User talk:SW3 5DL

07:12, October 13, 2024

While you're here, please consider signing the following petition: Wikipedia:Petition to the WMF on handling of interface changes

Finally, some good news for Frequent Flyers:[1]

Yangoon Township, Myanmar, Orphanage, Christmas 2006.

When Vandals care enough to say it best. . .

• Gun Powder [2].

• The Troubles [3]

Landon Donovan

[4]

Baby does faceplants

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS3dHKWVP7Y

Jude! What are you doing up there?

Nothing!

You know you're on Wikipedia when. . .

• The Care Bears article has a criticism section. [5].

Charles Barkley says he can still kick ass

[6].

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?ref=todayspaper

Leave messages starting here

Leave messages starting here:

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

New messages

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at CMBJ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFC/U on User:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban for user:Arzel. Many of the issue fell outside of discussion on TPM. With such a large community consensus and with arbitration committee only dealing with issues directly related to the TPM, I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here. You are invited to endorse this and to take part in the WP:RFC/U. Casprings (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you say something at the ANI? I'm certain you did not mention anything at ArbCom except recently on the talk page. Why this now? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Struck for non neutral working.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at PKT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of New-adult fiction for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New-adult fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New-adult fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the "hangon" template you placed on this article - those are only used where speedy deletion has been proposed, which is not the case here. The deletion discussion will run, normally, for seven days. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

need to know

Need help for an article being considered for deletion. How do I contact the 'rescue squad?' and is there a template I can use for that? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Well, it depends on exactly why it's being considered for deleletion. What article is it? Revent (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

New-adult fiction and there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason. And someone essentially blanked the page after the nom. I restored the content. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. There are some links at the top of that page. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I see now...Well, the 'rescue' is essentially the discussion on the articles for deletion thread...if you make your case with the interested people there, then you 'win'. You can ask other people you might think would be interested to weigh in, but you need to be careful about not WP:CANVASSING. Revent (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask contributors to the article. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Moderated Discussion at Tea Party movement

Let me say from the beginning that this is not canvassing. This is an attempt, with the best of intentions for Wikipedia, to resolve a problem.

• I think we should seriously consider Arthur's suggestion that we vote to ban Xenophrenic from this page ... I recommended that at ArbCom, but I'm not sure they'll do anything; unfortunately the Moderated Discussion page and the article's main Talk page are not appropriate places for such a discussion. The gentleman has been engaged in this behavior on several articles related to U.S. politics for several years. It's completely unacceptable. So I recommended, and I'm again recommending, a topic ban on all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed.
• I recommend RFC/U as they did with Arzel. Allegedly ANI is also an appropriate forum to begin with, but that has every likelihood of turning into a bloodbath. We need to go to RFC/U first to establish tone, numbers, and the body of evidence. You and Arthur could certify the RFC/U, we could discuss it, and then (if consensus suggests it) we could move to ANI and "vote" on a community ban. In an RFC/U followed by ANI, we do not need to rely on ArbCom to make the decision. We're the ones who have had to deal with this behavior on a daily basis, so we're the ones who are in the best position to see the problem and the solution with the greatest clarity. We'd need to bring SilkTork into it to ensure no one challenges its legitimacy.
• This should be done with the caveat that Xeno should have the option of asking for a removal of the topic ban, after a substantial period (six months to a year) of productive work on other articles. I'd like to believe that almost anyone can be rehabilitated, and he does have the potential to be a productive editor. And it is altogether possible that during the course of all these discussions, Xeno may accept that his behavior is unacceptable, and change his behavior without a topic ban at all. I am placing the same message on Arthur's page. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

All right, that sounds like a reasonable path to follow. And let's add that any removal of a topic ban will require he edit with a mentor. He appears to need the perspective a mentor can provide. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it takes two people to certify an RFC/U. I suggest you coordinate this with Arthur. Move forward, it'll be over in about a week, you can copy evidence from ArbCom and discuss it calmly, and then proceed to ANI. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you get it started, does it still take two more people? I thought it took only one, but then I don't get involved in these things. I spoke up for Arzel because it was totally unfair the way it was done. Thankfully the editor listened to the community and closed it. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done this before, the other person bailed out on me after a day, and I was left looking stupid. That isn't happening this time. I'm going in with three people certifying. I was hoping you and Arthur would start it since the two of you seemed motivated in the Moderated Discussion, and I'd step in if one of you bails out. But that's fine, I'll start it. I will be back with a link once it's started and you can certify it. Find a diff of one of your Talk page edits where you tried to reason with Xeno. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, will do. Send the link as soon as. Go round to Arthur and let him know. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the RfC/U: [7] Please certify it and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic. I think you'll be ablke to find some on the Moderated Discussion page. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize your schedule is difficult this week. All I'm asking for here immediately is certification of the RfC/U, which is just your four-tilde signature in the appropriate spot, plus a few diffs showing your attempts to resolve the issue with Xeno, which should be easy to find on the Moderated Discussion page. The deadline is roughly tomorrow night at midnight, West Coast time. Any evidence you present at a future date could just be a copy of whatever you're going to present at ArbCom. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumed

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. Comments such as "I think we should seriously consider Arthur's suggestion that we vote to ban Xenophrenic from this page, and I'd add we should vote on whether to topic ban him from Tea Party movement. It's obvious he is not here to edit in a collegial way, nor he is interested in neutral POV. His personal attacks, battles, and disruption are directly opposing the work here and hence, the work on the article", are unhelpful and provoke negative responses.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I left a suggestion on the discussion page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

SPA tags

The tags are not there to mark socks/meatpuppets - they give context to anyone wishing to add to/close the discussion. Please do not remove them again. I'm leaving on a trip, so I won't really be able to respond for the next few weeks, but remember that the more you cite WP:AGF, the less you are actually following WP:AGF (see Carbonite's law). Cheers, Ansh666 20:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• You seem oblivious to the fact that tagging these editors like that comes across as offensive and appears to be an attempt to add bias. It makes you look like you're standing in front of the article and waving off the admins from considering their contributions. I don't see any Wikipedia policy that says readers can't sign in and make a comment, nor is there a policy against what appears to be a single purpose account. We have lots of editors on Wikipedia who are revert only accounts and have been for years. I don't see anyone tagging all their edits. IMHO, tagging the editors like that adds bias. Their comments should have the same weight as any other editor's. Any editor can click on the contribs and make a judgement for themselves. But tagging them like that might well put off someone from reading their contribution and certainly it might cause them to discount it entirely. I find it offensive and akin to 'stacking the deck,' and certainly a failure to assume good faith. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between a SPA with 1000 edits and one with 3. Of course, from your perspective, I'm doing all of these things, but I honestly don't give a damn about the content of that page: I base all of my AfD commentary off policy ONLY, as do most ordinary participants. I'm sparing others the work of viewing the contribs of 3-4 IPs/accounts separately. It doesn't make their contributions any less valid to anyone without a previous bias. Also, there you go again with AGF. Anyhow, I'm actually going to go now, so later. Ansh666 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't come back to my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

New-adult fiction article

I saw your request in the Article Rescue Squadron talk page for people to examine this article. I did and decided to register a 'keep' vote. I did so, because I examined the article and many of the sources and I agree the subject should have its own page. Decided not to say anything on the Squadron talk page after someone made a comment about what I had said in another discussion. I always look at the subject's merits, or lack thereof, presented in each AfD discussion and vote my views. Bill Pollard (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great news. Well done you for taking the time to look it over. I've been working on rewriting the article with new sources. So much has happened with the subject since I started the article way back when that it really needs a good rewrite. Thanks for the support. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

== Administrators' noticeboard discussion on WP:RFC/U on Xenophrenic Xeno- from Greek: xenos; xeno 1. (Noun) stranger; foreigner; guest 2. (Adjective) different; foreign; alien; strange -phrenic from New Latin, Greek: phrenicus 1. (Adjective) of or relating to the mind or mental activity COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT Welcome to the complaints department! Please click the word [show] on the bar below that most closely represents your complaint: Xenophrenic is stalking me! Possibly true. If you have engaged in seriously disruptive editing practices (vandalism, libel, etc.) recently, I may have taken notice and made a mental note to follow-up on some of your edits. This is common practice, and is even recommended by Wikipedia Policy in many circumstances. Please don't take it personally, as I have nothing against you; it's the disruptive editing that irks me. If you feel that my extra attention to your edits is unwarranted, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you. It is also possible that we, coincidently, are crossing paths because we share an interest in some of the same subjects. If so, introduce yourself! Maybe we can both benefit through a sharing of information and ideas. Xenophrenic is not assuming good faith! You are right! As a general rule, I try to avoid making any assumptions, good or bad. WP:Assume good faith is a Wikipedia guideline, not a policy, which "editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I am one of those exceptions. I will still interact with proper civility and respect, as required, but be advised that I have left all assumptions about your intentions at the door where they belong. As taught to me by wikipedians of elevated standing yet poor judgement when I first started editing here, [8][9][10], assuming bad faith even to the point of taking comically bad actions is the norm for some. Common sense dictates that I base my 'faith' on available evidence only, and assume nothing. Xenophrenic is edit warring! You are mistaken. Please go back to the article in question and review the discussion page. You will find there a perfectly reasonable explanation of my edits. If you disagree with me for any reason, simply explain why on that same discussion page. If we both have the well-being of this Wikipedia project at heart, then we should be able to put any conflict easily to rest. If our disagreement concerns your edits to a biography of a living person, you should be aware that I will not compromise on issues involving libel or sources. I have been accused of edit warring only a couple times, and I'm happy to say my accusers are either banned from Wikipedia or clammed up in embarrassed silenceafter their accusations were shown to be wrong. Xenophrenic broke the Three Revert Rule! Wrong. I never have and (barring some technical glich or lag) I never will. Xenophrenic is canvassing! If I have done so, it has been limited, transparent and in a neutral manner. You are allowed to do the same. More eyes on a discussion, and hence more voices contributing, will likely bring good results for all concerned. Xenophrenic is using sockpuppets! You are mistaken, but you wouldn't be the first. Ironically, every single editor to accuse me of using sockpuppets is indefinitely banned for using sockpuppets. Should I be launching a Sockpuppet Investigation on you? Xenophrenic is being uncivil! No, I am not. You have very likely misunderstood what I was trying to say. I will admit to coming off a bit snarky at times, and I have been known to misjudge the level of informality I can apply to a particular discussion -- but please understand that I meant no disrespect; I intended no ill-will. If you feel seriously slighted, drop a note on my talk page and I'll see if I can muster up a sincere apology. Xenophrenic is not editing from a neutral point of view! You may need to explain in more detail here. My edits convey the views expressed in reliable sources, so your complaint is likely with the source of the information and not with this editor. Xenophrenic thinks he owns an article! As long as Wikipedia has a 'Watch Article' function, it may certainly appear this way. There are some tests you can run to determine if I own a particular article. (1) Try improving the article. If nothing happens, then you have found an article I definitely do not own. Conversely, (2) Try vandalizing the article. If I promptly revert your edits, then you have found an article I definitely do own. Xenophrenic is posting "walls of text" or extremely detailed responses again! Possibly true. I come from an era where ideas were expressed in books consisting of hundreds of pages; magazine and journal articles were many pages long; personal correspondence had actual paragraphs full of words. If you ask me to convey my thought in the format of an instant message or "tweet" popular today, I'll certainly make the attempt if that would be more comfortable for you. If you want understanding, however, it is very likely that you may simply need to force yourself to read through multiple sentences at a time as your predecessors have done for centuries. My complaint about Xenophrenic is not listed above. You may need to explain in more detail here. LinkDirectory5000 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}} TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! The Teamwork Barnstar For Xenophrenic. This is in appreciation of your efforts in working with others to build not only good articles, but in helping to make Wikipedia a collegial community. Well done, my friend. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC) The Half Barnstar Half a barnstar each to Elinruby and Xenophrenic - you guys bicker like cats and dogs, but somehow the result of your personal friction is damn good joint editing. The current state of the SOPA intro is something to be proud of, awesome job. Keep fighting I guess? Sloggerbum (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Hang in there. Notice that it isn't tea. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC) The Original Barnstar The Original Barnstar for positive contributions to the Tea Party movement discussions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC) ... And brownies. Don't make us grovel. †TE†Talk 09:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC) The Original Barnstar Thanks for all of the good and hard work putting that version together. I supported it and think it will directly or indirectly help move us forward. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry for undoing your edit even after your explanation on the Sam Harris article. I seriously want to create an "Apology Barnstar" to give to you. What do you have to do in order to make one? Yster76 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your dedication to Wikipedia. DMGUSA (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC) New to Wiki and stumbled across your user page. Just reading the allegations against you and your responses provided for a few hours of solid entertainment. Cheers! Lol Tommyv7326 (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC) == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. THe Link is here. Sorry, messed up the original notification. Casprings (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC) You had to deliberately go to Xenophrenic's User page, copy that content and then dump it here. That is vandalism. This is likely related to your failed RfC/U on Arzel, which you also "messed up." I don't know what axe you have to grind with Arzel and I don't care. And I don't know what you think you're accomplishing at ANI right now, but I don't want you dumping it here. Do not come back to my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me Bot, I swear. It was a trolly type IP. [11] Malke 2010 (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kissing stem loop may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Good news. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

help with MfD

I'm following the directions to nominate a page for MfD but when I preview it isn't coming out right. Thanks.

What you should put into the MfD page is just:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~

Replace "Reason why the page should be deleted" with your reason, but leave everything else unchanged. Don't replace "PAGENAME" with the name of the page. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have another go. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be helpful to annotate the (8?) links on the MfD page, as well as bracket correction on #4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Coronavirus frameshifting stimulation element (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Upstream and downstream

Kissing stem loop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Recombination

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

start Donovan Berlin article

Hello, Malke. Can you do me a favor? I started an article about Donovan Berlin, designer of the P-36 and P-40. Since I'm not registered, I need someone to move it from theDonovan Berlin talk page to its article page. Thanks for your help. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed you're busy IRL. I'll post my request at the Military History project, too. Thanks. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Go fix the references. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Malke, I appreciate it. Are named refs not allowed in the lead? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There's broken link. I'm trying to fix it. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, go back and add your cites one at a time, and then check preview to see how you're doing. I'll also do a reflinks later. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See Changes in Donovan Berlin article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant! Well done! And great with the photos. I was going to look for them today. Great job, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could bring it to FA. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think I may have exhausted all my available resources, until I check in with my local air museum library and archives next week. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. There's no rush. We can build it up gradually. I'm sure there's enough about him somewhere.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I put some suggestions for sources on the article talk page. I don't have access to them. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All right, I'll see what I can do. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Check out the Donovan Berlin article now- it perhaps should be relisted as Don R. Berlin was the more commonly used name. Nonetheless, the article now fully covers an interesting individual's life work. FWiW, lots of refs did show up, and I haven't even hit the local air museum library yet. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look now. I agree about moving it to Don R. Berlin as IP has suggested, although a Google search seems to return more Donovan Berlin's than Don R. Berlin. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your work there has been brilliant! I like the photos you've found. I moved the article to Don R. Berlin. Can we get it to GA? Malke 2010 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the additions you've made to his engineering info box. I was very happy to find that box. I figured somebody with engineering knowledge would have thought of it. It really works well. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		To Malke 2010, for beginning the work in creating and improving the Don R. Berlin article. What goes around ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind, thanks!

I heartily endorse Bzuk's action in giving you this award, Malke. Thanks for your help. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for asking me to participate. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic edit

It appears the edit you are concerned about took place on another page unrelated to the Tea Party. Please do not bring up matters unrelated to the Tea Party on the discussion page - if you have concerns about other editors there are venues for that. If you feel it might relate to matters regarding the Tea Party then you know that the procedure is to approach me directly. This is a warning not to do such a thing again or you will be blocked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, he made it on the moderated discussion. I just emailed it to you. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, wanted to mention, I don't know anything about any incidents on other pages involving this editor regarding any such comments. Apparently you have arrived here after Collect made this post on your talk page. [12]. Whatever that is, is not at all what I was referring to on the moderated discussion. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I am now aware of the incident on the Tea Party page, and have given a warning for that. I apologise to you for issuing the above warning before being fully aware of the facts. However, the caution to bring such concerns directly to me rather than raising them on the talkpage remains. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 05:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. And yes, your talk page would be the place. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 06:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help Desk

It would have been nice if you'd come back to the help desk and let us know you'd figured out what to do with Coronaviridae, so we didn't waste time on it for you. Rojomoke (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I meant to do just that but then sidetracked myself by putting up the new article. I'm sorry you went to all that trouble. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No biggie Rojomoke (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I shall owe you a favor, then. Malke 2010 (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Betacoronavirus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Morphology and Nidus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Herbert O. Fisher

See new article that came out of earlier Don R. Berlin development. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic job! Well done you. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monkeypox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Petition

Thanks for the big red notice about the petition. I didn't even know it existed. So much for great communication. I edited it. Grammar and punctuation. Signed it too as #31. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad you found it. I like the changes and didn't have any problems like others. But would have liked a heads up. Put up a notice on your talk page for others. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You are the better editor and I apologize profusely. You were kind to not mention how many rules I violated. I am not certain a notice about the Petition on my talk page would even be noticed. I do not know how to do it either. Would you help me? Again, I apologize to you. Very respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In the event of an emergency, start by taking your own pulse first. And use the elevator. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Need another favor

Hi, Malke 2010. I know you're very busy, but, when you get a minute, can you move something for me, again? Please move, from my talk page, what I've done on Desiderio Scaglia to article space. I'm still refining it, but it can be moved now. Could you also tag it so it says it was mostly translated from the article on the French Wikipedia? Thank you for your help. There's no rush (he's been dead for almost 400 years) <grin>. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done It was my pleasure. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Malke 2010. I owe you another one! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anytime. I'm getting the tag for it. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled across your request at the help desk and tagged the article page and the talk page (now they both look ugly). --108.45.72.196 (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OKay. Did you tell the Help page you'd done it? Malke 2010 (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I did, just now, and sort of continued the conversation with a question. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I went over there the same day and saw they'd responded and thanked them. I like to make sure to follow-up if we solve it beforehand. I'll take a look. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Barnstar for positive contributions to the Tea Party movement discussions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

MERS-CoV restructuring

Your opinion on improving the MERS-CoV article is appreciated here. ComfyKem (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it needs it. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate the concerns you have raised

• Have stated a RfC regarding this image to get wider community input [13].
• I do a great deal of organizing article per WP:MEDMOS and did not mean this to come across as a tit for tat [14]. Felt it was an improvement to the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm AGFing here but the timing and the fact that you'd never been to Legionnaires' disease suggests otherwise. I don't support desysopping you. Admins should be allowed to make mistakes. The test is whether they learn from them and improve over time. Regarding the RfC, I'll take a look at it, though I think this is something that could have been sorted on the talk page. But I am impressed that you started it. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

small informal request

Thank you for the kind thought of welcoming me on my ip talk page. One of the reasons I prefer to edit as an ip is to avoid personalized conflict. I have requested editorial help here, but am not sure exactly how else I can respond with a light touch to insistent accusations of vandalism/disruption (on my talk page and elsewhere) by a recent new user despite having pointed out that this is not what "vandalism" actually means. I would rather back off and would appreciate some thoughtful informal assistance, if possible, from an experienced editor not involved in WP:MED. Thank you, 81.157.7.7 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've looked over the edits. I'm not familiar with the article but it appears to be a content dispute. I don't see any vandalism on your part. I do see a bit of an edit war but there is talk page discussion so that might settle down. You're a WP:NEWBIE and you're not aware of all the rules. One of the rules is that we don't accuse editors of vandalism when it's really a content dispute, so Seppi333 might need a reminder. I don't know anything about his editing history. You don't have a named account and IP's are known for vandalism on Wikipedia. This makes it easy to call what you are doing vandalism.

There are some rules you need to know right away. WP:3RR, that's a big one and if you violate that you could be blocked from editing for a period of time. If you keep it up, especially editing as an IP, and administrator is likely to block you indefinitely, so learn that rule. The other is WP:BRD. You can make a bold edit, but if it gets reverted, you need to discuss on the talk page. About the sources, there is a noticeboard that helps to sort the quarrels over sources used. In general, I'd day the age of a source does not preclude it's use unless it refers to content no longer considered relevant, especially in scientific/medical articles. Newer studies that supplant old information would be preferred.

If an editor persists in calling you a vandal, I'd take the behaviour to an administrator and mention the problem. You would need to provide links to the place where you were called a vandal so he/she could evaluate it. An editor can actually get blocked from editing if they call another editor a vandal. I'll leave a note on his talk page.

I don't know where I was when I noticed you were new to Wikipedia. The template I put on your talk page has some basic information and you should read it and follow the links. That will get you started. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply in such detail Malke 2010.

Actually I'm not a newbie and I'm not sure quite where you think I've been "acting like a newbie" (except perhaps in getting flustered). Presumably, you assumed I'm a newbie because I choose to edit as an IP (as I explained above). In reality, my IP address last changed while I was in the course of making a detailed revision to Infectious_mononucleosis#Signs_and_symptoms. I am aware of WP:3RR and I believe the edits/reversions I made at Amphetamine mixed salts (medication) in response to a request for assistance at WT:MED#Performance-enhancing_use_of_medically-prescribed_Adderall were appropriate (though I much prefer just improving articles than exposure to conflict). Thank you. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that explains some things. You know of course that you're more at risk for not being taken seriously, or worse, have your edits misinterpreted because you're editing as an IP. I did ask Seppi333 to stop calling you a vandal. You're using the talk page, so that's good. I don't know the subject but it seems an ordinary content dispute. If you've edited before, then you know you can always call on an admin for help. Just be careful removing content that's been there for a while. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. There's a new issue and I've explained there. Seppi333 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just read the new accusations and will back off from the conflict (though I still consider the issue raised at WT:MED#Performance-enhancing_use_of_medically-prescribed_Adderall by User:Hildabast to be a pertinent one for the integrity of Wikipedia). 81.157.7.7 (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That was why I called on you in your "experienced editor" guise (rather than as an Admin with tools) to help clarify WP:VANDAL to a new editor who is confusing vandalism with a content dispute. Can I take the opportunity of suggesting that (IMO at least) constructive IP contributors deserve being "taken seriously" in the same way as any other user? Regards, —81.157.7.7 (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you absolutely are correct to insist that you be taken seriously as I've demonstrated by helping you. I was simply reminding that frequently IPs are here to vandalize and sometimes editors use the same brush to paint all. Apologies for any misunderstanding. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy

Hi, Malke ... in case you miss it, I left a note for you in my section at the Doc James arb case request. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go take a look. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)