User talk:Mkativerata/Archive6

CSD
Hi Mkativerata, FYI I've quoted some CSD tags in an RFA !vote, including one that you deleted - you might want to come back to Requests for adminship/Wifione. Regards  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - I take the point about the Erdos number but considering what the Erdos number is and what it means (nothing) I don't think it is a credible claim to significance. 8,162 have an Erdos number of 2. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam


Hello Mkativerata, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Darius Incident
I'm utterly unfamiliar with CCI and so forth, but saw the whole Darius incident as a result of the banner message. Due to my unfamiliarity, I figured I'd reply on your talk page, rather than risk posting somewhere where posts from uninvolved users would be unwelcome. Anyway, long story short: in regards to your statement here, it seems that even your example of Rishat Shafikov may have been lifted from an online source, though with so little text, it's hard to be certain. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I suspect (or perhaps I just hope) that this is reverse copying - the website is lifting text from WP. The website's entry on Shafikov says "for more, visit wikipedia". --Mkativerata (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that. In that case, you're probably right. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 67th Venice International Film Festival
--BorgQueen (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Rugby league & Youndbuckerz
Can you have a look at and his new articles. Think we may be heading towards another bulk AfD, none of them (of the few I have checked) seem to meet the WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems as though YB is attempting to get these through on the basis that the players are "internationals" - they represented the US or Canada. I think the proposed NSPORT wording rightly and explicitly excludes US and Canadian internationals. I could probably live with US and Canadian internationals if they played in a World Cup, but not in ordinary matches against each other. Otherwise, I certainly agree they fail the GNG. As NSPORT is apparently designed to help editors apply the GNG (how that statement works in practice I have no idea), the GNG would seem to be intended to "trump" NSPORT in a way that it didn't trump the old WP:ATH.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have posted a full list of them to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league (I have tagged all the articles) unless someone comes up with some refs for notability I suspect that a bulk AfD awaits them all. Codf1977 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Camila Batmanghelidjh
Wikipedia needs an article about this extremely notable woman - I was alerted to its absence by her red link in Great Lives. I see that you deleted the article on 1st Sept as a "close paraphrase". Could you let me see a copy of that article in case it's useful in working on an improved replacement? (I wasn't familiar with the article so have no idea what it was like). Thanks. I'll set up a stub with a good source for the moment. PamD (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that the copyvio was with a speakers' agency - do we know for sure in which direction the copying was done? PamD (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, is there a way to find the set of redirects which were deleted when her page was deleted? I've just created one obvious one (2 Ls in Camila) but I would guess that there may have been a full set from assorted mis-spellings and it would be nice to be able to reinstate them rather than re-create them one by one (surname variations x both spellings of Camil(l)a). PamD (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As a general point, when there are so many incoming links to an article, would it not serve Wikipedia better to leave at least a minimal stub of factual info, and an EL to the source of the copyvio, rather than delete the article and all its associated redirects? This woman is clearly notable (check some of the incoming links), and I imagine that the previous article reflected this, so the article was obviously likely to be re-created. PamD (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there - it was listed at WP:CP for seven days. That procedure is there to (a) give people the chance to demonstrate it is not a copyvio (eg by showing it is a reverse vio) and (b) give people the chance to re-write it. Neither happened. Admins don't have the time to re-write or stubbify every copyvio (believe me I do re-write on occasions). I would like to make the text available, but doing so would re-publish the copyvio. The best I can do is post the sources:
 * Kids Company
 * Articles from The Guardian
 * Colourful character Camila Batmanghelidjh on her unique approach to charity work, The Independent
 * BBC News profile
 * Happy list
 * Business Woman of the Year Award
 * Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered two of my questions: is there any indication that the copyvio was actually in the direction you think, and can we salvage the network of redirects?

I find it difficult to believe that the article about such a notable person would have only been a copyvio, especially when such a range of sources was given: was there an earlier non-copyvio version in the page history? PamD (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The copyvio/suspect material was introduced on the first revision of the article and the article only built on it. There is no "indication" that it was not a "reverse copyvio" other than that when both texts are compared, it appears much more likely that the WP text lifted and closely paraphrased the off-wiki text, not vice versa. But the off-wiki text does not have a date of upload so we can't be sure. According to the deletion log at the time, I did not delete any redirects. Another admin deleted Camilla Batmanghelidjh but that has now been restored. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that just about all of the links posted above were "external links" tacked onto the end of the article rather than sources that supported article content. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The redirects were removed by a bot as pointing to a non-existent page, I think - which is an argument to encourage you and other admins to please consider leaving a stub, in the case of a clearly notable person/topic where the article is obviously likely to be re-created. Surely there was at least a lead sentence which could have been left? You say the article "built on" the copyvio text, so other material must have been added. I'm just feeling frustrated because I know she is notable, I know Wikipedia needs an article on her, and I feel sure that useful work by other editors has been thrown out with the bathwater here.

If you look at "Specialist speakers" piece on Bill Bryson, I suspect that they have based their text on Wikipedia's and not vice versa. It may be that they make a habit of basing their texts on ours. PamD (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I can understand your view. Philosophically I have a different view - foundational copyvios that haven't been attended to in the 7 day period should get deleted. The "building" on text here was insignificant - there was nothing of sense that could be extracted from the foundational suspect text.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the list of sources, anyway. Could you give us the categories? Was there an infobox? Any image? PamD (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Found the image. PamD (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Not entirely keen on the unsourced birthdate but at least "1963" can be sourced.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. PamD (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Again
Since you deleted Tuareg Rebellion (1961-1964), you're the one who should do research on it since it was a real conflict. Instead of deleting it, you should have researched it. What you did was dumb. B-Machine (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It was a copyright violation. It gets deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I could have sworn
...That I left a talk page message for you here after my RfA got passed. I even remember typing it out, clicking on the save link and thinking it must have been posted. It might not have gotten saved then. I didn't want to send a thank-spam note to you. I wanted to personally thank you (actually, I wanted you to be amongst the first three people to receive my thanks note) for the lovely support in my RfA. The way you argued was one of the main reasons the RfA succeeded. Seeing your aggression and confident support, was unbelievable. Thanks Mkativerata for the wonderful support. I'm overwhelmed - and I think you're awesome. My wishes always and sincere regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  14:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and congratulations! I'm delighted that you passed. I've seen RFAs totally collapse on genuine CSD problems before, so I wanted to do what I could to stop yours going a similar way on the basis of negligible to non-existent issues. But speaking of confidence - props for the self-nom! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Favonian was the primary reason for the self-nom. She typically allowed me use her RfA template for a self-nom. So I think that's what worked. Warm regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Supporters" sections in rugby league team articles
Hello. I was wondering if you could do me a favour and clarify your position on including mention of notable fans in rugby league team articles at the Sydney Roosters' talk page. I've brought up the ambiguity here. Cheers.--Jeff79 (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there - I think what I've said is fairly clear although good arguments have been raised against it (politicians not being real fans, etc). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's just that you've said, "Clearly, some can and should be mentioned". But because your name is listed under remove, it is being read as no notable fans at all being allowed a mention. It would appear that this isn't what you intended.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your question
I answered your question in AFD. Thanks Secret account 04:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I wasn't asking that question for my own support/oppose decision, but I do appreciate the very candid response. Best of luck - I'm going to check back in a while, I have resolved not to !vote early on RfAs anymore.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: 25 August 2010 Iraq bombings
Good faith? The first time, yes, a repeatedly is not good faith by stretch of the imagination. Please see the page, my addition to the consensus debate, and calls thereof and then see his multiple edits WITHOUT attempting to discuss.
 * Well he hadnt responded or mentioned anything to my statement. A new discussion didnt give me chance to offer my views. anyhoo..Lihaas (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I take this edit as an indication that you have read the content of my post on your talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

re ChaosMaster16's block and ANI discussion
Hi. As mentioned, there is a discussion regarding the above editor at WP:ANI#ChaosMaster16 again etc. As you will note there, I am querying whether the ANI discussion and the rationale for the block cover the same grounds and noting I am not in the habit of varying other sysops actions without discussions. I would be grateful if you could comment at the ANI section in respect of this, and the request there if possible. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - I've responded at ANI. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Baby sitting?
Hi. :) I'm off to a conference this weekend, and I'm wondering if you can help babysit WP:CP. I'm here to work on it today, but won't be able to touch it again until probably Monday. (Unless I get back much earlier than expected on Sunday. Keep your fingers crossed for me. :D) If you're not available, no worries; I've asked another admin who does copyright stuff as well. And if nobody gets to it, oh, well. It's only a couple of days. It won't be that big a backlog. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure that's no problem - I'm not busy this weekend. I hope you enjoy the conference! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. :) I'll enjoy the somewhat exotic food (meaning: not cooked by me :D), but I'll still be plenty happy to get back! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The exotic food was very good. I'm not quite as happy to get back as I anticipated. :) That said, I'm very happy to get back to no backlog. Thank you very much for helping out. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it went well! Welcome back. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bumping elbows
Hi, Mkativerata. Sorry if I got in your way at CP today. I didn't mean to bump your elbows -- I guess we just hit it at about the same time. But thanks for zipping through there. It was nice to see that list dwindle so quickly. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, thank you! I'm sorry it seems I got in your way - deleting an article while you were trying to stubbify it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem at all. I can go either/or on whether to delete or stub a lot of those articles -- mostly depending on the extent of the work involved. Anyway, see you around the shop while MRG is off gallivanting. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dragonman1986
I've now become the 4th editor he's reverted the exact same thing for on the St. George Dragons article (not including probable anon IP edits before that). Perhaps a block is needed?--Jeff79 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have blocked him for edit-warring. Just be careful though - you're in edit-war danger zone as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI is requesting relief from the related autoblock. Bovlb (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm pretty sure it's a socking attempt. I'll leave the rfu for an admin more familiar with the workings of autoblocks. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

mfd
Very fair well-expressed close.  DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks DGG for your input into the discussion. It was at a difficult place between "delete" and "no consensus" but yours and a couple of other late !votes made a delete close untenable, and therefore made my job much easier.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and belated thanks for the welcome! --Mkativerata (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP and Jonathan Cook
In general, I agree that mere 'political criticism' of a public figure is hard to exclude under WP:BLP. But the literal text of BLP seems to imply that a reliable source must be used for the criticism. Camera.org would not meet that hurdle. With some patience, I imagine that an editor who believed that our article on Cook was unbalanced might be able to put together a similar critique based only on things published in newspapers. But someone would have to do that. Nobody is likely to step forward to claim that CAMERA has a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I well understand that CAMERA couldn't be a reliable source for statements of fact. But it is being used as a source here for its own views - in that respect, the source has to be reliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Thompson
I'm going to give you an opportunity to reconsider your decision to keep the article. I'd like to remind you that precisely 0% of keep articles actually took the fact that NSPORTS specifically requires that articles meet the GNG into account, that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that although made in good faith, it was very clearly established that votestacking had taken place. Regards, —WFC— 07:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but both NSPORT and GNG are guidelines, of equal weight, are subject to the community's consensus, and I haven't seen any evidence that this consensus was affected by votestacking. Bear in mind WP:N says right at the top "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right." The view that NSPORT is a mere "guide" to GNG has never been accepted by the community despite what editors have inserted into NSPORT. It was certainly never the way WP:ATH was applied. I was well involved in NSPORT's development and that was never its intent or purpose. But of course feel free to fire up a DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you were heavily involved in the development of NSPORTS, then how did you consider yourself fit to close? Vested interest if you ask me. You are certainly in no position whatsoever to judge the relative merits of NSPORTS and the GNG. —WFC— 08:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok well you can raise that at the DRV with any diffs that suggest improper involvement on my part.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not see the AfD when open, if I had would have !voted Delete as fails WP:GNG, however the close is correct, in the case of Adam Thompson, it looks like the consensus is to keep even absent significant coverage. However consensus can change over time. Codf1977 (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, for reasons I have explained in the DRV. Regards, —WFC— 09:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Adam Thompson
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adam Thompson. 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. —WFC— 09:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have commented there. Regarding this edit summary, I should note that I am open to recall. I'd advise that it might be best to see how the DRV plays out before pursuing that, however.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for quickly looking into and dealing with that disruptive user. Financestudent (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries - thank you for the report. He/she's requested unblocking so we'll see how that goes. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Mary MacKillop
Thanks for protecting Mary MacKillop, it really is a waste of all our time reverting nonsense edits multiple times, every day. Just to give you a heads up that she will be canonized in Rome this coming Sunday, on 17 October 2010, by Pope Benedict XVI. The protection ends on 18 Oct, so you may need to extend it for a few weeks after she is made a saint. When the date of the canonization was announced earlier this year, we saw a huge increase in vandalism. Cheers! – S Masters (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I'm not sure what triggered the rush of vandalism over the last few days, but it sounds like it will definitely be worth considering an extension of the protection on the 18th.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect her impending canonization to become Australia's first saint has resulted in increased media coverage, and possibly additional attention from school children studying in MacKillop educational institutions. – S Masters (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if we should add a pp-protected template to the page in case there are any reasonable new contributions? – S Masters (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky one. On the one hand, it's good to have a clear explanation for potential IP editors that the page is protected and that edit requests can be made on the talk page. On the other hand, a large template on the top of the article distracts readers (and on a high traffic article, readers will outnumber potential IP editors thousands to one). In such circumstances I prefer avoiding the big template, and instead using the small siverlock in the top right corner. But it's a matter of preference, I certainly won't revert anyone who puts up the big template.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I was just wondering because I've also been working on the 2010 Commonwealth Games (with the template), which has a far bigger audience. As I believe MacKillops' vandalism is due to an upcoming event (i.e. short term), perhaps it's something to consider. – S Masters (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As Mary MacKillop is now officially known as Mary of the Cross as decreed at her canonisation, we will need to move the page, and redirect Mary MacKillop to Mary of the Cross. I'm not sure how this will work with the page being semi-protected. - S Masters (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That move would need to be done by an admin because it will require the deletion of the Mary of the Cross redirect. I'm happy to do it but is that kind of move correct? Just looking through Category:20th-century Christian saints there doesn't seem to be a precedent for it. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let me check and get back to you. - S Masters (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In the most recent instance (they don't happen often), would be Padre Pio, where his official canonised name is used. - S Masters (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I think it would be best to propose the move on the talk page through Requested moves because it doesn't seem clear-cut. Then after seven days or so it will get closed depending on the consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will make the proposal. Cheers. - S Masters (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested revision for Network Automation Company Page (including external link section below) I am independent and have no affiliation with the company
Network Automation, Inc. is a Los Angeles-based software company. The company develops business process automation software to simplify repetitive IT processes. Founded in 2004 and based in Los Angeles, the private company claims over 9,000 clients in over 40 countries. As of October 2010, the company claims 34 employees.

Products

The company’s main products are AutoMate and AutoMate BPA Server, which run on Windows operating systems. The products are designed to simplify repetitive IT tasks, which can include job scheduling, automated FTP, batch processing, automated backups, scripting, automated testing, event log monitoring and automated reporting.


 * Automate – Automate software presents a GUI-based interface for automating IT processes. The base version is called Automate Professional, and an enhanced version is called Automate Premium.


 * AutoMate BPA Server - AutoMate BPA Server software provides centralized management of process management across the entire enterprise. The base version is called Automate BPA Server Standard Edition, and an enhanced version supporting more than 10 machines is known as Automate BPA Server Enterprise Edition.

History

In 1995, founder Dustin Snell started Unisyn Software, a developer of desktop automation software for Windows systems. In July of 2004, Mr. Snell renamed and relaunched the company as Network Automation, Inc.

Craigery Morgan
This article may have been promotional or had promotional verbage. This young man has promoted himself well enough to have nearly 5 million views on YouTube, along with being the subject of newspaper and TV news stories. I understand that this doesn't make him a household name, or even a celebrity. I also understand that few of these views occurred before your deletion. But it seems to me that he is, indeed, noteworthy enough to pass Wikipedia guidelines. If you enter his name in a search engine, you might be satisfied that criteria is now met to warrant such a page. mp2dtw (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure - if you can write a non-promotional article demonstrating coverage in reliable sources go for it. The old article was deleted because it was promotional. That doesn't in any way stop anyone from creating a non-promotional article. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3
Do you mind if I add a WP:ARBMAC sanction on top of the block? I'm thinking about renewing the 1RR that expired in June. T. Canens (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely I was just thinking of an appropriate sanction, and that sounds fine. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. T. Canens (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - given my total lack of experience in AE, better you than me. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

BIZ INDIA - "Hang On" tag placed here
Re: Article on BIZ INDIA Here is the hangon tag for BIZ INDIA Kumar (Kem) Balani
 * I suggest writing an article here. Make sure that the article isn't worded in a promotional tone and uses reliable sources. You might also want to read WP:COI. When the article is ready, you can move it back to BIZ INDIA. But make sure it has sources and is neutral, otherwise someone will delete it again. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to remove PC when semiprotecting?
You recently extended the protection of Mary MacKillop, however, Pending Changes is still active on the page. Is this the desired effect?  Ⓢ ock   19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - fixed! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Pixar film references
Hey if you don't mind can you also restore the talk page or at least send me a copy of it? It might help the DRV. JDDJS (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries - I've restored the talk page. If the DRV is closed as "endorsed", it'll get deleted again by whoever closes the DRV. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

David Helfenbein
requesting permission to edit David Helfenbein, removing all criticisms that existed prior to initial deletion. Thank you. -Walks22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walks22 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to stop recreating this page - doing so will get you blocked. As you know, the page was deleted following a community discussion. You can only have that reviewed by asking for a deletion review. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mkativerata
Hi, thanksyou for your message. Things are going well on Wikipedia, still finding my feet, but will let you know if i need any help.Akmar1979 (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong allegations
I'm obviously in the minority on this, but am having a very hard time understanding something that many others apparently see as a blatantly obvious. Can you help? You wrote, "The first sentence of the article starts "Although Lance Armstrong has never been found guilty...". Obviously a BLP nightmare will follow." So, because the article says that, it's obviously going to be a BLP nightmare? It is my understanding that as long as the material presented is "written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources", it's compliant with BLP, and not a problem at all, much less a nightmare. OJ Simpson was never found criminally guilty of murder, yet we have O. J. Simpson murder case. Is that a BLP nightmare too? The content in question was first introduced in 2004 in the main article, where it remained (and evolved as the list of well documented allegations grew) until it was so large it was decided to spin it out into a separate article last month. The content did not change once that happened. If there was no BLP nightmare for all those years, what makes you so certain it will become one that a deletion is warranted? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But it isn't neutral. An entire article devoted to untested allegations of criminality or cheating against an individual is anything but neutral. It can only be neutral if it is presented in context, ie on the Armstrong page where it can be appropriately balanced. In any case, let's discuss at DRV not here. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to respond there under the entry I highlighted with a bold Question. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:sulmues
This is user:Sulmues. Please unblock me: I apologize for using the term "vandal" and for edit warring. Won't happen in the future. In the meanwhile I have lost my password for user:Sulmues, so would possibly like to edit under this new account. Please review also this. Thanks Makaperqafe (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like this has been dealt with by others during my sleep. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

e-mail
Sorry should have left this when I sent it. Codf1977 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry I don't check mail often - I've replied now. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Flowers Gallery
Hi there, you suggested that I get in touch to make our page Flowers Gallery ok to display. I'm a bit confused... a colleague set-up and it was our first addition to Wikipedia. We followed the template of another significant London gallery - White Cube. Grateful for your help with making the page ok. Thanks, Jeanette 86.166.229.178 (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there - the problem with the page was that it relied on material copied from the gallery's website. There are two issues with this: first, copyright; and second, the text came across as being promotional. I saw the note on the talk page that the gallery had given permission for the text, but that can only overcome the first problem (and even then, permission needs to be established by an email to wikipedia).
 * The way to overcome this is to write a new article based mainly on sources other than the gallery's website. Sources like this and this and there seem to be quite a lot of news stories searchable in google that mention the gallery. The White Cube article relies on independent sources like the Daily Telegraph and The Independent.
 * The best thing to do might be to work on an article here and then move it to Flowers Gallery when ready. I'd be happy to help.--Mkativerata (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mkativerata/Ahmad_Nasharuddin&diff=next&oldid=392844019
Could the person you're reverting possibly be an impersonator, or are you just edit warring with yourself? The account's userpage says that it's "a disclosed alternate account of User:Mkativerata." The Thing //  Talk  //  Contribs  19:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha I wondered if someone would pick up on this. I'm just edit-warring with myself for the purposes of creating an RFA test example. I've confirmed the alternate account as mine here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and within minutes the sock is warned for making a personal attack against his master :) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. I caught the incivility in the edit summary when I was patrolling edits from new accounts.  I googled the name and there do seem to be people named that from Malaysia.  Gigs (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have picked a more obscure name. It's hard because there aren't many permutation of Malay names. Would you mind if I deleted the article and restored it without the last two revisions? It will be a cleaner test example that way. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, sorry I messed up your test hehe. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! Thanks for the comment on the talk page - that will be a useful addition to the example.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
There's a message for you on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/The_Utahraptor_2. Hey at least I didn't mess this one up ahead of time. :P Gigs (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I toned down the edit summaries to slip it past you :) --Mkativerata (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice RfA questions
Really well thought out. Perhaps hard enough that no one will agree on the right answer (in at least a few cases), but really nicely done and get to the heart of things much more than most any other I've seen. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - I'm glad at least one of the RfAs is now turning around despite the question. THe problem is as you say different views and different expectations. The Utahraptor is getting pummelled for one unwise statement in an otherwise good answer. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks for the offer!  I think it is something I want to do, but honestly given my job not for a bit (summer is much lighter for me, I'm unlikely to have a week I can be easily available at all times) and I fully expect to get shot down the first time for fairly valid reasons.  But no reason not to try it.  Hobit (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt you'll get shot down. I would expect opposes for your focus on the project space but other deletion specialists like Tim Song and Ron Ritzman sailed through despite the same issues. Let me know if/when you're keen. I agree you definitely want to have a fairly light off-wiki week. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Deletion specialist"? :) I don't think I like describing myself that way. I actually hate hitting the delete button. About question 4 though. My take on the opposes it generated is that some were expecting him to say he'd block a fellow admin. However, the way you phrased it, the hypothetical admin has a reasonable good faith belief that he's enforcing WP:BLP. I would be reluctant to block anybody, admin or not, in that case. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a clear answer. The BLP exception to 3RR is meant to be narrowly concerned so doubt the exception applied, but a block would arguably have been unwarranted. I'm not sure the opposes wanted a block, just that the answer should at least discuss the admin's poor conduct. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, point taken on the part about discussing the admin's poor behavior. However, I've always felt that too many people think that WP:BITE means we have to dismiss poor behavior by newbies and the most common poor behavior exhibited by newbies is "obstinance". When new to a wiki, a webforum, a usenet newsgroup or other net venue, (or a "real life" venue) it's wise to sit back and observe how things are done before "diving in" just to see how things work. Now here at WP we have be bold which means we encourage "diving in" but that doesn't mean you keep trying to do something over and over and over again no matter how many times you are reverted or how many people object. Doing so is wrong, not because of WP:3RR or any of our other TLAs but because it's disrespectful. It's the same as if an American tourist goes to another country, ignores and makes no attempt to learn the local customs and demands that everybody do things "his" way. The newbie should have stopped at "revert 1" and attempted to discuss the matter, not because of our "rules" but because it's the right thing to do for anybody in any new situation. (however, I'll concede that one of the major flaws here is that it's harder for some newbies to figure out how to use talk pages then it is to edit articles. LiquidThreads might help with that) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the answer shouldn't dismiss the actions of the newbie either. He should get a helpful (not template) warning/notice on his/her talk page.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)