User talk:Mkativerata/Archive15

Unblock policy violation

 * You appear to have violated the blocking policy with the unblock on Malleus:
 * Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.
 * As far as I can determine in your contributions history and the ANI discussion, you made no attempt to participate in that discussion or to contact Ryan to discuss the matter.
 * The block was controversial and asymmetrical, but was not unambiguously wrong (roughly 50/50 split on ANI discussion) and there's no evident reason that you couldn't have made a good faith effort to contact Ryan or participate in the ANI discussion prior to unblocking.
 * Whether Malleus should have been blocked for that, for how long, whether Tbhotch should have been as well or instead, and so forth are all open questions. Whether that unblock complies with policy seems rather unambiguously "no".
 * Coming slightly late to the game, one might consider this a form of a form of a shrubbery. However, there has been significant historical discussion and general consensus that A) enabling serial abusers is a serious problem, and B) that admins who are short-circuiting process to enable that are themselves causing a problem that is actionable.
 * Given the outcome of the ANI discussion and other discussions, I am not sure what an appropriate remedy is here. At the very least IMHO you owe Ryan an apology, though we don't traditionally insist on those here.  Right or wrong, failing to attempt to consult him, or engage in the community discussion, was a disservice to him and the community.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I: (1) refer to my entry in the block log and comment on ANI; (2) say that if I contravened a policy (that I note says should) I was right to do so; and (3) say that I would do the same thing again in the same circumstances. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw your comment on ANI and in the block log. Neither of those contravenes nor overrides the block policy.  The block policy is unambiguous - "Except in cases of unambiguous error" - for a reason.
 * Failure to at least make an effort to contact the blocking administrator or seek noticeboard consensus is disrespectful to the admin community and community as a whole. The policy was written and carefully crafted and recrafted to keep admins behaving civilly and constructively towards each other.  Your action was neither constructive nor civil towards the other admin involved nor the complexity of the noticeboard consensus.  It was the one step short of technically being wheel warring, but in intent and tone was exactly that.
 * This is not how we can continue to administer Wikipedia. It's not Bold, it's not "doing the right thing".  It's disruptive and destructive.
 * If you really feel that it was appropriate and that you'd do it again, I would like to respectfully request that you surrender the admin bit at this time. This is not OK, and all the good works you have done (and I expect you will do in the future) do not outweigh the need for this not to stand and not happen again.  I would be extremely unhappy to be forced to march you down the road to Arbcom over this, but if you force the issue then I see no way to avoid it.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I am open to recall. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are the questions Arbcom might ask if this was taken to them. (1) Why did Kaldari block an editor in a dispute when an uninvolved administrator had already decided not to block either editor in the dispute? (2) Why did Kaldari do so without consulting that admin or getting consensus for the block? (3) Was Kaldari involved, having been very recently been in direct conflict with the editor he blocked over an article matter? So please, either back your officious threats up with action, or go away. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're arguing perfectly valid reasons to discuss with the blocking admin or a noticeboard discussion. As I pointed out - this is not a clear unambiguous good block.  But neither was it unambiguously bad, as the noticeboard consensus showed, and you didn't take the (not required, but very strongly recommended) steps of discussing anywhere first to any significant degree.
 * I'm perfectly happy to let Kaldari's chips fall where they may in further investigation here. I do not know or assert whether he acted in full accord with policy, either.
 * I've been giving you a little time to reconsider. As it appears you're stiffening your position, I will be perfectly happy to start working up the arbcom case now.  My apologies for the delay, which seems to have troubled you.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you would be perfectly happy. Just name Kaldari as a party as well (although I don't think anything he did merits desysopping). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to see what's unfolding here Mkativerata, and I wish you luck should George actually go ahead with his ill-considered and half-baked ArbCom case. Given the vultures that will inevitably quickly come zooming from nowhere you might need it, and so might I, as I'm certain that I'll end up the villain. Kaldari on the other hand, as a WMF employee, will get off Scott free. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your direct actions aren't a factor, actually, Malleus. The initial block was on you but the subsequent stuff didn't directly involve you at all...
 * I'm sure you'll want to have your two cents when filed, but I hope it doesn't become focused on what you did. The block was certainly debated actively and controversial.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that you're an incorrigible optimist George, but time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * An ArbCom case because he didn't take a "not required, but very strongly recommended" step? Good grief. Mkativerata, I have been in a different-but-slightly-similar situation (also Malleus' fault! :) ), you have my sympathies, it's a bit of a pain in the ass but not completely unbearable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You and Mkativerata are not alone I don't think. I can think of several other administrators who have faced the wrath of the mob after unblocking me. And the moral of the story ought to be don't block me unless you can make a copper-bottomed case that you're right. Too often, as in this case, it's blocks made an administrator upset because I've argued with him and he spots an opportunity to get his own back. If adminship is really no big deal then Kaldari ought to be desysopped. But of course he'll come out smelling of roses, with the backing of the WMF. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, I didn't unblock you; I blocked Rod. But that doesn't alter your basic premise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it's all coming back to me now. But my memory of that episode is that it was pretty much all Rod's fault, for which, to his credit, he has subsequently apologised to me. Really, being called a "juvenile amoeba" or "an insect, possibly a cockroach" is way beyond what even I think is acceptable. So where was George then? Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. You'd have to tell me when this all happened so I can see what I was focusing on at the time.  It's hard to actually follow all the details of your editing without stalking your contributions, which I don't do for anyone.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re your edit summary, perhaps "Carmen Sangeorgio" would be more fitting. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strangely, this will be the third current matter before Arbcom arising out of an administrative action taken by me. Famous last words, but I don't intend to be actively involved in this. I'll say my piece and see what happens. I expect an Arbcom case would be less stressful than a recall petition, which I am open to. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Call me an optimist as well, but even given my cynicism towards ArbCom, I suspect an RFAR based on "pretty crap asymmetrical block by involved admin gets overturned" isn't going to get much traction. As I said at the time, you beat me to the unblock by seconds, so ... Black Kite (t)   22:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that there is wide consensus, even including GWH, that the block was flawed and was certainly controversial. Personally I don't think that you can have Arbcom render a judgment on principles of admin behaviour based on a flawed block. In general, I don't think that any principles can rest on a flawed foundation. Therefore I expect that Arbcom will decline the case if it is brought to them. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

All this effort going on dick-waving, politicising and general bullying and none of it going on improving the project. As far as content is concerned this all amounts to a shitload of wasted energy. GWH, put your stick away and go and edit an article...you do remember how presumably? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

George, are you actually going to file this or not? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well George? As this clearly involves me as well I too would like to know what your intentions are. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Filing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators who put prepositions at the end of sentences are arbitrators up with whom I will not put. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Occupy Buffalo
Hi Mkativerata. You've removed the AfD tag from Occupy Buffalo but haven't closed Articles for deletion/Occupy Buffalo. Cunard (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I closed it as keep (though noted it was per you. Feel free to tweak away at your discretion. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steven. What happened here was that ItsZippy and I closed it at exactly the same time. My script hit the article first, while he got the closing statement in first. I was happy enough to allow his close to stand. I of course would have closed it the same way, although with a comment that notwithstanding the consensus, a lot of the keeps seemed to ignore the requirements of WP:EVENT for "enduring historical significance", and therefore this debate may very well be re-opened down the track when that significance, if any, can be properly assessed. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured something weird happened with the scripts. If my close needs tweaking feel free to do so, my close was more procedural (lack of closing rationale) as opposed to how I would have closed it myself if that makes sense. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Steven, for closing the discussion. Mkativerata, would you add the closing comment you would have added had you not edit-conflicted with ItsZippy? Cunard (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Rugby League Articles
Best way would be to take it step by step to keep track of everything- at the moment it is International season so keeping track of the 4 Nations, World Cup qualifiers, European Tri Nations (France-Scotland-Ireland) then after that we can start looking at the 2012 Super League and NRL seasons and keeping track of player movements, 2012 squads etc.. just my thoughts. IrishRugbyFan (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that's a good idea. So far, the best site I've found to keep track on things is rleague.com, which seems to harvest news stories from pretty much anywhere. But please let me know if you have any better resources. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hegiht/Weights
Interesting case. I have raised it at the project page. Hope I haven't misrepresented your case. Cheers Mattlore (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've just left a comment. It's a tricky one! --Mkativerata (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your work getting the Sam Tomkins/GA1 review finished. My circumstances changed over the months from raising the article to B-class, nominating it and then dealing with the review, and I simply wasn't able to find time for finishing the job. The effort you made is much appreciated and I'm just relieved we got there in the end. GW (talk)  12:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all,and well done for all your hard work on the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, there's an issue with international tries I didn't manage to resolve. The England national team website seems to count the 60-6 win over France a couple of years back as a full international, thus counting Tomkins' four tries in it. Rugbyleagueproject doesn't. The matter came to a head on the weekend as it wasn't clear whether Tomkins' four tries against Wales was the first or second time he'd equalled the England record. So there's some minor inconsistencies within the article at the moment. I thought I'd let you know as you'll have a better idea than me about the status of northern hemisphere matches, but if you don't have time I'm happy to figure it out. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RLP is wrong, or they might simply not have realised that the mid-season Test versus France is an official Test. Like you, they're based in the southern hemisphere. The four tries against France and this weekend's four against Wales all count as being part of official Test matches. GW  (talk)  23:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. When the England website is updated -- it hasn't been yet -- I'll update the numbers in the article if you like. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re the request to retract
I don't know if back and forth more extensively on the case page is entirely appropriate. I'll leave a note here and we can figure out where to proceed. We can copy this or refer this in the Arbcom case talk page if required.

I didn't file the case over a minor friendly disagreement over process. I'm not saying "I know you're lying" with the block message / ANI consensus. I'm saying, I and a bunch of other people read it that way, and that way is (wrong, false, or mistaken). This discussion is a week old and this is the first time you've stepped up to clarify the block message and claim you meant something else, other than the way I read it.

If I believed you were in fact acting in bad faith I would have blocked you and filed the RFAR in that order and much more promptly. I don't know or assert that's necessarily the case (nor believe, though it's a possibility).

I do believe something very wrong happened, in totality, and we are here (and there, at RFAR) because I no longer at this time entirely trust your judgement as an administrator. I told you seven days ago that I was taking this seriously. I indicated i was serious in asking you to give up the bit if you were going to blow off my concerns. The manner in which you replied did not increase my trust in you.

The ANI consensus aspect is only one small part of what was wrong with the unblock and why we got here. This is about bigger fish frying than what you intended in your heart with "ANI is clear". I neither said nor believe that the interpretation I got out of the totality of the unblock message was necessarily bad faith or malign intent on your part, but nor am I at this point going to simply accept your sudden alternate interpretation. What I think about it tomorrow after sleeping on it, we'll see.

I think you are asserting an obviousness to your intent that is not clearly there at all. I have committed plenty of sins of misphrasing that was taken completely wrongly from my intent online, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and I understand how that can happen. However, so far everyone I've talked to interpreted it the same way I did. If you insist "Oh, I was obviously right in that interpretation from the beginning" you may go down insisting on that. You have at the very least established a large confusion and confoundment with what you wrote in the unblock message, and you need to address that in a manner above and beyond "No, that's not what I meant at all". You're responsible for what you wrote, not just for what you intended by what you wrote, and to the extent that the other interpretation was apparently the common one, you owe everyone a better clarification and some acceptance of responsibility for the phrasing that misled.

I'm not trying to be flippantly demeaning with the complaint. I am open to striking some particulars if and when I am convinced. But I'm not going to do it just on "Oh, that's not what I meant".

It is getting into extremely late here, and I am starting to ramble. We can discuss further (here, or wherever) in the morning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Who have you been talking to? On wiki or off? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call
And I liked your edit summary re: Dennis Ritchie. You have a nice sense of humor. I like that. Warmly, Msnicki (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, that sentence had been giving me the itch since it was first put in (I know it wasn't yours). :) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha! Same!  Msnicki (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

deletion requests
Continuing on from Mattlore's page, could you please delete the following pages? Would appreciate it alot. Thanks. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Shaun Boss, Harmony Hunt, Cruise Wilson, Alex McMillan (rugby league), Byron Fruean, Aaron Fairweather, Nicholas Dwan, Isaac Dargan, Jake Finn, Neenan Simpson, Ben Tupou, Kevin Pease


 * Done. I'm sorry to see how much work was involved in those articles... --Mkativerata (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mattlore
Unfortunately, I had replied before you  deleted your message. By the same token I  have deleted my  reply, but  please consider that  your comments can also  ruin someone's day and enthusiasm. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Unambiguous advertising or promotion
Dear Mkativerata,

I really appreciate your effort to keep the Wikipedia clean in terms of its policies.

I have been trying hard to get my article on ISBR Business School posted on below link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBR_Business_School

I really wanted to know in detail which part of my previous article appeared to be Advertising / Promotional so that i can alter that portion and have it listed successfully.

Looking forward for kind support and guidance.

Thanks,

Mayurwish (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with the article is that it was focused on (a) telling the reader what courses and services the university offers; and (b) how good those courses and services are. For example: ISBR boasts of an excellent and experienced faculty of leading thinkers, consultants and advisors. The faculty members hold eminent positions in professional organization and collaborate with other leaders in the same domain to have a significant impact on the direction of research and knowledge generation.


 * Really, the only way to avoid that is to use reliable independent sources and write the article with a neutral tone. --Mkativerata (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why the revert?
I requested someone to help edit the Nancy Schaefer contribution, not to completely delete it. If there's a problem with it fix it. It's her own quote verbatim except for change from first person to third person to correct the grammar in the context in which it is presented. If you want I can provide videos of the speech. It was a regular theme of hers almost exactly the same whenever she spoke on the topic because she stayed close to her notes. If there are typographical errors on the text they are from the discussion page where I found the transcript, and there may be other transcripts out there of her talks. But you should edit or trim down but not delete it. Please revert it or modify it to meet your standards or put something there in its place. She is being treated unfairly if her legacy that she stood for and in her own words lost her senate seat over is suppressed.

Will it be sufficient to link a copy of her speech on video as source? Why not tag with "CITATION NEEDED" if that's the problem as is customary on Wikipedia for comments made without source immediately provided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is how it works. If reliable sources (ie reputable newspapers) have reported the speech, that fact can be put in the article. It needs to be put in the article so as not to give it undue weight. And it needs to be properly sourced. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

For WP.UNDUE to apply there must be a minority viewpoint given undue weight over the majority viewpoint. What is the majority viewpoint that is in conflict with this contribution to make it a minority viewpoint given undue weight over the majority?


 * The point is that the article should not be turned into a hatchet job on child protection services. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think Nancy's words are a hatchet job on CPS, then you're censoring her beliefs. The article is about her, not you. The words are hers, not mine (except change in grammar and attribution to her which I admit could have been done more formally). She was avidly against the abuses of authority within CPS and spent much of her life working to expose the need to reform it, not because of conspiracy theories, but because of actual gross cases of misconduct. Yet the article about her is sanitized so cleanly you would never know she had anything to do with it. If her words are a hatchet job in your opinion then you seem to disagree with her and that's not NPOV.

Still the question about UNDUE judgement remains unanswered. Perhaps a simple misunderstanding? Or is it more like censorship because you don't agree with her POV?


 * The words in the article were expressed in the third person so how can they possibly be her own words? --Mkativerata (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Her own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkt5zeYQ7-A

Like I explained before I changed the grammar from first to third person and left it otherwise unchanged because the article is about her. It could have been quoted if that were more appropriate and left in first person. Is that a better approach?


 * Well at least that would may avoid a potential copyright violation. But the real issue is that a brief, well-sourced biography should not be overwhelmed by a large single-issue speech extract. Perhaps one sentence in the article saying she had criticised child protection services might suffice, so long as there was a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I maintain that a senator's own public speech is as reliable of a source as you will find about that senator's stance on any issue. Rather than pick and choose which points to put on the page I included the entire speech. Nevertheless, you are welcome to trim it down and edit it to standards as I mentioned in the discussion page, Didn't you read the discussion page before deleting the content?


 * Wikipedia biographies are succinct summaries of a person's life, not an unauthorised collection of speech extracts. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So a political position that a politician takes and clearly states her belief that it cost her reelection to her senate seat is not noteworthy in her biography? Compare the trivia of other bios and the legacy sections. It is a major issue in her life that she fought for. Google her and see. Yet my and your opinions don't count as hers does. Then should it not be in her biography? She left no question as to how she felt about how it profoundly affected her life and her career.
 * As I said, if you have a reliable third party source for all of that, put it in the article succintly and neutrally. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

She was not neutral on the subject, so how is it unbiased to portray her as being neutral? That is censorship. Portraying an activist like her as neutral is dishonest.


 * I mean that the article should not suggest sympathy or otherwise with her views. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed any of her views were right or wrong, only that she made the claims. If I had endorsed them then it would be a different issue. The same with condemning or censoring them completely. What did I add to her words? Or how was I being selective in quoting her? No, I quoted her in context specifically to avoid that. So the accusation is invalid.


 * I am not accusing you of anything at the moment. I'm saying that if you do put something into the article, make sure it is succinct, well-sourced and neutral. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

MKuCR
Glad to learn that at least one admin will be watchlisting the MKuCR article. In connection to that I have a following question. These two edits, had been added without consensus. That is a violation of Sandstein's edit restrictions, and I believe it would be correct to remove these edits and, if some users want to re-add them, to start a discussion de novo following the item #2 of the Sandstein's procedure. However consensus about removal of this illegitimately added text cannot be achieved on the talk page, because the same users who unilaterally added (and re-added) this text oppose to its removal. In this situation, the only way seems to resort to WP:DIGWUREN again. As far as I understand, the most strict and formal way to do that would be to file a new AE request against the users who initially added the text without discussion. However, that may lead to a block of two users, TLAM and Peters, which is not a result I want to achieve. In connection to that, I would like to know your opinion on the most appropriate way to restore the stable version of the article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noting here that I'll look into it but I just don't have the time just now. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made a proposal at AE. The reason I've couched it as a proposal rather than just taking the action myself is so that others may comment. I'll pretty much never take a contentious administrative action solely arising from a request on my talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did not request you to take any unilateral actions, I simply asked for your opinion on how such a situation should be resolved (I asked the same question on the AE page, but I got no answer). Thanks you again. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What Additional References are Needed for You to Not Delete a Page?
Greetings, a question about the Jessie Stricchiola page you deleted, citing missing references. What references are you looking for that were not already included for this person's page? Note that Barbara Coll page referenced in the original is nearly identical in credentials and references - and remains published.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsbradford (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Stricchiola's page was deleted after a discussion here. Unless you can find independent sources that weren't around when the discussion took place, the article isn't going to be restored. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears Danny Sullivan disagrees with you (and strongly) on this one Mkativerata: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessie_Stricchiola:

"I'm modifying this page despite the big warning not to modify it because, as the article was already deleted with a "consensus" of 7 against 6, there's no way to add further comments on the original talk page.

I'm a notable person on Wikipedia, as well as an expert in search marketing. So for what it's worth, you're seriously questioning whether Jessie should have her own page? That's just crazy. The page should be restored, and immediately. She's clearly notable.

First, I don't see how Mkativerata starts off saying that 7-6 is not a consensus, but then concludes that it is. Clearly, it is not. When in doubt, err on caution.

Jessie was a founding member (not just a board member) and driving force behind the creation of the SEMPO organization, the search marketing industry's largest trade group. That alone should make her notable. This is an easily verified fact: http://www.sempo.org/?page=pr_20030820

Here's what I wrote about the group when it was founded in 2003, where Jessie is cited at the beginning: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2064338/SEMPO-Search-Engine-Marketing-Professional-Organization-Opens-To-Members

"I think a testimonial at the SEMPO launch meeting last month by one of SEMPO's board members Jessie Chase-Stricchiola put it best: 'When I tell people that I'm a search engine marketer, I want them to know what that means," she said -- or words similar to that effect'."

Jessie was one of the first search marketers that highlighted the issue of click fraud. She was a pioneer in that space, and would be notable for her teachings and writings on that subject alone. I don't know anyone who spoke on this topic before her in 2002 -- her pitch to cover it was one of the reasons I invited her in 2002 to participate in what became the first of many conference appearances: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2065421/Perfecting-Paid-Search-Engine-Listings

I'm hard pressed to think if there was anyone else with near her stature in this area, from as far back. As I wrote in 2006: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2048086/The-Latest-Click-Fraud-Roundup

"Alchemist is headed up by Jessie Stricchiola, one of our long time SES speakers on the subject and a true pioneer in raising alarm over the issue"

That was referencing a BusinessWeek article that was also citing her company and work it did on research in the area with Fair Issac. Got it? When the credit card fraud spotting people wanted to understand click fraud better, they turned to Jessie:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2006/tc20060227_930506.htm

Jessie was an expert witness in a landmark case about click fraud that was settled with with Google. Wikipedia itself finds it notable to cite her for this on its own click fraud page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud

As a long-standing leader in the search marketing space, she also co-authored a popular book on the topic. But wait, WorldCat only shows 12 copies i holdings.

Reading some of the debate on this is laughable. You want to figure out what makes a search marketer notable based on what you think makes an astrophysicist notable? In the search marketing space, speaking at conferences is indeed one way that search marketers are validated -- it's a type of peer review, because if you're a bad speaker, you don't get called back. Being referenced by other SEOs is a huge measure of respect, because marketers can be loathe to point people to other marketers.

Someone should restore this page. Moreover, you ought to expand it and do Wikipedia's proper job of documenting notable people like Jessie, rather than relying on guesswork and whatever you think you can discover by just by searching the web for information on subjects you're not expert in.

Dannysullivan (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.254.207.73 (talk)


 * Your next avenue to try to have the page restored is to appeal the deletion at deletion review. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * [EDIT] I thought it should be Requests for undeletion but that's not it :)
 * BTW, this article started this discussion: http://daggle.com/closed-unfriendly-world-wikipedia-2853, and seeing everybody's tone and +1's, I'm sure it won't go away... Malixsys (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The response here should explain. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He has a point about how complicated it all is...! :)

...So I posted:

Deletion review for Jessie Stricchiola
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jessie Stricchiola. 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. Malixsys (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he does have a point there :) Thanks for letting me know. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, be so kind to Undelete Jessie Stricchiola. She is surely notable, is an expert on Google and Click Fraud, is mentioned on Wikipedia several times (as an expert!) and deserves to be found in Wikipedia. Can't see why her lemma was deleted. JosephDamen (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's under discussion here and of course you're free to weigh in. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And then you wonder why people just don't believe any more on wikipedia. Who cares about how much times she is mentioned in the USA media. Who cares!?!?!? Feel free to block me, delete me, whatever you want, you and your fellow editors are the ones destroying Wikipedia. Congratulations. PaiSand (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Arbitration Case
Hi, I don't know if I should be addressing you, but if not maybe you can redirect me? You were involved in the case with Jonchapple. I see that Domer48 reported this edit. It seems maybe a bit harsh to lead on that, as it seems to me Jonchapple was correcting an entry which he himself had originally created. He'd even created it with a link to Derry! Bjmullan then added a link to the bridge article itself, so anyone could follow that link and see it's in Derry/Londonderry. It's ironic that Jonchapple added a link about a bridge which symbolises reconciliation and it's been used against him. Similarily, adding Londonderry references and adding Ulster-Scots references improves the value of Wikipedia. Is the article on Ireland covered as part of the 'Troubles'? Seems a bit harsh to me to punish Jonchapple in the circumstances but I'm new to this side of Wikipedia so may be missing something. Maybe I've misunderstood the restrictions this editor was already under, but these contributions seem constructive and not disruptive. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I only really considered the first edit (the Peace Bridge one). The point isn't so much the propriety of the edit itself, it is that the edit was made in violation of a prohibition not to make edits of that kind. Even so, the edit summary is misleading. I don't think the fact that he added the link originally with the Derry wording matters one way or the other. The point is that the editor was banned from the topic area some weeks ago. Contraventions of a ban, of which this is the second, get enforced by block. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That was quick! Thanks for the explanation.--Flexdream (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy image duplicate
Can you shut down this duplicate RFC that was opened immediately after an identical RFC was closed? Many editors feel this is not only out of process, but an actual abuse of process. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥  20:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen to take that one on, sorry. While I'm sure "many editors feel this is not only out of process, but an actual abuse of process", many editors don't feel that way. This would probably benefit from the services from a different uninvolved admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel ya on this one, I'd probably take the same stance. This was just a due process request, it'll probably end up in the hands of ArbCom.  Dreadstar  ☥  21:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

speed

 * Is this a template?  Puffin  Let's talk! 16:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Be wary of pesky edit conflicts
No biggie, but I just noticed for the second time that one of your edits to WP:ANI reverted edits made by others probably due to edit conflicts. So it's probably a good idea to check your edits to see if they don't accidentally remove other stuff. :) --Conti|✉ 19:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks very much. I had noticed it after the fact, but it got fixed first. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Obedient Wives Club
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10,500. I thought this one might be popular :) --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Jonchapple
Hi Mkativerata. I'm forwarding this issue to you as the blocking admin in Jonchapple's case. He responded to your topic ban enforcement with this. It probably violates the rfar but I'm not in a position to deal with it properly right now (too many balls in the air on wp right now). I'm letting the requester know I'm passing this on to you too-- Cailil  talk 16:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm inclined to let rants like this lie. As long as it doesn't continue. This shows at least some restraint. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Grand - thanks for looking at it-- Cailil  talk 18:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Glidden paints deletion
Hi, I see that you deleted the Glidden (paints) article, and along with it the redirect for the founder.

Not that it was a very valuable article ... but I wonder why you chose to delete the article rather than rolling it back to its 2007 pre-copy/paste version? --Alvestrand (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm pretty sure even the original version was a copyvio. Even though I couldn't find the source (not unusual as it was over four years ago), it was written very much like someone else's work, and "written" by the same editor who introduced the later copyright violations. So I played it safe and deleted the whole thing: policy pretty much requires that approach for content written by confirmed copyright violators. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Samar Alami - Blanked
Hi- Can you be specific about the copyright vio for the Samar Alami page, please? --Sreifa (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. The article plagiarises sources including http://www.independent.co.uk/news/two-guilty-of-embassy-bombing-1314125.html?CMP=ILC-refresh and http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=64373. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:Plagiarism. There is no copyvio, since citations are given clearly. --Sreifa (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation doesn't overcome close paraphrasing. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I share Sreifa's questions. In addition, I see that you first asserted that this was plagiarism, but then refined your comment to say it was close paraphrasing.  Can you explain why you believe that to be the case?  Furthermore, this seems to raise some of the same points discussed in your AN/I, here.  Finally, this seems to be squarely within your conflict of interest area, raising those issues also discussed at the AN/I.


 * Your input on these issues would be appreciated. Especially: 1) why you believe that this is either plagiarism or an inappropriately close paraphrase, amd 2) and why since it is squarely within your conflict of interest area you don't post word of your concern on a noticeboard rather than engage in a blanking that raises questions.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Blanking is normal procedure for an article created by a CCI subject with multiple instances of close paraphrasing or plagiarism. The article plagiarises and close paraphrases sources including http://www.independent.co.uk/news/two-guilty-of-embassy-bombing-1314125.html?CMP=ILC-refresh and http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=64373. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why those aren't sufficiently non-close? And if editors disagree with your view here, what is the process by which to have your action reviewed and if appropriate reversed?
 * Also -- sorry to repeat myself -- can you explain why since this article is squarely within your conflict of interest area you don't post word of your concern on a noticeboard, rather than engage in a blanking that raises questions?--Epeefleche (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Article:
 * Botmeh was alleged to have purchased the two cars that were used in the attacks, and a large amount of TATP explosive of a different type to that used in the two bombs was found in a lock-up rented by him. The two alleged that a Palestinian known to them as "Reeda," whom they were unable to further identify, had supplied the TATP found in the lock-up and accompanied Botmeh to buy cars at auction. TATP was also used many years later in the London 7/7 bombings that killed 52 people in 2005.

Source:
 * Botmeh, also an engineer, was alleged to have purchased the two cars that were used in the London attacks, and a large amount of TATP explosive of a different type to that used in the two bombs was found in a lock-up rented by him. The pair alleged that a Palestinian known to them as "Reeda," whom they were unable to further identify, had supplied the TATP found in the lock-up and accompanied Botmeh to buy cars at auction. TATP's base ingredients - drain cleaner, bleach and acetone - can be bought easily and without attracting suspicion, and its chemical composition is simple. It is almost undetectable by sniffer dogs or conventional bomb detection systems. TATP was used in the London 7/7 bombings that killed 52 people in 2005.

It's pretty much word-for-word copying. It has nothing to do with COI. I couldn't give a stuff who Samar Alami is. Never heard of her. I'll remove copyvios no matter what they're about. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that needs fixing.  Those 2 sentences seem quite easy to fix.  The problems that I have with some of your other deletions/blankings is not present in those 2 sentences.  As to COI, the reason that the fact that you are an involved editor in the ARBPIA area is important -- when you blank articles, for example -- is that involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about.  Your response doesn't address that.  Posting to a noticeboard, where you have a conflict of interest as here, addresses the problem while at the same time helping you avoid the above "involved administrator" problem.  I think this is of course especially important when you blank articles under the assertion of copyvio, where others find your assertion to be highly dubious.

Also -- sorry to repeat myself -- if editors disagree with your view when you blank articles on the assertion of copyvio/etc., what is the process by which editors can have your actions reviewed and--if appropriate--reversed?--Epeefleche (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just as with any copyright problems board listing, they may express their opinions at the listing or at the talk page of the article. Directions are here. The copyright problem board is not built for extensive commentary, though, as unlike AFDs, articles don't have their own pages. It's generally best to use the article talk page, which admins working CP are instructed to review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Oh, directions to use the article's talk page are also on the template itself, under "To demonstrate that this text is in the public domain, or is already under a license suitable for Wikipedia, click "Show"." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

Christian terrorism
Has recently seen several edits which would appear on their face to bring that article into the realm of the WP:TROUBLESdecision and sanctions. ,,. Especially the editorial comments about the Irish "reclaiming" Northern Ireland which is being "kept" by the British would seem to place this article (with its myriad of problems) in the middle of even more troubles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Having been involved in the original Troubles sanctions, I'm unsure about this; I would have thought that Christian terrorism would really want to concentrate on terrorism perpetrated by Christians against non-Christians (or those that they consider to be non-Christian), rather than between the two.  Having said that, it would appear that the current edits may well bring the article into that realm.  Black Kite (t)   14:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the problem edits - but wanted the editor to be aware of the sanctions likely to be imposed. One problem is that the topic as you state it, is not one with a lot of material in modern times.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say "yes", but perhaps only to the extent that the edits in question concern The Troubles. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the whole article is with WP:TROUBLES, like the whole of Communist terrorism is within WP:DIGWUREN. But that's just my view. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Julia Gomelskaya

 * Hi Mkativerata. You've removed article Julia Gomelskaya (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Gomelskaya. After deleting on 15 October 2011 (19:46),

You wrote that “restoration can be considered if sources arise verifying the subject's claimed achievements”. 1. You can find below the proof of three awards (2006,2011)of the Ukrainian composer Julia Gomelskaya: a).the 1st prize at the 35th Concours International de Chant Choral 2006, Florilege de Tours, France, 2006 ]. b).Laureate of Odessa Municipal Prize 2006. [] c).Laureate of the Boris Liatoshyns’kyj Prize :ru:Лятошинский, Борис Николаевич (Лятошинский Борис Николаевич) of the Ukrainian Ministry for Culture and Arts (2011) [] (Page 5). Unfortunately it’s not possible to find the evidence of other awards (1993, 2003), because they are “old” enough to be found at any website. They exist on paper documents (diplomas) only.

2. The evidence of presentation the Ukrainian music by composer Julia Gomelskaya at ISCM festival – the most important World festival of New Contemporary Music – You can find at the programmes of these festivals: ISCM Zagreb 2011 ; ISCM Sweden 2009 ; ISCM Switzerland 2004 Switzerland The ISCM World New Music Days Festival 2004 November; ISCM Hong Kong 2002 ; ISCM Luxembourg 2000.

3. The evidence that composer Julia Gomelskaya graduated from Guildhall school of Music and Drama, London - You can find at Guildhall School News - Spring/Summer 2011.

4. Other proofs You can find in References of article “Гомельская, Юлия Александровна” in Russian Wiki. Please let me know if You need more evidences. Best regards, Kolomoro (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there's a good chance of this article being improved and restored. What I've done is put the article in your "userspace" so that you can work on it if you like: User:Kolomoro/Julia Gomelskaya. If you add more references to the article, particularly to directly support the awards mentioned in the article, I'd be happy to restore it for you. Let me know if you need any help with referencing. Citing sources is a handy guide. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When you do that can you noindex them please. Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, always forget that. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, just a nudge - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mkativerata. Please look at this article again. I tried to add all references to it. Please let me know if I have to correct anything. Thanks! Also thanks to Off2riorob for his great help! Best regards,Kolomoro(talk)

Talkback
About losing the history

Small change to Mass killings under Communist regimes
Can you implement the following change? Basically, it a minor, WikiGnome-like change. Full discussion is here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which actually violates the MoS as bulleted lists are not supposed to be used where simple paragraphs suffice. WP:MOS. Cheers. (and this means the current bullets also violate the MoS). Collect (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
I found aspects of the discussion of your excisions of the passages epee contributed on how Iran's influence over its neighbors waxed when the USA removed its hostile local rivals -- the Taliban and Saddam (1) confusing; (2) disturbing.

I just rechecked that discussion. I thought you hadn't provided any further explanation of your excisions than what you offered in your edit summaries. During my closer check I found:

I really think your excisions require a much fuller explanation. In particular several of us asked why you excised this version. As the contributor who excised the passage I think you have the primary responsibility for this explanation.

Good faith contributors want to comply with our policies. If his third attempt to address your concerns remained unexplained, how, in the name of heck, are those of us who don't understand the basis of your excision going to learn from his mistake, and avoid that kind of lapse ourselves? So, I for one would appreciate you offering a fuller explanation of why his third attempt to address your concerns failed.

As I wrote in the discussion it is my understanding that blocks, topic bans, etc, are not punishments. It is my understanding that contributors who were blocked, topic banned, etc, are entitled to the same assumption of good faith provided they mended their lapses. So long as they mended their lapses, then they are making just as valuable a contribution as any other contributor, aren't they?

In the thread I read several contributors who didn't seem to be extending AGF to epee -- even though the record of his contributions to the article in question showed him making good faith attempts to address your concerns.

I noted that one interpretation of one of your edit summaries could be interpreted as a warning that you would block epee if you found future attempts to address your concerns unsatisfactory. I think it is important for administrators who are issuing a warning, as an administrator, (1) make clear it is a warning; (2) make clear what actions would trigger the block or other administrative action; (3) make clear which policy would authorize the block or administrative action.

I hadn't read the passage I quoted above clearly when I left my note. It seems to contain another threat that you will block epee. But, as with your first warning, I don't think you made clear what actions would trigger the block, or what policy would authorize the block.

Am I wrong about whether epee deserved AGF? Am I wrong that administrators ought to be clear when issuing a warning, of what will trigger the block, and what policy would authorize that block?

Even if I am wrong about both these things, I really think it would be best if you explained your excisions more fully.

Finally, could you clarify "You are fortunate that I am not taking "indiscriminate removal" to the full extent to which it is allowed" -- what would this "full extent" be? Which policy allows "indiscriminate removal"? What is "indiscriminate removal", anyhow? Geo Swan (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit summaries speak for themselves. Mere syntax changes and synonyms do not fix close paraphrasing. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that since several good faith contributors told you they can't understand why you represent the third excision you made as an excision of a close paraphrase you do have an obligation to make a greater effort to explain your reasoning. If that excision is valid, but some of us can't understand why, how are we to learn from the mistake you think you detected, so we can avoid that kind of mistake ourselves? Some of think epee's attempt was clearly more than an exercise in thesaurus use.  I linked to your reply back on ANI, and I pointed out that you didn't address my concern that your warnings you might block epee didn't make clear what behaviors he could avoid if he wanted to avoid being blocked.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the first matter in the edit summaries and at ANI (see my interactions with Hobit, and also the comments made by Slp1 and causa sui). As to the second: it is straightforward. Instead of edit-warring to "re-write" content removed for copyright concerns, propose a re-write on the relevant talk page and I (and I'm sure many others) would be happy to review it. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your responses here and elsewhere, Mkativerata, strike me as “the best defense is a strong offense.” Responding to Geo Swan’s thoughtful post with “The edit summaries speak for themselves” isn’t responsive and pretty much amounts to “I have stated all I need to say and need to explain myself no further.” Uhm… Mkativerata: It doesn’t work that way in a collaborative writing environment. That you are an admin does not give you carte blanche entitlement to do as you please with articles with arguments that boil down to “Epeefleche had a long history with copyvio so if he complains, I can do whatever I please and he better get way out of the way or I’ll crush him like a bug.” I have had no personal interactions with you whatsoever nor have we (to my knowledge) crossed paths on any article. But your responses on the ANI Epeefleche brought against you really remind me of a cop who stands along the curb at the civil rights march, repetitively smacking his baton into the palm of his hand as if to telegraph that head busting is in store for those who have the misfortune of crossing you just a *bit* too much because of all your magnificent power. If you go back and review your posts at the ANI, do you even see how you could come across that way? Or is it just me? Greg L (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. All I see is obstruction, text-walling and filibustering from Epeefleche and his mates. Sorry that I'd rather spend my limited time on WP doing things like cleaning up the massive theft of other peoples' works than responding to massive walls of text. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You seldom fail to use freudian words, like “obstruction.” Do the masses too often fail to recognize your power? As you gallop into Wikipedia atop your white steed, its nostrils flaring in the morning mist, and pull back on the reigns to make your steed rear as you make a cutting motion in the air with your Saber of Truth, please, kind sir, have pity on the poor minions in the trenches below, for your shadow blocketh their sunlight. I can see I’m wasting my time with someone who has let power go to his head. Greg L (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles season
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your assistance please...
In this edit you excised a paragraph, asserting it violated the copyright of the author of this article. I looked, and I couldn't find a passage that was similar to the excised passage. Could you help me out -- which specific passage did you think was a copyright violation?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to pick one sentence at random from the whole paragraph removed. The article says:
 * Such an order must not be issued as an act of revenge, punishment, or deterrence, but only in prevention. The information that a civilian became a participant in hostile acts must be sufficiently well-founded.
 * The source says:
 * Such an order must not be issued as an act of revenge, punishment or deterrence, but only in prevention, and the information that turns an ordinary civilian into one who takes part in hostile acts must be sufficiently well-founded.
 * And it goes on and on throughout the whole paragraph. This really shouldn't have been hard to see. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look at this diff, between the original paragraph from Haaretz and the paragraph you excised, something like half that paragraph was a new composition, and I question why that should be considered a copyright violation. Of the remainder, portions of two sentences were direct quotes Haaretz made from the high court's ruling.  I suspect those quotes should not have been paraphrased, and those properly referenced direct quotes were not a copyright violation.  That leaves well under half that paragraph as a possible copyright violation.  I've acknowledged that I am not an experienced copyright quality control volunteer.  As such I hope someone who is experienced will explain where the boundary is, and whether this paragraph crossed it.  I'll give you first crack at explaining.  If you don't choose to explain, or I can't understand your explanation, I'll ask other copyright volunteers whether they agree with you.  Do you agree that the portion of the paragraph you excised that were properly referenced quotes should not be considered a copyright violation?  Do you agree that the brand new sentences, not in the original paragraph, should not be considered a copyright violation?  Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course direct quotes from judgments are fine, when they have quotation marks around them. But the paragraph is almost entirely lifted from text used by the secondary source. For example, the article says:
 * Also, targeted killing must not be engaged in when an arrest may be made without real danger to the lives of soldiers; and targeted killing should be avoided if it will lead to disproportionate collateral harm to innocent civilians.
 * Haaretz says:
 * The High Court put two additional safeguards in place for a targeted killing: Use must not be made of this extreme measure when an arrest may be made without real danger to the lives of soldiers; and a targeted killing is to be avoided if it will lead to disproportionate collateral harm to innocent civilians
 * That isn't a direct quote from the court's judgment. It is theft of Haaretz's summary of the judgment. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'll add that while your electronic comparison is cool, it doesn't account for the fact that Epeefleche has taken various sentences from various parts of the article to make the paragraph. This is not a paragraph by paragraph copy and paste, but a sentence by sentence copy and paste, which is why Corenbot didn't notice it either. Much of what you appear to think is "novel composition" is nothing of the sort. For example, the following marked in red in your comparison is also directly lifted from Haaretz:


 * WP article: the directives it gave assure future judicial oversight of all cases in which a targeted killing exceeds the limits of these rules.
 * Haaretz:the directives it gave assure future judicial oversight of all cases in which a targeted killing exceeds the limits of these rules.
 * WP article:If it should turn out that a targeted killing was illegal, it might lead to a trial and the paying of compensation to the innocent civilians who were hurt by it
 * Haaretz: If it should turn out, albeit retrospectively, that a targeted killing was illegal, it might lead to a trial and the paying of compensation to the innocent civilians who were hurt by it.
 * WP article: when an arrest may be made without real danger to the lives of soldiers; and targeted killing should be avoided if it will lead to disproportionate collateral harm to innocent civilians.
 * Haaretz: when an arrest may be made without real danger to the lives of soldiers; and a targeted killing is to be avoided if it will lead to disproportionate collateral harm to innocent civilians
 * Human eyes and intelligence are better for this task when sentences are combined from here and there. Searching for short strings in the Haaretz article also helps. Slp1 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll also add an additional problem WP:V. The first sentence names two human rights groups that are not mentioned at all in the Haaretz article. --Slp1 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you Boing!, I deeply appreciate it. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up
Thanks for doing the clean-up at Conorenal syndrome. Nephron T|C 14:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I just hope I didn't screw up any of the text (which I could not understand!). --Mkativerata (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy. 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. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Haha, thanks! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)