User talk:Mkativerata/Archive16

Francis Harrington Glidden

Hi. I see from [1] that the page Francis Harrington Glidden was speedily deleted; presumably as part of the User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) copyright drama. I'm guessing it was first changed to a redirect to Glidden (paints); and then, when that article was deleted for copyright reasons, the redirect was deleted, too.

Yesterday, I wrote Francis Harrington Glidden from scratch. I would like to see if the prior article has usable material that I could reuse for the rewritten article, while being mindful of copyright issues. Can you userfy that article (without destroying the new article, of course) to my userspace so I can examine it and reuse/rewrite material as appropriate? Thanks. TJRC (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I've just restored the history. I was thinking of userfying it but upon review the the article was so short the chance of it being a copyvio is pretty low so I think the history can remain. As you can see, the stub was converted into a redirect in 2009 and then (quite unthinkingly) deleted by me as a redirect to nowhere when the target article got deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Other than details on rooms and fireplaces in his home, it doesn't have much that I didn't already cover... and no references. I think I'll just leave the one I wrote as-is. Thanks for your effort, nonetheless. TJRC (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Australian Chief Justices & Puisine Justices

Why have you left some with GG as appointer & others with Monarch as appointer? GoodDay (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've only done a few - a bit short of time today. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There, I removed the 'monarchs' from the Chief Justice infoboxes & the 'monarchs' & 'governors-general' from infoboxes. When you've figured out all the GGs for them, then put'em in - not just a tiny few. GoodDay (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems you get the last laugh on me - see Chief Justice of Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I think removing them is a good idea for now. I'm not at all confident we could get all of them right. And thanks for picking up on the much bigger issue in the first place: that we had the PM appointing them all! --Mkativerata (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 24#Jessie Stricchiola

Hi Mkativerata. It appears that you were not notified of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 24#Jessie Stricchiola, which is due for closure in about 11 hours. I think any comments you might have about the post-close comment by Dannysullivan (talk · contribs) and the source analysis by S Marshall (talk · contribs) and Hobit (talk · contribs) will be helpful to the DRV closer. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cunard. I had seen this one but just didn't feel I had anything worthwhile to say. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for providing a detailed rationale for your close. I dislike when some admins do not. I participated in neither Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Wentworth nor Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 16#Aubrey Wentworth. As a neutral editor, I asked One (talk · contribs) to provide a rationale. He has since edited and has ignored requests from myself, Flatscan (talk · contribs), and DRV closer King of Hearts (talk · contribs). There are too few admins such as yourself who are willing to explain their closes. Cunard (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- you'll see I stuck the boot in in the Wentworth DRV myself. Of course, the irony is that when you give an explanation, it gives editors something to pick at :) Still, better than nothing. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your comment and agree that it is a lazy close. One (talk · contribs) made two comments at the DRV, neither of which explained his close. His continued refusal to provide a closing rationale is disrespectful to the community.

A rationale is better than none because editors can at least know that the closing admin didn't just count the votes. I agree though that miswording a closing rationale can be a recipe for calls of a supervote. Having reviewed your close, I believe it is well-worded to avoid controversy and is a valid assessment of the AfD. However, I will avoid participating in the DRV owing to the voluminous outside attention it has received. Cunard (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't manage to put a proper close in as requested because my life has been remarkably busy, and I didn't exactly have a lot of time as of late to place myself down in front of the computer and write one. I wholeheartedly - and seriously - apologize for not doing so, but you're welcome to beat up on me as much as you'd like for this error. Since I'm lazy and a jerk and everything, I'll just quit wasting everyone's time here. One two three... 12:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. My message to you was on 22 November 2011, nine days ago. It is fine if you did not have the time then to provide a closing rationale. I expected you to reply on your talk page that you would do so when you had more time. Your lack of response to my request indicated that you were ignoring it.

When you have the time, please provide a closing rationale for the AfD. Cunard (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mkativerata. You have new messages at Talk:Roman Dacia.
Message added 23:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

about bringing back the draft in the main space Codrin.B (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is ready for main space. Please move/transfer the work history on the draft as well, if possible. Thanks!--Codrin.B (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just had a quick look and I think I need a bit of a deeper look, which I might not have time to do for a day or so. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No rush.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you move all history of changes automatically, instead of copy paste? There were many people who worked on salvaging the draft --Codrin.B (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... that would involve moving a history with copyvios into the mainspace. It might be ok in this case, but I'll think on it. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, I figure the danger of having copyvios in the article's history (which is really not that great) is outweighed by the desirability of crediting all those who helped fix it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!--Codrin.B (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Grant Dunlop

Hey jackass. Why did you delete the 'Grant Dunlop' wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raelini (talk • contribs) 00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because five editors unanimously agreed to the deletion over the course of a seven-day discussion here. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA and for your support in the past. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Screwball23

As soon as he was unblocked for disruptive editing - he was at it again, making clearly improperly sourced claims about Rick Santorum and Opus Dei - which were absolutely not borne out by the cites furnished (just as before). Might a verbum sapiens from you prevent further disruptive and unsourced claims therein? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Coming off a block and diving straight into old battles is, as I'm sure you know, usually a swift way to a much longer block, 3RR or not. Happy for you to link to this as essentially a warning. I'll put Rick on my watchlist. I don't normally take administrative action (especially blocks) in response to requests on my talk page so watchlisting it will allow me to act on my own volition, at least when I'm online. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Merci. Collect (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

He is at it in full force and vigor (4RR in 17 hurs) - and his edit summary of "(untrue; the information is sourced; there are 2 refs there - and either way, it is against protocol to just delete info when a simple citation needed will do" [2] seems to indicate true obstinacy now. And his prior revert at [3] with the summary of " Linkrot, time article doesn't verify, and your edit summary (for first edit) certainly doesn't explain anything", and then [4] "I can't believe Collect has been on wikipedia this many years and still gets away with abusing and misreading the BLP policies ; it's sad really". 3RR in a matter of 43 minutes! 4RR in 17 hours. Seems that your attention is needed for sure. Thanks. Collect (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, had I been online 7 hours ago I might have done something. But since then it seems (and I haven't looked at it in detail as I'm very short on time now) that the edit-war has stopped and it's being hashed out on the talk page. If I'm wrong on this (may well be, haven't had much time), please don't hesitate to report to AN3. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you might profitably gaze at Talk:Rick Santorum including

[5] where he calls editors who follow WP:BLP "losers",

[6] where he asks "Why is Tarc being allowed to call well-researched information bullshit?",

[7] (to Tarc) "You are over-complicating and warring because you believe adding facts = political smearing. That my friend, is not right, and it is a blatant abuse of wikipedia. I ask that you discontinue your editwarring on this because you are too emotionally invested to allow a fair exchange of information right now."

And the last straw indicating he has no clue as to what WP:BLP means yet: [8] " I would ask Collect and Tarc to stop being bitter losers and apologize for having me blocked - because they could not accept a productive discussion. I don't expect either of them to have the balls to do the right thing, which is a simple "I'm sorry". "

Oh -- for lagniappe: [9] (to Tarc) "You are a terrible liar. You and I both know that your only goal was to eliminate any discussion on this. ... You said WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply here, which is blatantly false - and your buddy Collect brainlessly backed you up on that - just because he hates me whenever I'm right. And you called the entire discussion "bullshit: and deleted it again and again, first saying it was NPOV and then UNDUE, and you attacked the references, and now, you still don't have the balls to own up to the fact that your shifty, unmoving arguments were wrong and this was indeed a newsworthy and well-researched bit of information on Santorum. " (please note the juicy bits are all from SB23).

In short he is not only unrepentant about his WP:BLP violations, he persists in attacking others who do not back him up, and even insists Tarc and I are somehow in cahoots! Please give him a gallon of tea or so. Collect (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this would need to go to a noticeboard if action is to be taken. I don't think I'm in a position to take action myself. That's because I had seen the exchange from my watchlist before you posted here and I chose not to do anything, largely because (a) I know Tarc can give as good as he gets and he did so here, shutting him up in a much more effective way than a block or a "I'm a big man listen to me" admin warning; and (b) more importantly, despite all the venting, the article dispute is actually over. So if I were to block or warn Screwball, having looked at it after your prompting, it would justifiably be claimed that I was procured by you to do so. Sorry I know that's probably irritatingly unhelpful. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you..

... for being the first to support my mad scheme to make sure that AFD doesn't collapse under the pressure of falling participation... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've always been meaning to write an essay WP:Show your working encouraging appropriately detailed closing rationales but never got round to it. So I'm right on board with this. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking about how we can improve AFD for a while and I do think that getting direct feedback on what arguments counted and what didn't weill help users understand how to make their votes count more. A nice side outcome is that we will all tend to react to how other admins act and this will pull closing standards closer together and reduce the amount of inconsistency - hopefully! Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

close paraphrase

Repetition of technical descriptions of sub-sentence size is normal in scholarly writing and is not plagiarism if cited properly. Actually it is encouraged for precision, to prevent the Chinese whispers phenomenon. Also, WP:Close paraphrasing is not policy but just an essay with problems, but even then you are ignoring the legal background that only substantial close paraphrase is a copyright violation. Zero^talk 08:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the technical matter of copyright violations we have to worry about, it's plagiarism. Copying a half-sentence, even with attribution by citation, is not ok even if it wouldn't break the law. And in this case, it wasn't an isolated half-sentence, it was multiple half and full sentences cobbled together. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --NellieBly (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am the idiot who listed you there. I am sorry. You must be quite upset at me. Looking at it again, I don’t understand myself why I mistook you for a bad faith editor. I’ll try to pay better attention before dishing out false accusations again. Wikipeditor (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. When I saw it I figured you'd just made an honest mistake somewhere. :) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Have a nice week! Wikipeditor (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Time to relax with a coffee after all your hard work on Adolf Hitler! Your efforts have helped embiggen the wiki. Cheers, Dianna (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna, it was a pleasure to have the opportunity to review this one. Thanks for all your hard work improving such an important article. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Mkativerata. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking countries in ITN

I think you missed the discussion where the general consensus was that instead of not linking any countries, we would link countries that were directly relevant to the blurb. In other words, we would like countries whose omission would render the blurb incomprehensible. That means almost all countries used as adjectives (e.g. in French president) can be delinked. The Philippines is debatable, but most would probably say the key point is that 400 people were killed by the storm (not necessarily 400 Filipinos were killed). So that can go unlinked. With, Russia, however, the country is essential to conveying the story. -- tariqabjotu 23:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did miss that, thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

John Defterios

Hey, remember when I told you about suspicious editing on behalf of John Defterios? Well it seems another user Ga8thds (talk · contribs) has popped up to pad poorly sourced puffery onto the article since November. I've documented the suspicious activity on Ga8thds' talk page, and am waiting for his response. Also, a sockpuppet investivgation in August sniffed out some COI users who edited the Defterios page, though none of them were related to Ga8thds.

Just keeping you updated. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib

Thanks for letting me know, and sorry I haven't been paying close attention to it. I will now! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just locked the article down. Sorry I know this means you can't edit it either. But the block/sock cycle isn't going to work and it shouldn't be the kind of article that needs to be updated/corrected often. I've set it at six months but hopefully it can be lifted well before then. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, but there's currently only one editor who is adding unsourced info to the article. The other two User:JohnKD & User:Jkdefterios have not been active because it's glaringly obvious who they are and other sockpuppets have been blocked. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 08:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me this account is one in a long line of accounts associated with (if not socks of) Defterios and it's going to persist. But if you'd like me to unprotect, please just say so: obviously protection should help good editors (you) not hinder them. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The protection is fine. I'll submit changes through edit requests. This way makes it fairer as it would have to be filtered by admins. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 08:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Bulk COPYVIO issue

Hi, you've recently been working on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, so please help with this issue: I reverted a COPYVIO issue, then noticed that the same user added copyrighted text to a couple dozen pages today (23 December). I think all those additions need to be expunged rather than just reverted; thanks. Rostz (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what purpose this text is serving. It's not obviously a copyright violation, because the text is quoted, attributed, etc. The question is whether it violates WP:NFC as "excessive". That it's done on a talk page also makes it less likely to be a problem, although it's just not clear to me why the quotes have been put there. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(As a potential resource, I expect.) Hmm, it's been my understanding from past cases that copyvios can be present anywhere in WP; Talk pages are also CC-licensed, and note that WP:C#Copyright violations refers to "pages" rather than "articles". In any case, some of these additions aren't brief (~4K of text), and taken as a whole, ~50K of a book seems significant enough to be concerned about. Rostz (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, copyvios can occur on any page of the project. One relevant question with WP:NFC is the legitimacy of the purpose the quote serves. Being on talk page it's very hard to judge! --Mkativerata (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And you don't thus think it's best to err on the side of caution? Rostz (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, probably not. This is in low risk territory. It is almost certainly not a breach of copyright law; at the most, it is a breach of WP:NFC (our policy, stricter than copyright law). It is certainly not the kind of blatant copyright violation that would justify revision-deleting the material. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Syamsir Alam

Hello Mkativerata, I would like to know for witch reason you deleated the page af Syamsir Alam. I would like to create a new page and add more information. Is it possible? Thanks in advance for your answer. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.89.192 (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. The article has been deleted a few different times. The first time it was deleted it was because Syamsir was not notable. Before creating a new article, it might be worth (a) checking whether he meets the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL, and (b) checking whether there are any reliable sources (such as newspaper articles) that discuss his career. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer. Now, there are reliable sources. You could have a look on the internet site www.cs-vise.be or CS Visé. There are articles, videos, highlights of this player. On the newspapers in Belgium and in Indonesia, there are a lot of articles. And he is followed by more than 50.000 people on Twitter. Even if Twitter is not an official source, it means though that he is well known and that a lot of people are interested in his performances. Could I create a new page or could you make the previous one readable again and then I could fill it with updated news? Thanks again!

I'm afraid Twitter is not a reliable source. What you'll need is independent sources, such as newspaper articles, not club websites and Twitter feeds. If you could provide examples of such independent sources, I'd consider restoring the page. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello dear, Twitter is of course not a reliable source, but it was just to tell you that he is popular. I am executive secretary in the club he is playing in. So the sources are reliable. Everything that is in the site is information that he gave to us. There are also a lot of articles in newspapers about him, but it is belgian press. But I am happy to see how the rules are strict, as I use myself a lot Wikipedia to search informations about a lot of things. There are some articles of him in the belgian press (in French then). There are also several video broadcasts of him on TV ONE (Indonesia) (Indonesian sport shannel) . I really hope you will restore the page. Thanks a lot.

If you could give me some links to these sources, that would help. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[10] here is the interview of him on TV ONE (Indonesia)

I haven't looked at that one out of fear what it would do to my computer machine :), but this kind of article, in a prominent newspaper, looks good. I'll restore the article when I have some time to work on it in about 12 hours, if that's ok. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very mutch! And happy new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.89.192 (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've created a new article rather than restored the old article as the old article is now out of date. The new article is Syamsir Alam. Cheers. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added some informations. I hope this is ok. Thank you for restoring the page. Could you please help me and send me a link of how to pur a picture? EWEUS (talk) — 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The best place to upload a picture is at Wikimedia Commons. You'll just need to demonstrate that the picture can be used by wikipedia without being subject to copyright restrictions. Speaking of copyright restrictions, I saw that you added text to the article from here. CS Vise's website is subject to copyright so we can't copy text from it. There are a lot of useful facts there so we should try to summarise it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Thisara Perera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 10:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Victorian Era Exhibition 1897

Hi, as stated in my user-page, I have been too busy lately to work on any Wiki stuff. So can you now please un-delete Victorian Era Exhibition 1897, so that I can edit out its problems in a "my space" box. Ta Steve Stephen2nd (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't userfy the article because of the copyright violations it contained. Instead, I have placed here the shell of the article: the headings, references, images, categories, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

According to PBS and MER C, the only copyright violation in the article was Edward Henry Corbould. The opening description and size & descripton of the venue / Entertainment section / Dickens Memorial section / Commemorative Medal section were mostly researced from the actual exhibition catalogue which was published well over 100 years ago. Can you please reinstate the texts from these sections, which were not in dispute? Stephen2nd (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Before I deleted the article I checked samples of it. The Corbould section that is most certainly not the only part of the article that contains copyright violations. The Martin Couney section contains extensive copying from here. Earlier sections of the article also contain copying. For example, your article said:

Another major attraction at the VEE Earls Court arena, was Captain Paul Boyton's water chute which was completed in 1899. The Captain flooded the arena in 1893 and built the 70 ft high chute backing on to Lillie Road at today's West Brompton entrance. The ride was considered to be the biggest ride of its kind on either side of the Atlantic.

This source (an extract of a book from 2003) says:

Another major attraction at the Earls Court arena was Captain Paul Boyton's water chute which was constructed in 1899. The Captain flooded the arena in 1893 and built the 70ft high chute backing on to Lillie Road at today's West Brompton entrance. The ride was considered to be the biggest ride of its kind on either side of the Atlantic.

--Mkativerata (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK then, excluding these stated violations, can you please just reinstate the opening description and size & descripton of the venue / Dickens Memorial section / Commemorative Medal section. Stephen2nd (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not going to restore anything as I'm not confident that anything I restore other than the categories, images, etc isn't a copyright violation. If you have public domain sources that aren't copyrighted, just re-use them for a new clean article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Dhammika Prasad

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence/Blocks

In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regarding Malleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be found here. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials

You might want to weigh in here. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)

Thank you for the move from a nickname to a factual name! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing that reminded me to watch this again! --Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that as well! You may have read (on my talk) that I made the two op 27/2 my new year's resolution. I was ready to mention in the discussion the (true) story of a girl who had been nicknamed Fatty from the day she was born to when that name almost entered her high school diploma. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't see that -- Good luck!! --Mkativerata (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Award

	Flowers for you
	for moving a great piece of music, Beethoven's second piano sonata quasi una fantasia, from a biased nickname to a factual name! The move was predicted to be impossible, you made it possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.with the disclaimer that my thanks doesn't mean I necessarily agreed with the side of the debate that prevailed -- I have no view on the matter. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That - looking at the facts with an unbiased view - is exactly what's appreciated, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jan 2012

Hi there Mkativerata, I understand why you removed the tag from the Steve Kean article, but it was inappropriate. Tags are left on articles to draw attention to the fact that specific work needs to be done on them. They shouldn't just be removed because they are 'ugly'. I reverted the edit, let's wait until the article has a proper lead section before we remove the tag. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The article looks better without the tag. That's the only relevant question. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No. We don't judge articles by how good they look I'm afraid. Content is key, and the content of this article isn't up to scratch just yet. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. The article is ok. The tag kills the article unnecessarily. How off-putting for our readers. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that you're an admin. Strange that you don't understand the point of article tags. Unfortunately I can't revert your incorrect edit any more as I'll be violating 3RR, but it's very strange that you should arrive on another editor's radar in this manner when you're an admin. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an admin's job to make things better for readers. Keep that in mind given that you want to be one. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A lead section of greater length would make the article much better to read, and is much more likely to happen with a tag. By your rationale we should remove all tags from the top of articles? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, only stupid ones.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that the "lead too short" tag is stupid per se, or are you saying that putting it on this particular article (where the lead is too short) is stupid? What other content-related tags do you consider to be stupid? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is stupid to vandalise a succint and reasonably well-written article with a tag full of jargon and outrageously disproportionate to the "problem" it seeks to address. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MikeLynch

Your oppose is in the support section; not 100% sure if that was intended, it being the internet where humour is misconstrued. Stephen 01:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have struck out your oppose vote in the support section as it is confusing. Could you please move your vote to the oppose section if you are opposing him, or make it clearer that you are actually supporting him? Thanks. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was quite clear I was supporting him, but I've restored my !vote (for the second time) to make it clear. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking back at the history page, I can see three instances of confusion - when you initially posted the vote; when someone commented Errr, there is an Oppose section below. --07:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC), and when I struck out your vote. On this page, there is User:Stephen who asked you at the start of the thread, and minutes after you replied to me, the nominator queried your oppose vote. I would argue that your vote is confusing, and I would expect is likely to get a lot more queries/reversions/moved into the oppose section. Stephen! ^Coming... 20:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So you boldly struck my !vote, probably contrary to some guideline somewhere, and only after it was unstruck did you research the page history, which would have given you the answer to begin with. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not quite - I did research the page history before I struck your vote, and all your other edits since then. At no time between casting your vote and replying to me did you explicitly state that you were supporting the RfA. So I decided to be bold and strike the vote, and let you know what I had done. That, I believe you will find, is acceptable. The alternative was for me to change the wording of your !vote, and that is unacceptable on so many levels. The reason I gave was because it was confusing and potentially skewing the counter.

Even now, as I type this, I have not seen you state that you are supporting the candidate anywhere but on this page. Stephen! ^Coming... 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added clarification about your vote so as not to waste anyone else's time with trying to work out how you voted. Stephen! ^Coming... 20:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Most people get that it's a support. Only a couple of people have missed the sarcasm and your pointing it out ruins the humor. It's ok for folks to make jokes on Wikipedia. If Mkativerata has declined to "clarify", you shouldn't either. It's such an obvious joke had you checked the candidate's contributions and noticed it was their first contrib.--v/r - TP 14:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Confusing and unhelpful. Pathetic attempt at humour. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

pathetic comment too. I got it straight away and its not the first time this device has been used in an RFA. You need to go find a sense of humour somewhere and try not to be so pofaced... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the gratutious feedback, Axl. I'll be sure, from this day forward to think "What would Axl do?" before making any edit on wikipedia (eg [11]). It'll be tough because your username really doesn't ring any bells with me, but if I need any help don't hesitate to come on over here again. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And so the mystery of the supporting opposer has been unraveled. Great work, everybody. I, like everyone else, saw Mkativerata's comment and was really confused! I was just about proceed to ANI, but luckily I saw this, which provided a much-needed clarification. Phew! Swarm ^X 03:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

RfA

I'm just confued about your Oppose on MikeLynch's RfA. Are you being sarcastic? I'm a very stupid person. Please help. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I researched the candidate's history quite extensively. As can be seen from the !vote. I picked the very first edit he ever made. So yes, it's sarcastic. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thank you. Cheers, : ) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems board: clerk application

Hi. When we have an applicant for clerk at the copyright problems, we're supposed to get together a couple of the folks who work there to review. :) Would you mind weighing in at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Clerks#Voceditenore? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	in re: RfA; Well, I got it at least. Achowat (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! This is going straight to the pool room. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser?

Should I file a sockpuppet investigation rgd. FamilyInstituteIntegrityUpholder (talk · contribs) based on this? The previous user whom we dealt with has now been blocked. Judging by FamilyInstituteIntegrityUpholder's own edit history, he's likely to get blocked soon too. I'm interested in finding if these two are part of a network of POV users hired by political operatives. They might have several "sleeper" accounts which edit other articles as a smokescreen and then launch into action when the pages they're really targeting get semi-protected. I've already seen one similar network hired by Malaysia's ruling party before, and if this is the case here, they're getting smarter about it. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 16:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt a checkuser will get accepted for this, probably because an admin at SPI will just block on the contribs evidence alone. I'm going to block myself right now, simply because of the edit-warring over that beauty pageant. It might be worth seeing if there are any more accounts before trying to connect it to a pro-BN setup. If this is a pro-BN setup, I don't think they're being very smart about it at all, just doing things that lead straight to blocks. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked user

As the blocking admin for this block, could you take a look at FascismDoctrineRespecter (talk · contribs), particularly this edit? Fat&Happy (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just saw the previous section. I probably would have phrased this one a bit differently if I had browsed your talk page comments first. Same basic issue, though. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems he's already been nailed. I'd have nailed him too just looking at the username and the edits. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Cowboy admin

For disclosure I'm pretty angry about something the user in question has done at the moment. Barring being specifically asked to comment further on that issue, after this post I'll step away from anything related to ITN or this user for at least a day.

About a month ago you made this edit at WP:ITNC, in relation to User:Tariqabjotu. I was wondering whether with the benefit of hindsight you would take the comment back, or whether you feel there are grounds to regard the user as having a "cowboy" or "rogue" attitude to the tools? —WFC— 07:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I made that comment after seeing two or three reversions of postings on T:ITN -- I wouldn't take the comment back but I wouldn't necessarily accept the comment as "current" either. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Jacques Kallis

Hi, Mkativerata. I realize that you are a longstanding, and I'm sure respected, contributor to Wikipedia, and the last thing I want to do is to rattle any cages... considering this was the first edit that I have done. However, I see that you have once again changed my edit. Stating that I used weasel words. Firstly; that was not the case. Weasel words are used to make a statement that is not based on actual facts and statistics. Which is not what I did. I'll try to explain the best I can. Saying that something IS true, and saying that something can be CONSIDERED true is not essentially the same thing. When you say a girl is pretty, you claim, without a doubt that she is indeed pretty. When you say she can be considered to be pretty, you merely point out that she could be seen as pretty by some and not by others. And that is all I did in the "Jacques Kallis" article. I pointed out that; him being one of the best batsmen of all time; can be assumed... but is still open for debate.

What is strange to me is that in Sachin Tendulkars' article they make actual claims; yet it goes over-looked. These claims (according to the references used)are based on opinions; albeit those of certain cricketers... but it still remains opinions(Don't get me wrong; I am not saying these claims are false. Sachins statistics speaks for itself, in that regard). Whereas, when I make a statement based on statistics(which are the facts) I am said to be self sourcing, ie. basing it on my own opinion. The stats are the facts, the only real truth. Everything else are just opinions. I would really like to believe that Wikipedia is not a forum where using references and citations based on other cricketers opinions(cricketers whose own opinions may be influenced by a particular like or dislike of a certain individual) carry more weight than references based on statistics(which are always cold, unbiased and irrefutable). I don't think it is that far fetched for anyone to consider the possibility that, according to the statistics, Jacques Kallis could be one of the greatest batsmen of all time; especially in light of the fact that his stats are near Identical to Tendulkar's. Would you not agree with me on this?

I hope we can reach an agreement on this matter, and would really appreciate any positive response from you. Kenneth Grant (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. For any claim on wikipedia, a source is usually needed. If you could find a reputable journalist/commentator or three saying Kallis "can be considered" one of the best batsmen in the world, that's really all you need. I'm afraid this is a place where "where using references and citations based on other cricketers opinions(cricketers whose own opinions may be influenced by a particular like or dislike of a certain individual) carry more weight than references based on statistics(which are always cold, unbiased and irrefutable)." This policy explains the core position: "verifiability not truth". Stats do lie -- averages can't be compared against each other without taking into account other variables: quality of opposition, batting-friendly 21st century pitches, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I just want to thank you for your prompt reply. I have gone though the "verifiability, not truth" policy, and I understand the guidelines more clearly now. And I agree with you; stats do lie. But the same variables you mentioned could apply to any other batsman; whether it be Kallis, Tendulkar, or even Bradman. One could argue that; if there is no discernible truth, then at least a standard, whether partially flawed or not, for the truth must be set. Statistics always provides me with that standard. Statistics, like opinions, may not tell you the whole story. But, at least statistics, unlike opinions at times, is never based on sentiment. However, my view on statistics does not change this situation one little bit. The fact is; "rules are rules", and I'll have to abide by them.

Again, thanks for your feedback. It is much appreciated. Kenneth Grant (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and I certainly see your point. I look forward to seeing you around! --Mkativerata (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

A tag has been placed on C;sd, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  06:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest having another read of R3. Especially the first three words. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

warning - personal attack in edit summary

Please do not personally attack me in edit summaries or anywhere else - diff - Youreallycan 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR earning - on Vinay Kumar

{{3RR|Vinay Kumar}} - Youreallycan 21:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)