User talk:Mkativerata/Archive7

"It's A Good Life"
Nobody had yet added the opening and closing narrations on your page until I noticed it. I "transcribed" Rod's narration directly from the episode itself...and perhaps I literally emphasized his punctuation and pauses while doing so. But that's how I heard it- and that's how it came across. Thanks for noticing my additions! (I'm also happy someone else added "Next week's preview" of "Deaths-Head Revisited" from the end of the episode as well- I've never seen it, because it was never included in off-network film prints of the series)- Informationfountain, 5:27, 29 October 2010

Second opinion needed
Hi. A contributor is requesting the input of another administrator on the question of non-free quotations, not related to the above at all. But your involvement in the above brought you to mind. :) He seems to be intending to be reasonable; you can see what it looked like before he cut it down. My concern is that while he has appropriately shortened the quotes, they are still used baldly. He feels as though WP:NFC does not require that the quotes be incorporated into a critical analysis. I'm looking for an impartial opinion on the question. Are you up for it? If so, please see his talk page. If not, please let me know, and I'll look for another admin with copyright experience who might be. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll head over there now. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time. :) If you happen to have any other spare time, in wake of the latest plagiarism/copyright uproar on ANI, User:SandyGeorgia has suggested that we do something that can be publicized in the Signpost. I'm collecting thoughts at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Copyright. Yours would be most welcome! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll keep an eye on the page. The message I get from that TL;DR on ANI (sorry I haven't been up to date on this - I made a personal pledge not to watchlist ANI and I only glance at it once every couple of days) is rapid content creation for reward and recognition is a problem. I'd certainly agree with that, working through the CCI for User:De Administrando Imperio it seems we've had quite a lot of copyvios on the main page through ITN over time. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn you!
For beating me in asking the best questions in RfAs :):):) The effort you are making in posting such questions is highly appreciated, as I believe (and I think others do too) that such questions are necessary to test a prospective admin perfectly well. Thanks and best regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  03:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, Wifione. I've got another one up my sleeve. :) --Mkativerata (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You won't believe it. I search for your questions these days in RfAs... :) Great work.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RNB Research
hi mkativerata : RNB Research is market research company and is the company which is prdeciting election for last 15 years accurately. We want this to be added to wikipedia be noted we are not promoting or advertsing anything we request you to please consider the same. if you found anything in approprate please let us know we will let u knw the same. its reports are also published in Washington post as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnbradhey (talk • contribs) 05:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there - the problem with this article was that it appeared promotional. For example, "a leading provider for online research globally" is a promotional phrase, and it was also unsourced. It is always difficult writing about an organisation that you have connections to: see WP:COI. It's critical to ensure that each part of the article is supported by a reliable source and not a press release. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

HI MKATIVERATA: THANKS FOR YOUR OPINION : WE DO NOT WANT TO PROMOTE OUR COMPANY AS I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER.WE JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION THAT RNB RESEARCH IS THE ONLY RESEARCH ORGANISATION IN INDIA WHICH IS PREDICTING OPNION POLLS ACCURATELY SINCE LAST 15 YEARS. OUR CEO INTERVIEW ALSO HAS BEEN IN WASHINGTON POST. PRESS RELEASE ARE FACTS OF FINDINGS ON THE ORGANISATION. WE HAVE JUST GIVEN GENREAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPANY. AND IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES REQUIRED WHICH YOU CONSIDER AS PROMOTION WITH REGARD TO WIKIPIDEA TO LET US KNOW WE WILL RECORRECT AND PUBLISH AGAINST APPROVAL FROM YOUR END. WOULD APPREACITE IF YOU COULD BUT THE PAGE BACK AND WE WOULD REWRITE AND GET APRROVAL FROM YOU. WE ASSURE YOU THERE WILL BE NOT PROMOTINAL MATERIAL ALL WILL BE ACTUALS FACTS AND INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnbradhey (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need approval from anyone to re-write the page. Just re-write it without relying on press releases and including promotional material, and will have a better chance of survival. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

RAdhey Thanks for your info will rewrite the page and assure you there will be just information on the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnbradhey (talk • contribs) 10:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

hello i have rewrtten the matter and just give information please confirm if it is ok or any more changes required.

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN
Hey, would you mind elaborating on this edit summary? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries - I've done so here . I figured as Boehner had only been up for a few minutes it wouldn't hurt to revert back to him until any attribution issues with the Russian bloke could be sorted. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

1Malaysia
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Monkeyassault (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

?!?
You're blocking someone for 48 hours for removing a hatnote? – iridescent  23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, for edit-warring over it. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I read the timings, he was warned, immediately stopped, and you went ahead and blocked him anyway (20 minutes after he'd last touched the page in question). Even by Wikipedia standards that's an impressively dubious block. – iridescent  23:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That view is not consistent with his edit summaries. Anyway if the block is dubious he needs only to appeal it. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? Giano never uses edit summaries—those are just the first sentence of text from his posts, which are added by default. Which edit summary are you objecting to? – iridescent  23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * is an example of a customised edit-summary that indicated he intended to continue whatever the consequences.  --Mkativerata (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, and this. Both were over three hours old, however; I hadn't looked back that far. Again, he immediately stopped the moment it was pointed out he'd broken 3RR; while I agree ANI isn't the best place for that discussion and it probably should have been closed, this does reek of an attempt to cover up the problems Rlevse left. – iridescent  23:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That impression is fully justified. I am a little concerned the edit-warring was designed to get blocked and thus further create the impression of a cover-up. I'm not particularly influenced about the warning issue: he knows 3RR and appeared to set out on a course to break it. Warnings are not a prerequisite for 3RR blocks, only really for noobs. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Drama mongering block. Please remove it. Vodello (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally feutile and vindictive block. However, it served to prove my point so perhaps not quite so feutile in retrospect.  Giacomo   08:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Piedmont University
Please excuse my not asking first, but I restored this article-- and completely rewrote, with at least some actual sources. I did it in connection with working on the PROD'd article on J. William Stinde, its President. Quite obviously, both articles were contaminated with COI & were as submitted quite unacceptable, but I found I needed to rewrite them together. (If I had not been going to rewrite, I certainly would have not restored it--I have no issue with your deletion--it met my standards also for G11.)  I've taken a good deal of interest in these unaccredited university articles, trying to sort out the ones that are actually real, from the purely imaginary. Since I was able to document it has State of California approval to operate, it is presumably a real university. I'm not really satisfied with either article at this point, but am asking for further sources. If you're really unhappy with this, please just let me know and take it-- or both-- to AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey DGG - thanks for letting me know. I have absolutely no issue: I see G11 as being about the content of an article not a question of whether we should have an article in the first place. So I have no problem with it being restored in a non-G11 version. Cheers. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination)
Just a note to say thank you for carrying out a thankless and Herculean task with a such a thorough and thoughtful approach. I'll let you know if ownership issues arise during the course of cleaning up the article. Until recently, it has been virtually impossible to tackle clean-up and misrepresented sources in any systematic way, for reasons which you've already noticed. Hopefully, your closing statement will discourage that kind of stuff in the future.

I do have one request, which may have been lost in the morass of the discussion—the article's name. The Irving Literary Society is not suitable for two reasons: (1) Per WP:MOS and the historical sources, "The" is not part of the title of the organization and should not be part of the article title (2) There are several entities in the US called the "Irving Literary Society", most of which have a longer and well-documented history and are far more notable than this one. I would strongly suggest using Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). What do you think? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Voceditenore - I did note that request in the AfD and to be perfectly honest I put it in the "think about that later" basket as it seemed to involve more than a simple page move. Is there anything that needs to be done other than just moving the article and the talk page? If there isn't, I'd be happy to. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this will only involve moving the article and the talk page to the new title. The only other adjustment that might be needed is the article title in the copied templates on Talk:The Irving Literary Society and Talk:Cornell literary societies once it's moved. (The article had been cut and pasted from the latter.) It might also be useful for future editors to add an oldafdfull to Talk:The Irving Literary Society. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that should all be done now. Please let me know if I've missed anything, and as I said, I'm happy to help with any ongoing problems. --Mkativerata (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both for making sure that those templates were updated. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I also want to thank you for both concluding the AfD and for moving the article. I know it must have been a lot to sort through. While I voted the other way, I can see the merits of both sides and appreciate your work. Racepacket (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries - thanks to you and Voceditenore for your tireless work on the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And the manner in which this was done is a credit to the Wiki culture. You have tutored a number of youngsters, and oldsters, on critical thinking and due process.  Thanks so much, to all three of you (dance-floor toe stepping aside . . . )Cmagha (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question
I recently submitted my first wiki article called Caroline's Cakes. And it was deleted. I know that you are not allowed to use this site as a means of promotion. That was not my intention when I wrote the article. I simply wanted to post an article that talked about the history of a specific type of cake and talk about a one of the only companies that actually still makes this cake today seeing as there are very few of them. I was curious as to why my article was deleted and what I should do to have it properly submitted. --Caitlin Youngk 20:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitlin1022 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Caitlin. There were two main problems with the article in the form that it was created. First, it used very promotional language. A couple of examples are "In all aspects of Caroline’s Cakes the company continually strives to ‘Take it to the Seventh Layer." and "Her Coconut Cloud, Southern Chocolate and Carrot Caramel Delight are also considered to be the best cake for their individual type." The second problem (although this wasn't why it was deleted) is that the article didn't use any reliable sources to directly support any of the article material. Instead, a list of references was put at the end of the article. The best way to avoid promotional material is to use footnotes to show that each part of the article is supported by a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2010 north Malaysian floods
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Visit to India
I would like to request review of your decision to delete this article. While I concede and I am a biased party, I believe at least two administrators failed to see a consensus of any sort earlier in the discussion,(one who relished the discussion and one who stated directly in the discussion that there was no consensus) and IMHO the discussion which followed certainly didn't lead further towards a consensus for delete. Thanks :)--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note - the short answer is that I don't pay much, if any, attention to re-listings. This was re-listed once, and in my view, was re-listed inappropriately. It should have been closed on the 13th. Per WP:RELIST, relisting isn't a substitute for "no consensus" or any other close. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I take your point about relisting. However there was a much more explicit comment by an admin (UltraExactZZ  who was commenting as a neutral admin) later in the discussion.  Obviously, you're entitled to disagree, and perhaps obliged to make some sort of decision, but I felt that in that case the grounds for any consensus was very limited.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I pay no attention at all to comments during the course of the AfD about where the consensus lies (whether by involved editors or uninvolved admins). I won't pretend that every other admin would have closed it as "delete", but that was the fairly clear outcome in my mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fair enough. I'll ask one more question and try to keep it to the delete decision itself. You stated that Keep voters failed to demonstrate enduring notability.  What evidence could have demonstrated that in this case, given that the event took place very recently?  Coverage from reliable sources has 'endured' up to the present. Obviously, no one can speculate as to the future, but that makes it rather difficult to prove enduring notability, no?  Cheers :)--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is quite difficult without crystal-balling, that's ons of the reasons why AfDs on articles on recent events are always contentious. What was needed was evidence, from reliable sources, about the impact of the visit, even if that evidence was in the nature of expectation. I didn't see that; but more importantly, there was no consensus for the view that there was any such demonstrable impact. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree consensus unfortunately did not exist, though as I contended earlier IMHO there was little consensus either way. Perhaps later it will be possible to gauge that better.  Still, I do feel that evidence of impact was presented such as official reactions from foreign ministers of unrelated countries, such as Brazil, China, and Germany).  Much of the perceived impact of course centred around Obama's endorsement of India to become a permanent UNSC member, which drew extensive reactions (is that 'impact'? I'd say so but I guess others disagree).  Personally I think that other examples could have been presented in more detail and the impact discussed further but unfortunately the climate of the debate was rather hot.  Anyway, thanks for your comments.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITN – please revert
You are in dire breach of WP:NPOV in pulling an article from T:ITN simply because you object to sourcing some statements from the People's Daily. Please revert your action immediately. Physchim62 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Calm down - why not fix the article? The article relies substantially on inappropriate sources (note that the sources are used on multiple occasions for key parts of the article). --Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I've said, the article is sourced from numerous different news agencies. If you think it needs to be "fixed", go find the presumed NPOV violation and fix it yourself. In the meantime, put it back up on T:ITN, or I will ask at AN/I that it be restored. Your action was way out of order. Physchim62 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Physchim62 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your ITN essay - Read your new ITN essay on your user page. I share some of your concerns as it's often one of the most dubious, POV-slanted areas of Wikipedia, and it seems to open Wikipedia to all the dangers enjoyed by a professional news service with few of the attendant protections and rewards.  I'm a bit in-and-out on Wikipedia these days but if you end up getting involved in a policy discussion on the issue feel free to let me know about it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - your comment just came as I pulled a posting from ITN due to plagiarism! --Mkativerata (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Colombia floods
You should have slightly modified the text so that the text is not as exact as the sources. BY directly removing the text. It appears as if you have simply blanked the article. In this case, the article is NOT required. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "You should have slightly modified the text so that the text is not as exact as the sources." There is a word for that: plagiarism. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism!!! Huh!!! Then just explain me how we can use the source to make the article. Whatever we place. It is because of the sources from where we collect the information. In this case. All Wikipedia articles are the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a read of WP:Close paraphrasing.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That you say "All Wikipedia articles are the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit" suggests more of your contributions might be copyright violations? Is this an approach you have taken to other articles? If so, I must implore you to stop: copyright violations are serious and can lead to blocking.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of that. I have not done that to any article before. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I find your second block of this editor inappropriate and excessive. We do not block editors on request, especially not in a situation like this. Suggest you adjust the expiry date. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the block and its length to be quite appropriate. Indefinite blocks for copyright violations are the norm. As the editor said he didn't want to return, bumping it up to indefinite makes sense because if he ever changes his mind he'll have to demonstrate a willingness to comply with copyright. If he's not blocked indefinitely, he could come back a few months down the track and if no-one noticed no-one could check his contributions. What would you do? Expose the project to the ongoing risk of copyright violations? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the block has now been overturned, otherwise I would have overturned it myself. Please act with more decorum in future. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was "overturned" because the editor retracted his retirement - I would have scaled back the block myself if I wasn't beaten to it. You see, it's not a decorum issue at all. It's a matter of ensuring the block is properly calibrated to the circumstances. When the editor announced he was leaving the project for good, the circumstances changed and the block needed to be recalibrated to reflect the different kind of harm it was designed to prevent. As I said above (and you don't appear to have noted), that harm was a potential return to the project at some indefinite time in the future of a confirmed copyright violator without any community oversight. As I said to him (without any lack of decorum at all) when I extended the block, if he ever wanted to return, all he needed to do was request an unblock. Now that the editor has re-engaged with the project, the block can be recalibrated back to a block of definite length, because we can simply monitor his contributions when the block has expired. Do you understand therefore how this was no rogue action borne out of a lack of decorum, but an action designed to properly match the length of the block with the harm it was designed to prevent? --Mkativerata (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Mkativerata, you mentioned about a possible CCI (can't remember where, either at Anikingos' talk page or at ANI)... and, perhaps unsurprisingly, Anikingos was already the subject of one, in September this year. See Contributor copyright investigations/Anikingos. What you uncovered appears to have been a new set of copyvio after he was warned about it during his first CCI. For that reason, for what it's worth, I agree with the original indef block (and would probably have reported anyone undoing the block for wheel warring) after he showed no repentance, and I agree with the subsequent unblock after he agreed to stop. Only question now is, how long until he starts again... Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear I completely missed that. I looked for earlier warnings but this must have slipped. Thank you very much for pointing it out. Suffice to say I am watching carefully, and so far so good (aside from the suggested blurb on ITN/C). --Mkativerata (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed it because the user previously applied selecting archiving and chose (perhaps understandably) not to include that in his archives. However after his most recent block he put everything back onto his talk page and let MiszaBot do the archiving, which resulted in threads previously vanished down page history appearing in his archives. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have edited the article recently for updates and hope to see it expanded again. I would consider the copypasta of six or more consecutive words to be a COPYVIO, but simply using the information from online news articles would not be plagiarism. Wikipedia needs to make the copyright/GFDL/plagiarism policy and definitions far more clear to its editors. Meanwhile, I see you have deleted most of the content from the article alongside much of the article's history. Please consider taking the references formerly included in the article as a result of collaboration and which should be visible to you, and pasting their cite tags/links in a hidden comment in the references section, so that the article could be re-vamped and expanded without copyright issues. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there - I've posted all of the old references on the article's talk page. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Bagyi Aung Soe
I saw your comment at Template talk:Did you know and responded there. I have gone back and compared the article and sources, and can't see the problem. Obviously they tell the same story and include the same facts. This is bothering me. Specifics? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the latest version. I can't see a way to retain the concept "painting should not merely be a literal illustration but should convey the underlying truth", important in understanding the artist's struggles, without a degree of similarity to the source, which is where the concept comes from. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to quote the words used in the source? That's usually the best way of conveying a particular form of words without trespassing into close paraphrasing territory. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done that. It should be legitimate to quote one sentence from an article on his life. The problem here is that the source makes the point clearly and simply. If they waffled on the way most critics do, it would be easy to capture the essence in very different words. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

re: pointish editing
continuing debate from here:
 * Again, if you have no objections to the contents of the article you should not have removed it from DYK. As per verifiability, I suggest you read V. The obituary by Sen, obviously a sympathetic account of Mishra, is used to a great degree but the article is not solely based on it. For example, the "Political legacy" section is based on three different references (Sen, who is supportive of Mishra; Karat, who is clearly critical of Mishra; and an article in Frontline, a major political magazine in India). Moreover, claims in Sen's article that I found dubious (such as Mishra's supposed reluctance to accept the nomination as general secretary) have not been included in the wiki article. --Soman (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept that you may have exercised discretion in your use of the source, but once you accept it is a "obviously sympathetic account" it simply can't be used to "a great degree". We would use this as a substantial source for our article on David Cameron. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have zero problems relying on http://www.conservatives.com/People/David_Cameron.aspx to say that Cameron studied at Eton College or that his wife's name is Samantha. I would not copy-paste the passage "David Cameron's philosophy has always been making sure people are in control and that politicians are their servants, not their masters. His belief in social responsibility, not state control, as the best way to solve problems is already evident in the decisions he has made since the General Election." Now, the there is an issue of systematic bias with regards to sources. The info on Cameron's college eduaction or names of his immediate family members would probably be availible in other sources, such as websites of major British newspapers. Thus using the Tory website as a reference is superflous. In the case of Mishra the situation is different, I could not find any other English-language online reference with a detailed biographic record. Now Mishra is hardly an obscure figure, his party pulled 100,000s of votes (more than 1 million, I think). But rural Bihar (the bastions of Mishra) is not as cyber-connected as Hastings. --Soman (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I can well understand the systemic bias issues: I've created hundreds of articles on Malaysian politicians and it's tough. But the response to systemic bias is not to lower standards. The fact/opinion distinction on which you argue is very illusory and not recognised by policy. Unreliable sources can misrepresent, skew or selectively present facts to promote a particular viewpoint, which is a much more powerful way of pov-pushing than obvious opinion. It means such sources are unreliable full stop. The source in this case was used for much more than basic personal details - it was used as the main source for the subject's history of political activity.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't have any objection to any claims in the article, right? As per WP:V; I would suggest that if you create your own standards, don't impose them on others. The sourcing at the Mishra article is not perfect but perfectly acceptable, no-one at T:TDYK voiced any sourcing concerns for the 8 days it was nominated there. --Soman (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * T:DYK is hopeless though, it routinely fails to pick up obvious things like plagiarism and BLP violations. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of which applies in this case. So, do you have any objection to any claim made in the article? --Soman (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the wrong question. The article itself is objectionable because of the extensive use of an unreliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. It is perfectly ok per WP:V. --Soman (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."--Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should read the entire policy. That would give some clarity to the matter. (and do note the semantic difference between "should" and "must") --Soman (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're making much progress here anymore. Even though the issue is "stale" in a DYK sense, it might be worth wider input. We could take it to WP:RS/N; I'd also suggest the input of User:YellowMonkey a very experienced ex-arb who I recall is knowledgable about Indian politics.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we are not moving forward since you are not answering the question at hand. The point here is that you behaviour, arbitrarily removing a hook from DYK, is not acceptable. Wikipedia is a collective effort and if you want to improve the quality of DYK selection, participate at T:TDYK instead. --Soman (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted it on WP:RS/N for some wider input then. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Chelo61
We seem to have editconflicted, you blocked this editor just as I was in the process of declining the report. Note that the other editor in the dispute behaved just about as badly as Chelo61: he reverted 3 times, never started a talkpage discussion, and was accusing the other editor of vandalism and tendentious editing even before the first revert. Either both of them should be blocked or neither one should. Please let me know your decision as soon as possible; I don't want to wheel war but I do think it would be inappropriate to block just Chelo61. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - this is unfortunate. I've just posted my reasons at AN3. I definitely don't want to wheel-war over this so let's figure it out. I'm certainly open to undoing my block following discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I just stated at AN3, 3RR is not an entitlement and Tbhotch's behavior has been just as poor as Chelo's. Personally I don't see a need for blocking because it looks punitive to me (as far as I can tell it won't solve any problem that wouldn't be solved by just telling them to go to the talk page, with the knowledge that there would be a block if they start up again), which is why I was about to decline. If you think Chelo should be blocked, though, then it makes sense for Tbhotch to be blocked as well; editors should not be rewarded for gaming the system. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just responded at AN3 and lifted the block - I disagree with Tbhotch being blocked but defer to your opinion about treating them even-handedly. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion.
George W. Bush military service controversy, apparently the IP has managed to undo your revert. I'm pretty sure that it counts as sockpuppetting. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the third IP and another admin has semi-protected the page, so that should deal with it for a while. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Louise Glover close
"It is not proper for a closing administrator to be privy to any more information than the participants in the discussion." That was very well said, and truth be told could just as well have been expanded to the nomination in the first place: we should never have been asked to sign off on a decision without knowing the reasons behind it. A thoughtful close.  RGTraynor  07:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the above as far as it speaks to the original nomination - I'm not sure what else OTRS is to do - but I fully agree with your reading of consensus (although it was against my stated opinion) and the time you took to explain your thought process. Nice job. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I can't think of any other situation on Wikipedia where the community's told "I can't tell you why you should endorse my POV; you just have to take my word for it and do so." That being said, I wish more admins took the trouble to explain their reasoning in detail in closing a contentious issue; it'd make for a lot less work at Deletion Review, I'm sure!   RGTraynor  16:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for the kind words and your own very helpful contributions to the debate. Regarding OTRS nominations, it's a tricky issue. I guess it's just a matter of finding the right balance between respecting a subject's legitimate right to privacy and the project's interests in transparency. We'll all find that balance in different places. For that reasons, I suspect the statement about closing admins quoted by RGTraynor might be opposed by some.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Eastside Sun deletion
Kirkland, WA is buzzing about Wikipedia's decision to block all info regarding our local firebrand newspaper, The Eastside Sun. I voted to keep it and it had substantial support, references and notability. Can you explain what happened? My email is KatieMoss84@gmail.com. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.46.189 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there - I have explained in my closing statement at WP:Articles for deletion/Eastside Sun why the article was deleted even when there were a number of keep "votes". I can assure you it is not a decision to "block" information but to delete a discrete article applying wikipedia policies covering all articles. If you'd like to appeal the decision, we have deletion review. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were absolutly editors in cahoots to strip all relevant information from this article and finally to delete it. SarekOfVulcan was the most egregious in that he CONSTANTLY removed information, blocked users, locked page and finally nominated the article for deletion and argued for it.  How do we find out his actual name?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.46.189 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't - editors have a right to anonymity. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Katie, don't sweat it, they not only have a right to anonimity.. they REQUIRE it to censor media without repercussions.. We have a workaround to identify the 4 editors that ganged up on The Sun we know 2 of them already.  It's going to get interesting.  Mkativerata, SajakOfVulcan (LOL), Susan118, Beyond My Ken and Tony Fox... see ya in the newspapers! t--> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.97.106 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 27 November 2010

Public Relations Students' Association
I am new to using Wikipedia and I added a page for our association and linked it to the University of Ottawa's website. I am currently getting more information to add from members, but you deleted it? I really do not know why you deleted the page. Can you restore it or explain why you deleted it? Prvicha (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there - I have responded on your talk page. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the reply. We have been published in two sources, the University of Ottawa's newspaper The Fulcrum http://www.thefulcrum.ca/articles/35222 and the University of Ottawa's Communication Department's ComACTION http://www.communication.uottawa.ca/eng/pdf/comaction/ComActionOct2010.pdf. I am also in the process of getting a story published in Ottawa PR blog, and in a downtown community newspaper. Would that be enough for me to repost it? Thanks Prvicha (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there - I've replied on your talk page again. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Victorian election 2010
Hi. You seem convinced that John Brumby ceased to be Premier on Monday 29 November and Ted Baillieu became Premier the same day. Completely wrong. John Brumby conceded defeat, that's all that happened yesterday. Then, Baillieu went to Government House, where he was invited to go away and form a government and then bring them all back to be officially sworn in. That swearing-in will take place some time later this week, in early December 2010. THAT is when Brumby will cease to be Premier and Baillieu will commence to be Premier, not a second earlier. Please stop making uncited, unreferenced edits to the contrary. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the citation then. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What a mess. The Herald Sun is saying he'll be sworn in today. I've been using the AAP who said he was sworn in last night. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and trust. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done - now see how quickly you can make it to DRV or ANI (it took me one week). --Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Kampung Boy (TV series)'s FAC
Hi, I have responded to and acted on your comments at Kampung Boy's FAC. Jappalang (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey arbitration
Just FYI the allegations do include use of the tools when involved. See Ngo Dinh Diem for example. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I don't see the involvement there because I don't see any dispute in which he is involved. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Its not exactly good form, and it would have been better for it to go to WP:RFPP. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have gone to RFPP too. But WP:INVOLVED specifically speaks of "disputes" so I think this is ok as there was no dispute. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point but I still disagree. Its certainly borderline though :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure but why would we go to arbitration on borderline issues that haven't been raised within the scope of an RfC/U? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If Semi-protection was the only issue I would agree, but there seem to be a rather large number of issues here - and I feel several of them have substance. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)