User talk:Mkativerata/Archive13

User Nmate being uncivil again
Hello! The purpose of this message is to notify you about the recent actions of User:Nmate. You blocked him a month ago for personal attacks, but unfortunately he insists in being uncivil. As it can be seen here he engaged in an edit war, bringing unfounded accusations of wiki-hounding and sock-puppetry as arguments of his reverts. He is trying to re-insert two sources that were confirmed by 3 uninvolved users (including a administrator) to be unreliable per WP:SPS (see more on the article talk page).

In the same time he is pressing for the elimination of a phrase supported by a (at least apparently) reliable scholar book (Istoria României. Transilvania, coord. Anton Drăgoescu, 1997 - where one of the authors is Prof. dr. Ioan BOLOVAN from the respected Babeș-Bolyai University)

This editor is not at the first deviation, as it can be seen in his block log. This warning, given after multiple attacks (including affirmations like "Iadrian yu is not an I.Q. champion") is also relevant.

He is helped in his demarches by User:Hobartimus

Please take some measures to calm him down. Thanks in advance (Daccono (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Hi there, you really should take this to WP:AE rather than to an individual administrator, otherwise it can be said that you are "shopping" for an administrator likely to take action. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Raja Petra Kamarudin
great work. Decora (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

World Universities Debating Championship
You removed the results listing from this page can you confirm to Manticore that it should not be on the page as per Wikipedia rules. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebateOne (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hi Mkativerata. In a discussion earlier this year, User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9, you proposed a triumvirate for closing contentious debates. Would you look at Administrators' noticeboard and User talk:Tabercil? I mentioned the possibility of a triumvirate of admins to close Talk:China which is related to the recently close RfC at Talk:China. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks like a very good candidate for a triumvurate. But regrettably I'm almost certain I'm involved. I commented in this debate (taking one side of it) a few months ago. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have posted a request for two uninvolved admins to join in a triumvirate. Cunard (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

E-mail from Richwales
Rich wales (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your oppose at my RfA
Could you please explain more to me the rationale behind your oppose? Thanks, Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 05:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is that is not clear... --Mkativerata (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the phrase "green dooby-wacker" first made me go "WTF" but now I'm guessing it refers to it being classified as a good article. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was looking more along the lines not so much of why you opposed, I guess, but why you feel that Storm Prediction Center does not deserve GA status (which seems to be the rationale behind your oppose, if I interpreted it correctly). It's pretty much my prize article, and if there are concerns that it is not GA quality I would definitely like to resolve those as soon as possible. Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 21:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that - it's just the over-use of WP:SPS and the fact that the article is out of date. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kristina Calhoun
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristina Calhoun. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

E-mail from Richwales (again)
Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Westbury Cricket Club
Hi,

I don't think that you finished closing the AfD on this one properly, the AfD tad is still on the article page. I would also like to know how a unsourced article could make it through AfD with a keep, the only links provided in the AfD were to mentions such as :


 * "Mr Ri V. Marris presided at the annual meeting of - the Westbury Cricket Club on Monday",
 * "A CREDIT balance of £8 6s 7d was disclosed at the annual meeting of the Westbury Cricket Club".
 * "This club has during the past season played nine matches, of which six were won and three lost"
 * "A meeting of the committee of the Westbury Cricket Club took place in the reading-room on Saturday evening." or
 * "A SPECIAL meeting of the Westbury Cricket Club was held at Mr. R. Ingamell's, and was well attended by members of the women's committee and players."

to say that these are significant coverage is stretching it Mt  king  (edits)  09:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the closing script obviously didn't do its job. There was nowhere near a consensus to delete this article.  The sufficiency of available sourcing is often a matter of opinion and here the opinion was, at best, divided. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page images
Hello! Please remember to locally upload and protect images before placing them on the main page. Following this edit, File:Putin (cropped).jpg, remained unprotected (and subject to vandalism) until approximately nine minutes later, when a bot detected its transclusion and cascade-protected it at Commons. Thank you! —David Levy 05:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Barrett Trotter
Hi. I see you deleted the article on Barrett Trotter. Now that he is the starting quarterback for Auburn, a fringe top 25 team, would you mind undeleting it? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 15:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Because of the extensive news sources arising since the last AfD, the last AfD is clearly out of date. I've restored the article as a redirect. Feel free to update it and restore the article proper. The history is all there. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Not any help
Hi, sorry, I've been being thick. I just realized that if you reblocked with no email access, it actually only prevents sending email, so that suggestion of mine was worthless. A developer seems your best option. Only other thing I can think of is asking a Crat to rename the account something like RenamedAccount123456, which would make it harder for someone to find the email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I think if it will be that onerous, the harm I'm trying to prevent is too unlikely as to warrant it. My only concern is that users who have harrassed the user on his talk page in the past might now harrass the user by email, and the user's email address is controlled by his family members. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, it took me a while but I figured out your likely motivation once I realized why blocking wouldn't work. Since it's been a while since they retired, I'm hopeful there won't be any disturbing emails. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Anomie RfA
Did you know you were currently opposing? I think someone missed the joke.... WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As an FYI, it was moved back to support column, though Mkativerata should perhaps confirm here that it is in the right place (see also here; here). – xeno talk 15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. I was feeling rather mischievous last night. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AE
Just in case it gets overlooked, i've made a comment at AE where i make a proposal (the last paragraph) in regards to me and Domer48 that i think is reasonable in the circumstances. Mabuska (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 September 18
Thank you for closing Deletion review/Log/2011 September 18. When you close an AfD as relist, would you link directly to the AfD:

no consensus, list at AfD

This will allow editors easy access to the AfD from the DRV page. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and done. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mkativerata, if there is no BLP problem, could you restore the associated talk page ? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

woohoo!

 * Wow! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)