User talk:Mkativerata/Archive17

Malaysia
It's been awhile, but I was wondering if you had any further comments or concerns in regards to Malaysia. Your input on the previous FAC was quite valid, and I'd like to try and fix as much as possible before another FAC (if I decide to try again that is!). Thanks, CMD (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a detailed go through the article, if that would help. One thing that struck my attention was the sentence in the "History" section: "The country has since maintained a delicate ethno-political balance, with a system of government that has attempted to combine overall economic development with political and economic policies that promote equitable participation of all races". This sentence seems a bit unnecessary: first, because it suddenly jumps to the present tense out of a chronological sequence; second, because the source doesn't seem to support it; and third, because it seems unnecessarily open to debate (Most Malays and Indians will have very different view on what "equitable" means!) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, any help helps! You are right that it is definitely debatable, and its probably not a good idea to say the system of government is designed to do that without any elaboration, which would be a bit too much information I think. Do you think the sentence can be rewritten/replaced or just scrapped? CMD (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I reckon scrap it. Other sections of the article deal with current race and economic issues. I was also wondering about the end of the section mentioning Anwar's dismissal and the Bersih protests. Are they notable enough events? If not, their inclusion in this necessarily brief overview of the history might be recentist. For example, it's arguable that Anwar's dismissal is no more historically significant than the UMNO Team A/Team B split a decade earlier. The history section in the FA on Australia doesn't really include any 20th century domestic politics. Just a thought. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wp;drv listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wp;drv. Since you had some involvement with the Wp;drv redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ZZArch talk to me 22:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome (again to Arbitration Enforcement)

 * Thank you, AGK. That's very kind. I like to flit in and out of different backroom areas from time to time (AE, CCI, AfD) to keep up my interest in the project generally and not get worn out. Appreciate it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban of Tom Harrison
Tom is and has been a long standing contributor to 9/11 related articles and has been one of the coolest heads in this topic area...you may not be aware of his period of service in this area as well as how much better Wikipedia is for that service...I am sorry but the diffs provided by The Devils Advocate hardly demonstrate that Tom Harrison has violated the now oldish arbcom case in any way. I'm not into Rfc's, but this matter is truly troubling. Are you aware of the 9/11 conspiracy theories? How well versed are you to render judgement in this area? The immediacy with which you and two other admins reached a decision on this was surely rapid...what might I be overlooking that was a point of contention for you?--MONGO 22:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As an example...Tom Harrison has the most edits to September 11 attacks.......again, I have always found his efforts in these articles to be well and even tempered...if indeed you see trouble in the diffs that were provided at arbcom enforcement, perhaps a warning of potential sanction rather than an outright one would have been the way to go.--MONGO 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Devils Advocate was previously topic banned from the same topic for 30 days...in a case Tom harrison made a few brief comments on......and has been blocked twice in the last 3 months due to this topic area ...Tom harrison has never been blocked ...not once in 8 years of editing!--MONGO 22:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that Tom harrison has asked "please don't pursue this" I am going to help you comply with his request by not responding in substance to this message.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He wasn't talking to me...but I am here talking to you and I would like an explanation...or shall we just use more dismissiveness to demonstrate that you don't want to explain why 4 hardly incriminating edits eliminates an editor that has made possibly 5 thousand substantive edits to 9/11 related articles...me thinks you have applied extremely excessive force here....how about a 30 day ban akin to what the filer had a couple months back?--MONGO 01:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read my comments at AE carefully, you will see that the ban might end up being 30 days. The length of the ban is in the hands of Tom.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the fact that many of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (CT's) have anti-Semitic undertones a revelation to you...I only ask because I do not know...are you aware that indeed, especially in the first few years after 9/11, that anti-Semitic conspiracy theories laid the groundwork for some of the perpetuated myths that 9/11 was an iside job? Have you heard about the supposed Israeli/USA government connection in which this destruction would force the USA to wage war on predominately Muslim nations...all to the supposed benefit of Israeli security? What I am getting at is you may not be aware that while Tom Harrison may not have used the most optimal of sources, that his edits were actually spot on for the most part in the diffs provided...he and I have been working on these types of articles since 2005...we're both well versed in these issues. This is a minor content dispute I assure you....his edits are not topic banning offenses.--MONGO 03:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of all that, thank you for the history lesson. Nothing in that affects the fact that the edits were blatantly unacceptable and sanctionable violations of NPOV.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a serious and self admitted COI on this set of issues...and admitted it here...you shouldn't be using your admin tools or powers in anything with Jewish, Palestinian, Muslim or Israel mentioned due to your own self proclaimed INVOLVED issues. Furthermore, your own bias on this issues indicatesw to me that you are incapable of rendering impartial assessment as to whether there has indeed been a NPOV violation...MONGO 15:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No reason to believe?
I know you said that you weren't going to comment further, and that's fine, but you can at least read this. You said at the AE talk page, that you have "no reason to believe that the editor concerned is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area."

Then consider this. At the main September 11 attacks, there was a long-standing content dispute over if and how conspiracy theories should be mentioned in the article. The debate was contentious and polarized. But one editor proposed a possible solution. It took 2 months of hard-work and consensus building to finally hammer out the wording, but in the end, a solution was reach that was acceptable to all.

You may be interested in learning the name of that editor who started the ball moving and was instrumental in building that consensus which resolved the content dispute: Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_57#Proposed_wording

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Past editing behaviour is no excuse for current egregious violations of NPOV. It is nothing unusual for an editor to take a turn for the worse, whether temporary or permanent, perhaps out of disillusionment.  By that same token, the sanction will be lifted if the current, sanctioned, behaviour changes.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait a second. What about your behavior?  Your user page says that you're involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that won't use your admin tools.  How is Islamic terrorists attacking the US because of US support of Israel in the Israel-Palestinian conflict not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here - it seems pretty obvious there is a COI here. Considering the indefinite nature of the ban and the past contributions of the editor, I have a very hard time believing you acted impartially and without a COI.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't surprise me to see a COI accusation w.r.t. this user, but putting that to one side I have to defend Mkativerata's handling of this one. Even if there is a COI (I haven't looked into it and have no interest in doing so), based on edits 2–4 in the AE I don't see how an impartial admin would have reached any other conclusion. Based on the diffs provided and nothing else, there is no reason to believe the pattern won't continue. If there are other reasons to believe they were isolated incidents, for instance that Tom made an uncharacteristic mistake of asserting POVs as fact and commits to not doing so in future, discussion can overturn the decision. —WFC— 19:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is in the best interests of all of you, Toa, AQFK, MONGO, that you avoid this approach. Coming down on an admin like this is not likely to end well for any of you.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DA, I don't give a flying crap about my 'best interest', especially when defined by you, who started this whole debacle in the first place and certainly has a COI to defend this decision. The best interest of the project is what matters, and removing an editor such as Tom harrison for an indefinite period of time (in what could very well be characterized as a retaliatory RfE, given he commented against you on your topic ban) on a topic in which he has edited constructively for 6 years doesn't help this project at all.
 * Further, I don't give a crap about "coming down on an admin'" - admins are not a special class, and deserve criticism when appropriate. I don't care how this ends for me - I care how this ends for productive editors like Tom, who this encyclopedia cannot afford to push away.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Recall
Your user page lists you as open to recall. Under what circumstances would you accept a recall petition? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:AN. If you can get six uninvolved editors (at least three of whom must be administrators) to support a recall petition within 48 hours of the AN thread starting, I would re-stand for RfA. The 48 hours would start once I exercise my right of reply to the recall petition (ie no "!votes" before then can count).
 * To avoid any further assumptions about my ARBPIA involvement, my self-declared involvement was a measure of caution arising from the fact that I once (like, 2 years ago) participated in an RfC on settlement disputes. The self-declaration is here. I think that shows how derisory allegations of bias in this case are. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1 - I support your recall for your personal attacks on me - I would so enjoy demeaning you as you did me, diff but I rise above that.   You really can  22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not "uninvolved", obviously, for the same reason that my name does not appear in your block log. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am completely uninvolved - its users like me that are the ones that are able to count in any recall request - involved - is for you/admins not users. I have also complained about your admin actions previously - diff - your apparent inability to retract or apologize for your demeaning comment or even attempt to resolve the issue with me in any way, makes me a shoe in any RFC or recall in regards to you and your actions. -   You really can  22:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you were correct to identify me in such a way, or are you  unwilling or feel unable to discuss and resolve my issue here?  You really can  23:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sad to see you go
What the title says :(. Always found you to be a fantastic editor - hope to see you return some day. And if you ever make it to the big smoke on this side of the tiny blue dot, there's one (1) beer reserved on your account :). Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. You have mail, also. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thirded. I hope things are well IRL, and that you might return to editing, sooner or later. AGK  [•] 00:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourthed. Best, T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 00:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrigley (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkativerata, I'm very sorry to see that you've retired. In all honesty, I can count on one hand the number of Wikipedia editors whose opinions I truly value, and you are one of them; I will miss your well-reasoned, thought-provoking comments at DRV and elsewhere on the project. You were certainly one of Wikipedia's best and most reasonable administrators, and this website will be worse off for your having retired. I am astonished by how quickly the sharks moved in on you – and I would maintain that there was never any blood in the water in the first place. I'm more convinced than ever that concerted attacks on other editors, not "surface incivility," are the Problem. And sadly, it seems that many who contribute to the toxicity of Wikipedia dialogue are sticking around, while more level-headed folks like you are realizing that they've had enough. You will be missed. Catch you further on down the trail, man. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A regrettable loss. Best wishes. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with all of the above. You've always been a bloody good administrator, and Wikipedia will be a poorer place without you. It's a real shame that you've felt the need to quit, but I sincerely hope you'll come back at some point, even if you don't resume your previous level of activity. Also, I'll second Ironholds' offer if you ever find yourself in the UK. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That sucks. You are one of the most thoughtful voices at DRV and it will be much poorer without you. Best wishes Spartaz Humbug! 04:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Too many of the good ones are suddenly retiring. You're one of the few willing to tackle the tough areas and do what's right. Hopefully you'll come back. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A damn shame. Hope you come back. – Connormah (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to see you have retired. I will never forget your incredibly helpful and useful GA review of Adolf Hitler, a really great achievement that took three patient weeks on your part. Thank you for that, and for all the other wonderful things you did for Wikipedia. --Dianna (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is really disappointing. You did a lot of good work here, and I very much hope this isn't the end. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What? Why? You are a great editor and a great admin. Thanks for all the help over the years, and for all the hard work you put in to this project.  Night w   17:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Having taken a more than a couple Wikibreaks in my time I am hopeful that is all this turns out to be, as clearly evidenced here, you are a valuable and valued admin. Rest and recharge and hope you will return. --WGFinley (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing to see you go. A good editor, let alone admin. Hope you enjoy your freedom, and come back sometime. CMD (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's a shame :( you are one of the few administrators that are willing to work dirty here and it's would be a huge loss to the community to lose you. Secret account 07:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Noooooo. Wifione  Message 13:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sad to see you go --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  06:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with all the above. Where I have noticed you has been in careful, well-reasoned closes on difficult AfDs. Take some time off, but come back - there is not the remotest reason why you should consider yourself to be leaving under a cloud, and Wikipedia cannot afford to lose admins like you. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny how Wikipedia works sometimes. Enjoy RL. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Passion: He was despised --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * More than a year ago, you recieved my PumpkinSky Prize, you are an awesome Wikipedian! - I am so happy that you and the one who departed then also (the photographer of the sapphire) are with me now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back?
An odd way to return, and I hope we'll be seeing more of you around again soon. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * a superb way to return, if you ask me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. No, no return, I'm afraid, although I do edit articles every now and then with one or two of my (disclosed) socks. All the best. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do what's best for you, just lovely to see a sign of life, and then on top in a direction I support with my heart, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ps: the one mentioned above who departed is back, and you are what he called an awesome Wikipedian, I call it precious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very happy to learn that we haven't lost your talents entirely. It was good to see your name again, even briefly. 28bytes (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Youreallycan
fyi; I mentioned your leaving. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell
Mkativerata you have deleted 3 September 2010 Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell that is the main article in the Category:Royal Dutch Shell controversies. Having own category proves that there is plenty of data to own article. I have not seen this. In my opinion Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell deserves place in Wiki. Please show me the deleted version in: User:Watti Renew/Shell. I noticed your deletion based on news of Climate activists target Shell with ice protest over Arctic drilling, Climate Justice Collective builds a pyramid of ice at Shell's London HQ and demands an end to Alaska oil exploration Guardian 11 September 2012.

Since you retired, I need to contact the administration as well. Wellcome back! Watti Renew (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, good to see you here :)  I sent the message also to Administrator User:Arctic.gnome. Watti Renew (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell (2nd nomination)
About: Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell deleted in 3 September 2010 in Requests for undeletion I wrote: Article deserves place, since:
 * 1) Given deletion reasons 1) copyright violations and 2) one-sided attack does not demand deletion. They can be fixed by other means.
 * 2) Content is extensive and important See: User talk:Arctic.gnome
 * 3) I have a copy in extent of 17 pages and with 34 titles
 * 4) An article that includes the critics of the company is by its nature inevitably critical and it must be accepted.
 * 5) Article has been in Wiki for months or years. I have a copy from the year 2009.
 * 6) I t may have dozens of editor.
 * 7) Deletion is not neutral

Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell: result was no consensus to delete 12 October 2007. So the article has been on line at least: 2007-2010. The claims were not credible since copyright violations or attacks without evidence would not take place in an article like this for three years or more.

Deletion of the page is like claiming that there are no controversies surrounding Shell. The company main businesses are oil and gas that rise environmental, social and economical concerns and may be reason to wars between nations. Credibility of Wikipedia is endangered if you delete a page like this. You can compare it to deletion of the country pages you may dislike: e.g. USA, China or Japan. Wikipedia is not for war. This is not a question of voting. E.g. both France and Germany have place in WP, since one cannot question their existence. Same applies with the Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell. It is not neutral to delete it based on problems that can be fixed. For all international oil companies controversies do exist, contribution to climate change to mention one, and if they are not addressed here WP is not credible dictionary. Deletion process is in my opinion completely wrong. It hits WP Project credibility. Discussion had two delete votes and two keep votes. This was in my opinion no consensus. In addition the activity was so low that it gives no good credibility. Further deletion was supported by User:Codf1977 who is blocked since 19 September 2011. The deletion votes were based, as I see it, on persons own opinions, with no supporting evidence or convincing argumentations. My copy of the article from the year 2009 includes only short reviews of 34 concerns. In my opinion this cannot be claimed as a serious coping problem. If needed, it can be solved by change of the word order. Wikipedia should not solve the disagreements by deleting the articles that you or those involved do not like. There are other practices: Five pillars. In my opinion the article deserves to be returned, thank you. I ask your help Mkativerata in this based on my new argumentation. Watti Renew (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell (2nd nomination)


 * You need to go to WP:DRV and make your arguments there. Just as an aside Codf1977 was not blocked for any misconduct issues; I blocked the account in order to maintain its security. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Is Codf1977 here with another user name? Watti Renew (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One of my argument's was that deletion of the article is not a voting issue. Therefore, you could make the disission as administrator based on my new arguments. You can compare it to page USA: Even if Europeans and Asians would have won the polling to delete the page USA during Bush administration and American holyday season, deletion would not have been valid as you can not deny that USA exist. Wikipedia does not hide the facts. Wikipedia is not a democracy: Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede rather than foster discussion so should be used with caution. Watti Renew (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mkativerata is no longer an admin and is barely active so you really do need to make these arguments at DRV. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 18:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Spartaz, WP:DRV, is Overturn decision correct, when I want the document back since in my opinion the decision was not correct. Thanks. Watti Renew (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell. 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. Watti Renew (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Geourdu


A tag has been placed on Geourdu, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Fish Barking?  01:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Geourdu
Hi Mkativerata, you recently removed a deletion tag from Geourdu. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Change redirection
Hello, may you change the redirection of Nathan James Sykes to Nathan Sykes please? In this moment, the redirection is protected and goes to The Wanted. Thanks. --UAwiki (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=526254016#Restoration_of_the_tools_.28proposal.29 recent change] to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Meet-up: Editors from Malaysia
Hello! You might or might not have seen me around here as I've not been active in Wikipedia the past few months. Before leaving for NS, it was my intention to form a Malaysian user group. I'm still very much interested in forming the group. However, before forming the group, I would love to organize a meet-up between editors of the Malaysian editing community to test the waters and hear what you guys might have to say. To my knowledge, there has not been a Wikipedia meet-up in this country before. I don't mind organizing the meet-up but need to know if anyone is interested in joining the meet-up. So... please reply and let me know if you would be interested in joining a meet-up and your ideas/thoughts about a user group. Thank you.

Looking forward to hearing from you, Bejinhantalks 12:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC) (Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

Claire Jowitt
Dear Mkativerata, I would like to redo the article on Claire Jowitt and article which you deleted but kindly sent to my userpage. Would this be OK? I think her work as one of the leads on the Hakluyt Editorial Project might have made her notability more widely evident. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC))

User page message
Hi Mkativerata, the below message was (apparently accidentally) posted on your userpage, so I removed it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This was unfair, there was a credible links of news channels & wikipedia policy was adhered too. Want revoking of deletion (Alex.mathews (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

WikiProject Malaysia Skype chat
Hello, thank you for participating in WikiProject Malaysia! As per my previous message and the responses made, I'm organizing an informal Skype conference call on February 5th, 20:00 - 21:30 (Malaysian time). I'd love for you to join this chat. If you do not have a Skype but wish to join the chat, let me know and I'll try to work something out. iFurther details can be found at the Meetups page. You can also leave any suggestions or comments on that page. Please RVSP and hope to "meet" you there! Bejinhan  talks  14:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Feature article review
Mkativerata, I'm concerned that we may have created an impossible standard for FA-review of rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. A recent event is not going to have the same volume of scholarly interpretation as an event that took place decades ago. However, that does not mean that it cannot be a feature article. For example, United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010 and New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 are feature articles, and they have no academic references. That being said, I was able to find 2 university textbooks and 2 journal articles that supported the article's claim that the rape controversies affected the election results. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Keeping the Republic: Power and Citizenship in American Politics by Christine Barbour and Gerald C. Wright (15 Jan 2013).

The Elections of 2012: Outcomes and Analysis by Bob Benenson and Chuck McCutcheon (1 Dec 2012).

Human Life Review by Ryan T. Anderson, Chuck Donovan, and Richard Goldkamp. (Fall 2012).

Why Obama Won by Megan Trudell (8 January 2013).

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Boss (3rd nomination)
Just wanting to let you know that Jeff Boss is up for deletion for its third time. Please click here if you would like to weigh in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155blue (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

FACTS YOU MAY NOT KNOW.

It takes glass one million years to decompose, which means it never wears out and can be recycled an infinite amount of times!

Gold is the only metal that doesn't rust, even if it's buried in the ground for thousands of years.

Your tongue is the only muscle in your body that is attached at only one end.

If you stop getting thirsty, you need to drink more water. When a human body is dehydrated, its thirst mechanism shuts off.

Each year 2,000,000 smokers either quit smoking or die of tobacco-related diseases.

Zero is the only number that cannot be represented by Roman numerals.

Kites were used in the American Civil War to deliver letters and newspapers.

The song, Auld Lang Syne, is sung at the stroke of midnight in almost every English-speaking country in the world to bring in the new year.

Drinking water after eating reduces the acid in your mouth by 61 percent.

Peanut oil is used for cooking in submarines because it doesn't smoke unless it's heated above 450F.

The roar that we hear when we place a seashell next to our ear is not the ocean, but rather the sound of blood surging through the veins in the ear.

Nine out of every 10 living things live in the ocean.

The banana cannot reproduce itself. It can be propagated only by the hand of man.

Airports at higher altitudes require a longer airstrip due to lower air density.

The University of Alaska spans four time zones.

The tooth is the only part of the human body that cannot heal itself.

In ancient Greece, tossing an apple to a girl was a traditional proposal of marriage. Catching it meant she accepted.

Warner Communications paid $28 million for the copyright to the song Happy Birthday.

Intelligent people have more zinc and copper in their hair.

A comet's tail always points away from the sun.

The Swine Flu vaccine in 1976 caused more death and illness than the disease it was intended to prevent.

Caffeine increases the power of aspirin and other painkillers, that is why it is found in some medicines.

The military salute is a motion that evolved from medieval times, when knights in armor raised their visors to reveal their identity.

If you get into the bottom of a well or a tall chimney and look up, you can see stars, even in the middle of the day.

When a person dies, hearing is the last sense to go. The first sense lost is sight.

In ancient times strangers shook hands to show that they were unarmed.

Strawberries are the only fruits whose seeds grow on the outside.

Avocados have the highest calories of any fruit at 167 calories per hundred grams.

The moon moves about two inches away from the Earth each year.

The Earth gets 100 tons heavier every day due to falling space dust.

Due to earth's gravity it is impossible for mountains to be higher than 15,000 meters.

Mickey Mouse is known as "Topolino" in Italy.

Soldiers do not march in step when going across bridges because they could set up a vibration which could be sufficient to knock the bridge down.

Everything weighs one percent less at the equator.

For every extra kilogram carried on a space flight, 530 kg of excess fuel are needed at lift-off.

The letter J does not appear anywhere on the periodic table of the elements.

And last but not least:

This is called 'money bags'. So send this on to 5 and money will arrive in 5 days. Based on Chinese Feng Shui, the one who does not pass this on will have money troubles for the rest of the year.

Superstitious or not, I passed this along because it is interesting information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.168.213 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you :) --Mkativerata (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

T: template redirects
Hi, you participated in Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29, some of which I have relisted at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November_18. Please come along and share your thoughts .. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 15:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

C;sd listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect C&. Since you had some involvement with the C;sd redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 12:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wt;rfa listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wt&. Since you had some involvement with the Wt;rfa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)