure you there will be just information on the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnbradhey (talk • contribs) 10:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

hello i have rewrtten the matter and just give information please confirm if it is ok or any more changes required.

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN

Hey, would you mind elaborating on this edit summary? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I've done so here [4]. I figured as Boehner had only been up for a few minutes it wouldn't hurt to revert back to him until any attribution issues with the Russian bloke could be sorted. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

1Malaysia

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Monkeyassault (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

?!?

You're blocking someone for 48 hours for removing a hatnote? – iridescent 23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, for edit-warring over it. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I read the timings, he was warned, immediately stopped, and you went ahead and blocked him anyway (20 minutes after he'd last touched the page in question). Even by Wikipedia standards that's an impressively dubious block. – iridescent 23:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That view is not consistent with his edit summaries. Anyway if the block is dubious he needs only to appeal it. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Giano never uses edit summaries—those are just the first sentence of text from his posts, which are added by default. Which edit summary are you objecting to? – iridescent 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

[5] is an example of a customised edit-summary that indicated he intended to continue whatever the consequences. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, and this. Both were over three hours old, however; I hadn't looked back that far. Again, he immediately stopped the moment it was pointed out he'd broken 3RR; while I agree ANI isn't the best place for that discussion and it probably should have been closed, this does reek of an attempt to cover up the problems Rlevse left. – iridescent 23:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That impression is fully justified. I am a little concerned the edit-warring was designed to get blocked and thus further create the impression of a cover-up. I'm not particularly influenced about the warning issue: he knows 3RR and appeared to set out on a course to break it. Warnings are not a prerequisite for 3RR blocks, only really for noobs. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Drama mongering block. Please remove it. Vodello (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Totally feutile and vindictive block. However, it served to prove my point so perhaps not quite so feutile in retrospect.  Giacomo  08:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Piedmont University

Please excuse my not asking first, but I restored this article-- and completely rewrote, with at least some actual sources. I did it in connection with working on the PROD'd article on J. William Stinde, its President. Quite obviously, both articles were contaminated with COI & were as submitted quite unacceptable, but I found I needed to rewrite them together. (If I had not been going to rewrite, I certainly would have not restored it--I have no issue with your deletion--it met my standards also for G11.) I've taken a good deal of interest in these unaccredited university articles, trying to sort out the ones that are actually real, from the purely imaginary. Since I was able to document it has State of California approval to operate, it is presumably a real university. I'm not really satisfied with either article at this point, but am asking for further sources. If you're really unhappy with this, please just let me know and take it-- or both-- to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey DGG - thanks for letting me know. I have absolutely no issue: I see G11 as being about the content of an article not a question of whether we should have an article in the first place. So I have no problem with it being restored in a non-G11 version. Cheers. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination)

Just a note to say thank you for carrying out a thankless and Herculean task with a such a thorough and thoughtful approach. I'll let you know if ownership issues arise during the course of cleaning up the article. Until recently, it has been virtually impossible to tackle clean-up and misrepresented sources in any systematic way, for reasons which you've already noticed. Hopefully, your closing statement will discourage that kind of stuff in the future.

I do have one request, which may have been lost in the morass of the discussion—the article's name. The Irving Literary Society is not suitable for two reasons: (1) Per WP:MOS and the historical sources, "The" is not part of the title of the organization and should not be part of the article title (2) There are several entities in the US called the "Irving Literary Society", most of which have a longer and well-documented history and are far more notable than this one. I would strongly suggest using Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). What do you think? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Voceditenore - I did note that request in the AfD and to be perfectly honest I put it in the "think about that later" basket as it seemed to involve more than a simple page move. Is there anything that needs to be done other than just moving the article and the talk page? If there isn't, I'd be happy to. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this will only involve moving the article and the talk page to the new title. The only other adjustment that might be needed is the article title in the {{copied}} templates on Talk:The Irving Literary Society and Talk:Cornell literary societies once it's moved. (The article had been cut and pasted from the latter.) It might also be useful for future editors to add an {{oldafdfull}} to Talk:The Irving Literary Society. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that should all be done now. Please let me know if I've missed anything, and as I said, I'm happy to help with any ongoing problems. --Mkativerata (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for making sure that those templates were updated. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I also want to thank you for both concluding the AfD and for moving the article. I know it must have been a lot to sort through. While I voted the other way, I can see the merits of both sides and appreciate your work. Racepacket (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  No worries - thanks to you and Voceditenore for your tireless work on the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• And the manner in which this was done is a credit to the Wiki culture. You have tutored a number of youngsters, and oldsters, on critical thinking and due process. Thanks so much, to all three of you (dance-floor toe stepping aside . . . )Cmagha (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

I recently submitted my first wiki article called Caroline's Cakes. And it was deleted. I know that you are not allowed to use this site as a means of promotion. That was not my intention when I wrote the article. I simply wanted to post an article that talked about the history of a specific type of cake and talk about a one of the only companies that actually still makes this cake today seeing as there are very few of them. I was curious as to why my article was deleted and what I should do to have it properly submitted. --Caitlin Youngk 20:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitlin1022 (talk • contribs)

Hi Caitlin. There were two main problems with the article in the form that it was created. First, it used very promotional language. A couple of examples are "In all aspects of Caroline’s Cakes the company continually strives to ‘Take it to the Seventh Layer." and "Her Coconut Cloud, Southern Chocolate and Carrot Caramel Delight are also considered to be the best cake for their individual type." The second problem (although this wasn't why it was deleted) is that the article didn't use any reliable sources to directly support any of the article material. Instead, a list of references was put at the end of the article. The best way to avoid promotional material is to use footnotes to show that each part of the article is supported by a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2010 north Malaysian floods

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Visit to India

I would like to request review of your decision to delete this article. While I concede and I am a biased party, I believe at least two administrators failed to see a consensus of any sort earlier in the discussion,(one who relished the discussion and one who stated directly in the discussion that there was no consensus) and IMHO the discussion which followed certainly didn't lead further towards a consensus for delete. Thanks :)--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - the short answer is that I don't pay much, if any, attention to re-listings. This was re-listed once, and in my view, was re-listed inappropriately. It should have been closed on the 13th. Per WP:RELIST, relisting isn't a substitute for "no consensus" or any other close. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I take your point about relisting. However there was a much more explicit comment by an admin (UltraExactZZ who was commenting as a neutral admin) later in the discussion. Obviously, you're entitled to disagree, and perhaps obliged to make some sort of decision, but I felt that in that case the grounds for any consensus was very limited.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I pay no attention at all to comments during the course of the AfD about where the consensus lies (whether by involved editors or uninvolved admins). I won't pretend that every other admin would have closed it as "delete", but that was the fairly clear outcome in my mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. I'll ask one more question and try to keep it to the delete decision itself. You stated that Keep voters failed to demonstrate enduring notability. What evidence could have demonstrated that in this case, given that the event took place very recently? Coverage from reliable sources has 'endured' up to the present. Obviously, no one can speculate as to the future, but that makes it rather difficult to prove enduring notability, no? Cheers :)--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It is quite difficult without crystal-balling, that's ons of the reasons why AfDs on articles on recent events are always contentious. What was needed was evidence, from reliable sources, about the impact of the visit, even if that evidence was in the nature of expectation. I didn't see that; but more importantly, there was no consensus for the view that there was any such demonstrable impact. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree consensus unfortunately did not exist, though as I contended earlier IMHO there was little consensus either way. Perhaps later it will be possible to gauge that better. Still, I do feel that evidence of impact was presented such as official reactions from foreign ministers of unrelated countries, such as Brazil, China, and Germany). Much of the perceived impact of course centred around Obama's endorsement of India to become a permanent UNSC member, which drew extensive reactions (is that 'impact'? I'd say so but I guess others disagree). Personally I think that other examples could have been presented in more detail and the impact discussed further but unfortunately the climate of the debate was rather hot. Anyway, thanks for your comments.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITN – please revert

You are in dire breach of WP:NPOV in pulling an article from T:ITN simply because you object to sourcing some statements from the People's Daily. Please revert your action immediately. Physchim62 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Calm down - why not fix the article? The article relies substantially on inappropriate sources (note that the sources are used on multiple occasions for key parts of the article). --Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I've said, the article is sourced from numerous different news agencies. If you think it needs to be "fixed", go find the presumed NPOV violation and fix it yourself. In the meantime, put it back up on T:ITN, or I will ask at AN/I that it be restored. Your action was way out of order. Physchim62 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Physchim62 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Your ITN essay - Read your new ITN essay on your user page. I share some of your concerns as it's often one of the most dubious, POV-slanted areas of Wikipedia, and it seems to open Wikipedia to all the dangers enjoyed by a professional news service with few of the attendant protections and rewards. I'm a bit in-and-out on Wikipedia these days but if you end up getting involved in a policy discussion on the issue feel free to let me know about it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks very much - your comment just came as I pulled a posting from ITN due to plagiarism! --Mkativerata (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Colombia floods

You should have slightly modified the text so that the text is not as exact as the sources. BY directly removing the text. It appears as if you have simply blanked the article. In this case, the article is NOT required. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"You should have slightly modified the text so that the text is not as exact as the sources." There is a word for that: plagiarism. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism!!! Huh!!! Then just explain me how we can use the source to make the article. Whatever we place. It is because of the sources from where we collect the information. In this case. All Wikipedia articles are the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:Close paraphrasing.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That you say "All Wikipedia articles are the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit" suggests more of your contributions might be copyright violations? Is this an approach you have taken to other articles? If so, I must implore you to stop: copyright violations are serious and can lead to blocking.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that. I have not done that to any article before. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I find your second block of this editor inappropriate and excessive. We do not block editors on request, especially not in a situation like this. Suggest you adjust the expiry date. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the block and its length to be quite appropriate. Indefinite blocks for copyright violations are the norm. As the editor said he didn't want to return, bumping it up to indefinite makes sense because if he ever changes his mind he'll have to demonstrate a willingness to comply with copyright. If he's not blocked indefinitely, he could come back a few months down the track and if no-one noticed no-one could check his contributions. What would you do? Expose the project to the ongoing risk of copyright violations? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the block has now been overturned, otherwise I would have overturned it myself. Please act with more decorum in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It was "overturned" because the editor retracted his retirement - I would have scaled back the block myself if I wasn't beaten to it. You see, it's not a decorum issue at all. It's a matter of ensuring the block is properly calibrated to the circumstances. When the editor announced he was leaving the project for good, the circumstances changed and the block needed to be recalibrated to reflect the different kind of harm it was designed to prevent. As I said above (and you don't appear to have noted), that harm was a potential return to the project at some indefinite time in the future of a confirmed copyright violator without any community oversight. As I said to him (without any lack of decorum at all) when I extended the block, if he ever wanted to return, all he needed to do was request an unblock. Now that the editor has re-engaged with the project, the block can be recalibrated back to a block of definite length, because we can simply monitor his contributions when the block has expired. Do you understand therefore how this was no rogue action borne out of a lack of decorum, but an action designed to properly match the length of the block with the harm it was designed to prevent? --Mkativerata (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Bagyi Aung Soe

I saw your comment at Template talk:Did you know#Bagyi Aung Soe and responded there. I have gone back and compared the article and sources, and can't see the problem. Obviously they tell the same story and include the same facts. This is bothering me. Specifics? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Check the latest version. I can't see a way to retain the concept "painting should not merely be a literal illustration but should convey the underlying truth", important in understanding the artist's struggles, without a degree of similarity to the source, which is where the concept comes from. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  Would it be possible to quote the words used in the source? That's usually the best way of conveying a particular form of words without trespassing into close paraphrasing territory. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I have done that. It should be legitimate to quote one sentence from an article on his life. The problem here is that the source makes the point clearly and simply. If they waffled on the way most critics do, it would be easy to capture the essence in very different words. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

re: pointish editing

continuing debate from here:

Again, if you have no objections to the contents of the article you should not have removed it from DYK. As per verifiability, I suggest you read Wikipedia:V#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. The obituary by Sen, obviously a sympathetic account of Mishra, is used to a great degree but the article is not solely based on it. For example, the "Political legacy" section is based on three different references (Sen, who is supportive of Mishra; Karat, who is clearly critical of Mishra; and an article in Frontline, a major political magazine in India). Moreover, claims in Sen's article that I found dubious (such as Mishra's supposed reluctance to accept the nomination as general secretary) have not been included in the wiki article. --Soman (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I accept that you may have exercised discretion in your use of the source, but once you accept it is a "obviously sympathetic account" it simply can't be used to "a great degree". We would use this as a substantial source for our article on David Cameron. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have zero problems relying on http://www.conservatives.com/People/David_Cameron.aspx to say that Cameron studied at Eton College or that his wife's name is Samantha. I would not copy-paste the passage "David Cameron's philosophy has always been making sure people are in control and that politicians are their servants, not their masters. His belief in social responsibility, not state control, as the best way to solve problems is already evident in the decisions he has made since the General Election." Now, the there is an issue of systematic bias with regards to sources. The info on Cameron's college eduaction or names of his immediate family members would probably be availible in other sources, such as websites of major British newspapers. Thus using the Tory website as a reference is superflous. In the case of Mishra the situation is different, I could not find any other English-language online reference with a detailed biographic record. Now Mishra is hardly an obscure figure, his party pulled 100,000s of votes (more than 1 million, I think). But rural Bihar (the bastions of Mishra) is not as cyber-connected as Hastings. --Soman (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can well understand the systemic bias issues: I've created hundreds of articles on Malaysian politicians and it's tough. But the response to systemic bias is not to lower standards. The fact/opinion distinction on which you argue is very illusory and not recognised by policy. Unreliable sources can misrepresent, skew or selectively present facts to promote a particular viewpoint, which is a much more powerful way of pov-pushing than obvious opinion. It means such sources are unreliable full stop. The source in this case was used for much more than basic personal details - it was used as the main source for the subject's history of political activity.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you don't have any objection to any claims in the article, right? As per WP:V; I would suggest that if you create your own standards, don't impose them on others. The sourcing at the Mishra article is not perfect but perfectly acceptable, no-one at T:TDYK voiced any sourcing concerns for the 8 days it was nominated there. --Soman (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

T:DYK is hopeless though, it routinely fails to pick up obvious things like plagiarism and BLP violations. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither of which applies in this case. So, do you have any objection to any claim made in the article? --Soman (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the wrong question. The article itself is objectionable because of the extensive use of an unreliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is perfectly ok per WP:V. --Soman (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Which says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."--Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should read the entire policy. That would give some clarity to the matter. (and do note the semantic difference between "should" and "must") --Soman (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're making much progress here anymore. Even though the issue is "stale" in a DYK sense, it might be worth wider input. We could take it to WP:RS/N; I'd also suggest the input of User:YellowMonkey a very experienced ex-arb who I recall is knowledgable about Indian politics.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we are not moving forward since you are not answering the question at hand. The point here is that you behaviour, arbitrarily removing a hook from DYK, is not acceptable. Wikipedia is a collective effort and if you want to improve the quality of DYK selection, participate at T:TDYK instead. --Soman (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've posted it on WP:RS/N for some wider input then. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Chelo61

We seem to have editconflicted, you blocked this editor just as I was in the process of declining the report. Note that the other editor in the dispute behaved just about as badly as Chelo61: he reverted 3 times, never started a talkpage discussion, and was accusing the other editor of vandalism and tendentious editing even before the first revert. Either both of them should be blocked or neither one should. Please let me know your decision as soon as possible; I don't want to wheel war but I do think it would be inappropriate to block just Chelo61. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)