User talk:Mkdw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please sign (~~~~) before you save. Beware SineBot!

User talk:Mkdw
Home Talk Contribs Email Me My Templates My Subpages
  • Please post new comments beneath those already posted by editing this page.
  • If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I leave a message on your page, feel free to reply either on your page or on my page.
  • Please don't mind if I refactor the page for organization.
  • Please reserve e-mail for conversations which must be kept private, or if you cannot communicate via my talkpage (i.e. you've been blocked).
For every capitalised word and repeated exclamation mark I find, I shall keel you!

DYK for Sunrise Ruby[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Rebeca Minguela[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mkdw. You have new messages at RogueKhan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
As you suggested in the nomination for deletion of Rebeca Minguela article, I have filed a "request for undeletion". The article is still live. What do I need to do now? How do I remove it from being live until is properly review and meets the quality standards to be potentially restored? Thanks RogueKhan (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Replied at your talk page where the initial conversation is taking place. Mkdwtalk 19:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


Yep - archiving is coming in a day or two. I'd like to hit my end-of-the month deadline, since it's so near.

Thanks very much for your vote of confidence at my RfA. I hope I am able to live up to it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

17:48:54, 30 June 2015 review of submission by Caseyu27[edit]

Hello! I based this article on one about a very similar company -- the one I wrote about has been around a lot longer than this one: Can you give me some insight on what I can do to have it approved? I stated facts only, not sure what was promotional about it -- can you let me know? Thank you so much for your time.

Caseyu27 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Caseyu27: There is a misnomer about "facts" and "promotion" being mutually exclusive of each other. If I wrote an article that says, "Subway has a $5 footlong promotion", it would both be a factual statement and very promotional in nature. Encyclopedic articles are focused on content, history, and meaningful information to the broad public. It should WP:NOT be a place to summarize all the services and procedures of a company. The company's official website does that. The lead and the section called "services" needs a considerable rewrite. It literally uses the word "promotes". Also, is it relevant that artwork ships from the artists' studios? That seems like a sale point that only the consumer would need to know. What interest is it to the general public, and has any media sources taken note of this as being particularly important?

Artful Home offers a juried collection of over 18,000 original works of art created by over 1,200 North American artists and designers. The work offered includes fine art such as paintings, prints, and sculpture; fine craft such as art glass, ceramics, jewelry, and furniture; and design such as apparel and footwear. Most artwork ships directly from the artists' studios. In order to sell work through Artful Home, artists go through a jurying process by submitting images of their work to an Artistic Advisory Panel headed by Michael Monroe], former curator-in-charge of the Smithsonian’s Renwick Gallery. Artful Home promotes the work of represented artists through their online and catalog marketing.

Lastly, UGallery does not make a good example article. It too has issues that need to be addressed. Take a look at the article Museum of Modern Art for the type of content and wording it uses to describe its functions and status. Mkdwtalk 18:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of AIV report[edit]

Greetings, Mkdw. Just wondering; why'd you make this removal of my AIV report with the summary of "wrong place to file this"? [1] Also, please intervene against this IP; he's beginning to engage in a vandalism revert-war against me. [2] Cheers, Kevin12xd 16:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin12xd: There seems to have been an editing conflict with Helper Bot and our edits override each other. I was trying to revert this edit where an editor was appealing their report. I immediatley restored your report here. Perhaps you need to refresh the page for it to show up again. That being said, I will take a look at it. Mkdwtalk 16:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
MusikAnimal beat me to it. Mkdwtalk 16:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Thank you very much for your recent nomination and your participation. While there are many well-known administrators who meet the criteria, the intent of the award is to recognize someone less celebrated yet deserving of greater renown. As admins typically have already been recognized for their work we feel it is best to limit nominations to non-admins. We hope you understand and will continue to nominate editors you feel are deserving. . Buster Seven Talk 18:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. I somehow must have missed that. I think Editor of the Week is a fine idea so I'm sure I'll keep an eye out for deserving candidates. Mkdwtalk 18:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thank you for taking the time to evaluate the situation at MGK and follow up with actions that support the current talk page consensus. It's really nice when the system works! Cheers! KeithbobTalk 20:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Keithbob. I actually ran into a similar situation immediately following as well. Mkdwtalk 22:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

PsychopathicAssassin at MGK[edit]

Without establishing a new consensus on the talk page and after receiving a final warning on 11 July, PsychopathicAssassin again reverted back to the "Colson Baker" name here. It seems clear to me that a block is warranted. Best, SpencerT♦C 15:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Spencer: Thank you for the notification. I have reviewed the situation and dealt with it accordingly. Mkdwtalk 18:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Chocolate chip cookies cooling on a wire rack, May 2009.jpg
Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Neutral so you get a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Many thanks[edit]

Many thanks for protecting the Gerald Lorge and William Lorge articles. It was frustrating and irritating reverting the COI edits in the two articles. I am also dismay that William Lorge mentioned he has a Wikipedia article...Many thanks again-RFD (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@RFD: Happy to help. It's not a perfect solution but between that and blocking the editor indefinitely, it should bring some time to figure out if an SPI needs to be filed. Mkdwtalk 18:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jack Vidgen[edit]

That's okay. Yes I did create the article but I did not add that content. It was probably a vandal. Lightsout (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


A week ago, you protected the William Lorge and Gerald Lorge articles because of persistent vandalism. You also blocked Runningfox34 because of persistent copyright violations on those pages, disruptive editing, and possible sockpuppetry. Today, just hours after the page protection on the Lorge articles expired, ‎Smartvoter2006‎, a suspected sockpuppet of Runningfox34, restored the BrokerBillLorge.jpg and GeraldDLorge.jpg (previously File:Geralddlorge.jpg) images after they had been deleted as copyright violations, and added them to the respective articles. I wasn't sure if you were following these pages, so I thought I'd let you know. (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would second this observation - this editor has uploaded the same files that were previously deleted, and is linking back to them persistently. He's evading his block and continuing to disregard copyright strictures. JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@JohnInDC: I'm away on holidays so it's difficult for me to review this case on an on-going basis. If this occurs next time, could you fulfill an WP:SPI and let the folks there handle it? Will take a look at things when I can when I get back but I'd like to see a check user on future ones if I'm going to implement a longer semi-protection on the articles. Mkdwtalk 14:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw that, thanks; it became clear after I posted the foregoing that we had a simmering, rather than erupting, problem and thought maybe it'd resolve itself in a few days (which it sort of didn't as it happens). Thanks for your help, and if he re-emerges I'll go through usual channels. The two blocks will help any future SPI in any event. So thanks again and enjoy your time away. JohnInDC (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The page protection on William Lorge expired a couple of days ago and an IP has resumed with the same edits as the blocked Smartvoter2006 - addition of election results, removal of COI template, that sort of thing - and it might be a good idea to semi-protect it again. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@JohnInDC: Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the IP for 31 hours and protected the article for 3 months. I will implement a 1 year page protection if the article is vandalized again coming off the PP. Mkdwtalk 04:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, and that *you* for the quick attention! JohnInDC (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I apologise for the way my comment turned out at the RfA. I should have realised the potential implications. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: That's alright. It was a simple question to answer. RFA is such a battleground these days; nice of you to follow up the way you did as such a contrast.Mkdwtalk 13:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Very nice[edit]

MinorBarnstarPoint300x300.png A Barnstar Point
For a surprising cheerful and measured response to a pointless and warrantless accusation of bad faith.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In particular for: I have access to the Internet. Just not to a computer all the time (hence needing to find an internet cafe). I'm sure I could have figured it out on my phone but I find any editing on it is almost impossible for me. I noticed the RFA on User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report. You have my word I was not alerted to it by any off-wiki canvassing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks! Sometimes all you can do is reassure people with your own good intentions. Mkdwtalk 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Marking Nrwairport as CU confirmed[edit]

Hi Mkdw. I noticed that you marked Nrwairport as CU confirmed to Cyntiamaspian here: [3]. The SPI concluded that they were unrelated based on CU evidence, though. Was this intended? ~ RobTalk 11:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Nrwairport wasn't confirmed as a sock to Cyntiamaspian, however, in that SPI, it was determined that Sandboxtester44 (talk · contribs) was a sock puppet of Nrwairport. As such was blocked for abusively using multiple accounts and Sandboxtester44 as a sock. Check Guerillero's comments on the bottom in the CU section. Mkdwtalk 15:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox locomotive[edit]

[I'm moving this here because it's increasingly off-topic at Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Styling into regular infobox.]

You seem to think this is a case for admins to act as police officers; it's not - it's a request for an admin to act as a janitor.

You seem to believe that editors are required to make such requests only at WP:ANRFC; we are not, that's merely one option. (You are welcome to refute this with evidence to the contrary)

You seem to believe that {{Admin help}} must not be used to make such a request; that's fallacious, and utterly unsupported by the documentation of the template.

And you are unwilling to say why you did not simply act on the request I made (nor, for that matter why, if you were unwilling or unable to do so, did not simply pass on by and leave the request for the next passing admin).

Then you end with an unwarranted and unjustified accusation of "admin shopping". Unbelievable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I understand you're frustrated because you think the last two admins who responded to your inquiry were passing the buck. That being said, you've made a lot of accusations and frankly you're now being treated the same way in which you've been treating others. I'm certainly willing to discuss the issue, at length if needed, provided you can keep the tone of the conversation both respectful and on topic. If not, then I propose the issue be dropped or continued at ANI to which I would be a willing participant.
Salvidrim! and I responded to your inquiry separately and you were directed to an appropriate venue each time. For reasons unknown to me, you seem to have taken exception to this because rather than go through WP:ANRFC you acted like you were entitled to a response other than what you received. I asked you if there was an issue in taking it to WP:AN/RFC because I would have been willing to possibly review the situation if there had been a valid reason. Instead, you choose to respond by asking why I didn't close the discussion. It was already clear the reason why the discussion wasn't closed by either of us because instead you were directed to a venue where these types of requests are handled. I probably needn't explain why we have these noticeboards; they're a place where someone who is both interested and hopefully experienced in closing these types of discussions.
The discussion was becoming increasingly more snarky and off-topic. As far as I can tell, you still haven't a reason why WP:ANRFC would not be a suitable next step for you. It's not about time or effort; that's been well outweighed by wikilawyering. I can only then assume it's not about getting a close anymore but you now have a personal score to settle because you felt entitled to it.
Whether you like it or not, I advised you about admin-shopping because it was an appropriate topic to bring up. How many admins need to respond to the same inquiry because you're unsatisfied with previous responses before you think it meets the criteria? It's also referred to as "asking the other parent" because sometimes it only takes two times. I brought it up in discussion because it seemed likely that you persist with the intention to not stop until you got the answered you wanted -- to which has been proven true thus far. Mkdwtalk 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional clarification requested[edit]

Hi Mkdw,

My company, EquityZen, has been trying to create a wiki page with historical information about the brand for several months now but both submissions have been denied, most recently by you. I read through the resource about advertising that you provided and don't see how we violate any of those terms. Some clarification would be greatly appreciated as well as any advice you may have as to how we can get the EquityZen page ( approved.

A reply directly on the page would be great to make sure I see it. Thanks!

Thanks for your help! Bryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply at Draft:EquityZen. Mkdwtalk 03:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice RFA standards page[edit]

Just wanted to say that I really like the format of your RFA standards page in your user space. I'm thinking of using a similar format for a page of some sort in my user space, especially since I'm starting to realize that some of my concerns regarding RFA candidates are a bit unique, and as proven in the RFA where we have been discussing. I could probably benefit a bit to disclose my opinions in such a manner rather than have to break them down every time I make a vote. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Thanks but admittedly I cannot take all the credit for it. Another editor allowed me to borrow the layout and a few of the criteria. I have sometimes found it helpful to cite how and why a candidate meets my RFA standards and provide a line, so it certainly stands to reason it might work for you as well. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 20:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn Shephard[edit]

I don't think a redirect makes sense as an outcome given that she has had other roles, e.g. starring in Hostages (TV series). Can you remove the redirect, or should I take this to redirects for discussion? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Her other short lived roles and guest appearances seemed like much less significant achievements compared to her main role in Unaccompanied Minors hence I closed it as delete and redirect. Not opposed to deleting the redirect altogether either. Mkdwtalk 23:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Kantar Media Philippines Article[edit]

I would like to repeat that Kantar Media Philippines is NOT a conglomerate of ABS-CBN. A conglomerate is a group of companies and/or subsidiaries. As it is being used in the sentence, "Kantar Media Philippines is a conglomerate". If and when ABS-CBN holds or own a stake in Kantar, it should've said that Kantar is a subsidiary or an affiliate NOT A CONGLOMERATE, because ABS-CBN is the conglomerate owning major stakes of various subsidiaries and affiliates. As used in the sentence, it is as if Kantar owns ABS-CBN.

One more thing, the article is being used to defame and demolish the independence of the Media Research Company Kantar Media. It is being distributed publicly to make people believe that Kantar is affiliated to ABS-CBN thus the network can control the ratings being issued. This is misleading people. There were no concrete proofs that Kantar is an affiliate and ABS-CBN owns a stake in the company. That information should not be written there as it is clearly a violation of the verifiability rule.

Now, I am requesting that the sentence stating that Kantar is a conglomerate of ABS-CBN be removed from the article and afterwhich the article be protected from editing indefinitely.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia open to everybody who has access to the net. It aims to inform the people and not mislead them and cause misunderstanding and defamation of an independent company providing data to the public in good faith. The article is being used as such. I hope this is not one of the objectives of Wikipedia.

I am attaching a public document showing/stating the subsidiaries and or affiliates of ABS-CBN. I hope you take the time to read.

Thank you and I hope this will be resolved soon.

Tony Escudero (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined @Tony Escudero: The article cannot be protected indefinitely over a content dispute which no discussions have been attempted either at the article talk page or on the editor's user talk page. As an editor not involved in the content dispute, this user talk page is not the correct venue to resolve this issue. I have reverted the re-introduction of the wording citing that a reliable source will need to be included. Additionally, I have started a discussion on the article talk page. I suggest you go there to present your argument and work through the issue with the other editor. If that fails (note only after discussions have been attempted at the article talk page or user talk page), then bring up the issue at WP:DR. You have already been directed to this place after you reported the issue to WP:ANI. Further venue shopping at other places other than the talk pages or DR may result in a block. Mkdwtalk 22:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


I liked this [4] so much I added it to WP:Policy fallacy; please feel to edit the essay as desired. NE Ent 12:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! I've always disagreed with the concept that society has to walk as slow as its slowest member in order to keep society moving forward. Mkdwtalk 14:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Hey - the kids do a lot of great things - so I'm gonna steal a line from them: "whatever". :-) — Ched :  ?  12:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I dislike "making work" but I felt that RFA and the post-discussion was going to be controversial. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 13:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamish Jenkinson page deleted[edit]

Hi Mkdw,

Please let me know why you deleted page: "Hamish Jenkinson"?

thank you, GR — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamish Jenkinson. Mkdwtalk 12:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Mkdw - after reviewing the situation here, this is two different people. More of a WP:MEAT situation with two people promoting their own commonly-held entities. He's agreed to cease mainspace promotional editing and limit himself to talk pages. Any objection to an unblock? Will periodically monitor. Kuru (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kuru: I have no objections but the block should be treated as a CU block because a CU at the SPI determined they were "likely" the same person. Bbb23 would need to grant permission for this unblock. I personally have no objections. Mkdwtalk 16:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month is COMING![edit]


Hi Mkdw ,

The Wikipedia Asian Month will begin in less than an hours, and once again, thank you for signing up! Let's help the world know more about Asia! Below are a few reminders for you:

  1. Please check out the rules here. Some rules have been adjusted—the most important being that on the English Wikipedia, stubs may be expanded with some limitations.
  2. Do take the time to read the Q&A if you have any questions, or ask on the talk page.
  3. The list of participants has been alphabetized so you can more easily find your name and report your contributions.
  4. There is a template that you can use on your user page. {{Template:User Asian Month‎}}

Enjoy the Wikipedia Asian Month :) --AddisWang (talk)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]


Hi Mkdw, thank you for joining the Wikipedia Asian Month. I'm very glad to see you contribute to the Asian Month. While your contribution Hee Seo meets the requirement of 4k bytes and 300 words though it has not being expanded 5 times. I will mark this article as (P), so if you submit another four qualified contributions, this one will also count and you can receive a postcard.It would be great if you are able to expand it, please remove my mark after you finish it. Thank you!--AddisWang (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


I noticed your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biblioworm, and it made me think that there was something of interest in the cobwebs of my memories. IIRC - there was an editor who had little experience in articles, but did manage to have a fairly successful Arb tenure. I could be wrong on it, but I think maybe User:Elen of the Roads would be relevant to what you're saying. — Ched :  ?  18:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I talk to you[edit]

I have a history of getting confused in sockpuppet investigations, so I thought I'd drop you a line rather than log a case. The issue appears to be a continuation of the situation discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TechGrizzly/Archive where you blocked and tagged some users. The main article has been recreated at Getmii (I've asked for it to be speedied) and the founder's article is up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Angus Meyer; these articles were created by User:HarvardiLab and User:HarvardLaunchLab1. They seem like socks to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Yes the evidence seems fairly clear under WP:DUCK. A single purpose account with all the hallmark edits and articles for that of TechGrizzly. I have deleted Getmii and salted the article for one year. I have also speedily deleted Mark Angus Meyer under block evasion. I won't salt that article because someone else may come along and create it if the subject meets our notability guidelines. It doesn't seem likely but we have to give it a WP:CHANCE. If it's repeatedly recreated by other socks then I will go ahead and salt it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. In the future, you can also add this evidence to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TechGrizzly where this latest incident will be added to the article once dealt with from an administrative point of view. Sometimes this helps in establishing a pattern of behaviour. Mkdwtalk 06:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re signup[edit]

Hello, Mkdw. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
HazelAB (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


I was left dumbfounded by these [5][6]. The racism rants continue and the "your people killed my people" part seems over the top. Some things don't change. Papaursa (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Papaursa: What a mess. I'm away travelling right now but I'll have a look when I get back. Mkdwtalk 17:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian funerary practices[edit]

I hope you don't mind but I extended your protection to 6 months. The 166. IPs are WP:ARARAT on a tear again and he'll attack the article as soon as short term protection expires. See User_talk:NeilN#Ararat_arev_again for more info. --NeilN talk to me 23:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: No problem NeilN. I thought it might be a little lenient but I didn't see any previous protection logs on that article. Mkdwtalk 00:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)