User talk:Mkdw/Archive 2

Portal:Current events/Canada
I'll look at it. I'd like to ask you to look at Portal:China too, especially its FPC :P

-
Thank you for the help on the article. I have a random question? How did you make the quotation marks on your userpage? Can you please tell me the wikihtml to it? Orthodoxy 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bio
I removed the director statuses from all pages to reflect the showcase article page. Anyone should be able to maintain the portal. If there aren't any suggestions, the first to come gets to pick. &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Drawcia
That's not what the AfD is for. It's for when you want the content deleted, not for when you want it merged. The content is already merged, and no one has explained why the character needs an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. AfD is for discussing DELETING the article only. Also, let me ask you - why does it need an article? What makes Drawcia notable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops
Sorry about that, reverted one revision too far! Bobo. 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Example.ogg
I'm confused. Does that Media:Example.ogg actually belong on the Urdu page? I was under the impression that that Example file was simply that, a default example of an OGG file, and not belonging necessarily to any article. Please help as if this is actually a usable file for Wikipedia articles I will delete it off my vandalism-catcher. Bobo. 05:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert
I do not understand the reasoning behind reveritng my edit without any reason explaining why. Hbdragon88 05:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing I see on that page is the prohiting of fair use images (Images on user pages). Given that Sanger is a public figure and has not minded an image of himself (see this edit where he edited the caption of but did not remove a now-deleted fair use image), I do not think that the usual privacy concerns would apply. Hbdragon88 05:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I still don't see any harm in adding it to his user profile, but whatever, I'll drop the issue and perhaps email Sanger himself to add it. Hbdragon88 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wha?
Did you think my edit at WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month was vandalism? Did I just update the project incorrectly? It is my first time... -- Scientizzle 05:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind--you've reverted it back. Thanks! Have a nice day.. -- Scientizzle 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism on my userpage
Thanks for that. That's quite seriously the fastest vandalism-zapping I've ever seen, using tools notwithstanding! Keep up the good work. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

revert?
Hi, the User LSWSjr is a friend of mine in RL. I was demonstrating to him the use of userboxes, as I mentioned in his talk page. WookMuff 07:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Due to the nature of the userbox, especially since it incorporates homosexuality of that user, it is best that you respect user page and allow that user to add it himself. If you wish to demostrate userboxes you may do so on your own userpage or in a sandbox. Mkdw talk 07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it really just means a love of the character of Hans Moleman from the simpsons, "Gay for moleman" being a quote by Lisa Simpson from said same. Do you think the show is really implying that Bart Simpson is homosexual? WookMuff 07:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I know the man in rl. I am not going to revert it back, but I think you are being ignorant. You see lots of vandalism in a day, you revert said vandalism, good for you. But you seem to get a lot of complaints, and I wonder how many of them are unjustified and how many due to your apparently high handed reverting of pages without regard to circumstance. WookMuff 07:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars reverts
Is there a certain reason you reverted those redirects? The list page can easily describe them. Wikipedia doesn't need articles for each and every character: that's why the list of characters page exists. Also: Wikipedia isn't a video game guide, it doesn't need all these character articles (many of which probably won't and can't be expanded much). RobJ1981 07:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my user page
It's funny to watch him in action via the history file. He made two fresh entries near the top, then went to the bottom and saw he was busted from the day before. --CliffC 13:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Adopt-a-User Program
Good afternoon (GMT time); I've been browsing the Wikipedians requesting adoption category, and your name caught my eye. I'd be honoured to adopt you under the adopt-a-user program.

Please do have a look at my contributions, my user page and the Classroom that my other adoptees use and where I post some useful tips, lessons and where they ask their questions.

If you think you'd get along with me, just drop me a message at my talk page! If not, don't hesitate to drop by anyway, if you've got any questions or just want a chat.

Hope to hear from you soon!

Kind regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 14:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

odd userspace deletion candidates
Why do User:Mkdw/Header and User:Mkdw/sandbox6 appear in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? I haven't got the faintest, any idea? Femto 12:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Defcon
Undeleted! That's what I get for not checking 'what links here' with my own userspace stuff :) And speaking of userspace stuff, you gave my delete button a work-out yesterday... :) – riana_dzasta 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Portal Quote section
I added a quote here, and after I looked at its history, I saw that it hadn't been changed since January It saws that you are director. Since the page is so empty and unused, should I just add it into the actual quote list anyway Canadianshoper 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove that link?
Moved to Talk:Matt Sanchez. Mkdw talk 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've posted a comment on the deletion proposal, for the record I think hes notable enough so that he should be kept, but feel free to comment back on what I posted. Also, yes I can imagine that you do get a lot of vandals on Wikipedia. However if you had read either the article or the talk page (neither of which are very long) you would see that the discussion of his prostitution had already been brought up and accepted by the two main authors of the page, so it was more than a little bit careless of you to revert my edits as if it were vandalism without even bothering to read the context. -ThongWearer 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Checking the talk page of every article that has potential vandalism would make the process nearly impossible when you start looking at the length of talk pages, archives, and number of incoming edits. As far as the article itself, nothing in it would justify the legitimacy of the added paragraph as the first topic talked about his military career and the second about his work in pornography. Being a pornstar does not mean they have to automatically be a prostitute. Reference, reference, reference. =) I also wouldn't make assumptions about what I did and did not read. Mkdw talk 08:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Courier article on WikiProject Vancouver
Greetings,

My name is Chris LaVigne. I'm a freelance journalist working on a story for the Vancouver Courier on the WikiProject Vancouver.

I want to talk to contributors, and was hoping you'd be able to meet some time next week for a chat. Maybe half an hour or less. Email me back if you're interested: lavigne.chris@gmail.com. We can meet whenever and wherever is convenient for you.

I want to get a fair and accurate picture of what being a Wikipedian is like so I hope you'll take a few minutes to talk.

Cheers Arrr matey 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Catch up
Good evening (GMT time); I'm quite a laid-back adopter, and I like to, mostly, leave my charges to their own thing, unless they specifically ask me a question.

However, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that the classroom is still fully active - my other adoptee has been asking questions as well as making use of the current lesson, which provides some wisdom on disputes, and how to avoid/deal with them.

Please don't hesitate to ask a question at the classroom (use the link at the top) if need be, and otherwise happy editing!

Kind regards, anthony cfc  [ talk] 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox migration
Just a reminder to actually move the page to your userspace to preserve the page history rather than copy-pasting. — M ETS 501 (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mets501. I'll remember next time. Mkdw talk 23:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting angry
Okay, Mkdw, I'm getting a bit angry with what you're doing to the month pages, while I don't agree with the first threat, I accepted and changed the Portal:Current Events section to Events because that shouldn't be on a mainspace page andit looks better that way. But you reverted it, calling it vandalism, and posted another insulting message on my talk page. I can fight back if you keep it up. User:Kitia 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try and remain civil. I suggest you read WP:NOT and WP:OWN. The Portal:Current events month by month inclusion has been transcluded on the page since the beginning of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is not up to you to accept or reject the contributions of others. The messages I posted on your talk page are standard warnings to which both were justified. You blanked useful information from the first edit, and the second you changed the heading which in the history of your recent edits, is also removing useful information. Also, all the 2007 months have been set to that standard. I've spent the last month greatly improving these articles from simple transclusions of the events from the Portal:Current events to include more information such as the length of the month, when it starts and ends, as well as other international holidays. I will let your threat of action pass as its a breach of WP:CIVIL. If you are unhappy with my changes, you can bring them up on any one of the talk pages. Mkdw talk 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Battle of Nasiriyah
My last edit was because I am an American soldier, and I am slightly offended at the inclusion of a picture of a dead American soldier in the article. I am sure you can at least understand where my distaste for seeing a comrade in arms lying dead on the ground comes from. Thanks The following unsigned comment was left by 208.0.108.141
 * If you wish to experiment with Wikipedia then please use a sandbox, otherwise wiping articles is considered vandalism. If you take issue with something on Wikipedia, bring it up in its talk page. Thanks, Mkdw talk 08:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject England
Hello! You have probably noticed that WikiProject England has been inactive recently and I and other members are working on making it active again and getting more members to join. I am kindly asking for your help tagging articles for class and importance using WPE, their are literally thousands of articles at Category:England and all of its sub-categories which urgently need tagging ad your help is needed! For more information about theses templates please see the Project Page and I hope you are enjoying being a member!!  Telly addict  21:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?
Hi Mkdw,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khu  kri  10:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits
Just a reminder that minor edits are just that - minor. Responding to arguments I've raised in an AfD isn't a minor edit. I imagine you've probably got the settings set to mark everything as minor by default. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver page
Hello; I'm not a regular Wiki editor, but a Vancouver resident who deals regularly with demographics for work. When I was reading the "Economy" section, I found a particular sentence to be slightly misleading: that people in Vancouver are "generally affluent". Although I understand that perception, StatsCan says otherwise! There are definitely slightly more affluent folks than in other cities (18% of population), but also more impoverished folks, and it drags the median down. (Which, given cost of living, can be problematic.) Anyway, I made a note in the Talk page, and a regular user suggested I add the reference to StatsCan's easily available statistics. I think that you reverted it, although I could be wrong. I can't tell - not doing this a lot - whether it was an edit that just got caught in the crossfire, or whether you meant to revert that particular addition. If you did mean to edit it away, I'd ask you to follow the link I provided: it's not factually true that Vancouverites are generally affluent. There are more extremes in both directions. (This is important info for anyone wanting to do business in Vancouver!) I'm happy to hear criticism about the style and have that part changed, but I think it's problematic to make an undefined claim like "generally affluent", without saying what that metric intends to convey, nor by showing it demographically. Thanks!

Fred Herzog
Hi,

my main concern is that we need a page somewhere to link to Herzog, so that it isn't an orphan... if you can think of a more suitable page, please suggest one. sorry about the language... I didn't see the talk item. Peregrine981 21:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Note re: Vancouver articles
Mkdw: re: "Please discuss all changes you wish to implement into a featured article as per the message on the top of the article." The message doesn't state that - it says to consider adding contributions to daughter articles. Beyond that, however, there is no requirement that changes must be discussed just because the article has been featured. In fact, the header on the talk page says "If you can update or improve it, please do" - along with a link to "Be bold". I understand your attachment to the Vancouver articles, given the work you've put into them. You might wish, though, to use a bit more caution in how you express this passion to other editors. Some of your comments to Peregrine981 could be interpreted as feelings of "ownership" over the Vancouver project. (Please don't take this the wrong way - it's meant as a friendly note of caution from a fellow editor who respects the work you do.) --Ckatz chat spy  09:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you were able to get my intent - it's always a worry with text messages as to how they will be received. (Much easier when communicating verbally, as the other party can hear the tone etc.) As to the revert, I agree that the other party's "vandalism" comment was too strong a term, so I'm glad to see that he/she seems to have apologized. Again, not appropriate given your actions and your history. Nice work, by the way, in cleaning up and maintaining the portal. --Ckatz chat spy  08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As to your other question, thanks for asking. Yes, I've been considering making the "leap" to administrator status. A little daunting, of course, so I was strongly considering doing an editor review first to test the waters. Any advice? --Ckatz chat spy  09:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

iTunes Userboxes
Hope you don't mind that I edited your iTunes userboxes. Sorry that I acted before I ask.Iron2000 12:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

UBX
Yeah, I've been meaning to fix them for a while, but I've been far too lazy :) By the way, you do a lot of good work around here, you're active, you're polite and you're communicative - are you thinking about adminship anytime soon? I'd be glad to nominate you. – Riana ऋ 01:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds good. Look forward to nominating ya :) Cheers, – Riana ऋ 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:72.9.210.246
With all due respect Chris, IP 72.9.210.246 on May 10 (today) and in the last 24 hours has 16 edits, all which are identified as vandalism. Every tracked edit by this IP which is only in the month of May can be identified as vandalism. It's very obviously not a shared IP. In fact this one user is on the verge of violation of the WP:3RR for the article of Fannie Lou Hamer for persistent wiping / vandalism and has been warned many times. Are there no consequences for vandalism after multiple warnings? Having been on Wikipedia a long time fighting vandalism, I know that not to be true. I trust you'll do the right thing. Mkdw talk 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can see here, they stopped at 1920. WP:AIV is not for punitive blocks or WP:3RR blocks.  Please read Wikipedias blocking policy, it explains alot.  WP:AIV is for immediate vandalism occuring now after appropriate warnings. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its a fool's hope that if you think this IP won't vandalize Wikipedia with in the next 24 hours. Many cases need to be treated like a parent-child relationship where if no boundaries are set, the child will see there are no consequences and continue on at the time, frustration, and painstaking watch of others. If not handled under WP:AIV, would it be too much to ask to point the report in the right direction or realize that its situation any adminstrator could handle quickly than as quoted by famous politician "maybe we'll deal with it tomorrow and let somebody else worry about it". I hope you can understand my frustration in the matter as well as the person above, its hard trying to contribute to the community and when regular users like myself are powerless in a situation, we need help. We come to you asking for that, and when you remove it, it's basically saying, nope not a problem, this user hasn't vandalized in the last 5 hours of 48 hours of continuous vandalism with out consequence. Mkdw talk 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLOCK. Blocking is not punitiive.  That is exactly what I am saying.  I wont block you for something you did in the past.  I will only block you for what you are doing now.  If you have an issue with it, try to get the policy changes or take it up at the AIV talk page.  I respect your opinions, however I choose to coniinue with my current interpretation of policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris, WP:BLOCK does state that blocking is not punitive, but at the same time my incident fell under several sections of the policy, especially persistent vandalism to which is the stated mandate of WP:AIV. Also for a user who continuously vandalizes the encyclopedia, would blocking him be also protective for a time period? Also, you cannot remove someone's privledges with out it being punitive in some ways, that is what defines the power behind blocking someone. I'm no longer asking you from an WP:AIV perspective, but as an administrator on the English Wikipedia whose mandate may be more broad. Mkdw talk 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Canada
Hi. Wow. Thanks for your kind words. Adminship? The head swells. No, I've never considered myself qualified. Right now, its all I can do to keep up with my studies. But thanks for thinking of me. Victoriagirl 04:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Flash Mob
Why did you remove my entry on the "Flash Mob" page? I feel it is appropriate and beneficial to add a list for groups involved with organizing flash mobs. Unless you have a very good reason why it should not be there (i.e. it violates wiki rules), please leave it alone. Thanks The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pwscottiv
 * Your contribution to the article Flash mob fails several of Wikipedia's guidelines. Please read WP:NOT, WP:Notability, WP:WEB and WP:ADVERT. Specially its notability to the encyclopedic article and the fact that there have been hundreds of other much larger and more media covered events such as the Flash Mobs that have been supressed by police etc. Also Wikipedia is not a listing for other companies or groups that fail notability guidelines or are unencyclopedic. Furthermore it is not a listing for other media content and you may want to look into the Wikipedia Commons. I will go policy by policy, point by point, but further infractions will be reverted on site as blatant vandalism. Mkdw talk 10:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: article
Still reading it. Skimmed it for a second... damn reporter said "Anaheim MIGHTY Ducks"... :P -→ Buchanan-Hermit™ / ?! 03:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me so far... A few sticking points and facts that I wouldn't normally want to admit to (ie. my first edits being on the Lindsay Lohan article), but s'alright... -→ Buchanan-Hermit™ / ?! 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reporters will always try and sell something people can relate to, i.e. Lindsey Lohan. Knowing the past articles the Courier has written about Wikipedia, I thought this was rather a different and more positive direction in oppinion of the site. Mkdw talk 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I remember reading past Courier articles that bashed the Wiki. The reporter's freelance (not an official Courier reporter), but I actually did ask him about the nature of the article before starting the interview, to make sure it's "okay." -→ Buchanan-Hermit™ / ?! 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Great.
Yeah, thanks for moving USA PATRIOT Act/History. I just lost an amazing amount of work. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No probs. I'm going to move to User:Ta bu shi da yu/USA PATRIOT Act/History (as I am the sole editor) then I'll make a copy of that article to History of the USA PATRIOT Act. Then I'll stop working on that article and work on the one in my user page, which you aren't allowed to touch. Given that I'm pretty much the only person who works on articles about this topic, I hope you'll understand my frustration with this sort of response. Happy? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Are you saying that because I created a useful article that is soon to be merged into USA PATRIOT Act, that I'm vandalising? That does it. I'm taking this to WP:AN. Another point: as you can clearly see, that article is in progress. Where is it not neutral, where does it need to be wikified (it's a subpage for goodness sake!)? And violation of WP:OR?!? How?!? I think that you are floating very close to violation of WP:POINT. I'd strongly advise you to cease and desist. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It's WP:POINT to add those tags to a draft article in progress. You don't add them to articles being actively written by another editor, which is plainly what I'm doing. I've noted your actions on WP:AN/I. One thing I need to do for you, on the other hand, is apologise for my expression of annoyance about your page move: it was tough to see so much work go into the ether, never to return! So sorry about that. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh. It's OK. In the time since this all happened, I have travelled home from work and calmed down. Look, I really am sorry about being annoyed with your page move. You're right, I need to have followed WP:ASSUME, so I can only apologise about that. Probably my angry message didn't help matters. I'll note that I'm just as much in the wrong as anyone on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I finally understand the vandal warning now. However, that was an accident, not vandalism. Please be more careful next time: I'm an administrator of long standing (yes, I know that's blowing my own horn, but it's also true), and I have always done the exact opposite of vandalism on this site - I have written about 4 or 5 FAs, and I'm trying to get one of our toughest and most controversial articles up to speed: USA PATRIOT Act.
 * I am curious though: where is the OR, the POV problems and the wikification issues on that article?
 * Also something you probably aren't aware of, but when someone is trying to fix a controversial article, they will often (or at least, they used to) make a subpage off that article about the area so that they didn't cause problems on the main article. It also lets people collaborate or focus on one part of the article that needs work. It's a long standing practice (it happened on World War II - ask User:Raul654, the director of WP:FA about this). - Ta bu shi da yu 11:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia
how was my edit considered vandalism?? Mentioning 1.8 million twice in two sentences sounds quite bad, so i changed it. The meaning is the same! ie 1.8/7.5 = a quarter! Suicup 10:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 1.84 million articles on the English Wikipedia. There is an estimated 7.5 million articles on Wikipedia. 1.84 x 4 = 7.36 which is not a quarter of the number of articles on Wikipedia. Introducing a factually inaccurate and relative fraction in place of a set value is in my opinion a weaker encyclopedic argument. Not only is the fraction incorrect, but it relies on a constant to maintain a set ratio: the English Wikipedia must grow proportionately to that of Wikipedia. A true value is factually accurate and can be changed accordingly with out relying on a ratio. It solely relies on a single point value: the article count for the English Wikipedia regardless of all Wikipedia articles. Mkdw talk 11:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Heya
I'd like to say that I appreciate that you didn't take our previous run-in to heart and don't view me a monster :-) Thank you for your kind and reasonable comment on Talk:Wikipedia. However, it appears that Ned Scott is still reverting. Could you make another comment on this? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OR on the wikipedia entry
Hi, regarding the edit which you reverted today as OR on the wikipedia page. The vast majority of what you reverted was a paraphrase of an article in the times higher, and thus can not be OR becuase it is published elsewhere. I did add a small amount of editorial comment to explain that the problem is not with wikipeida editors but with those who use wikipedia as a resource for accademic research.Cadmium
 * TES is a notable source to cite, but unless you can provide an accurate issue number and volume number, publication number, or the best of all a URL then it cannot be referenced easily. Also the below quote had several NPOV issues and statements that read like an essay, which is a lot about WP:OR. This article is highly controversal, its one of the permanently locked articles and people seem to continuously fight over small details. So large arguments would be: "In many ways Wikipedia is a brave social experiment..." - When did she say it, how much credibility does she have other than being a journalist writing for a paper, is it relevent to the article by supporting a factual statement, and most of all its a very obvious opinion. It is mentioned above that academia has looked at Wikipedia both positively and negatively for its faults in accuracy but wide contributor base from many countries. "misued by some lazy students" and "generation of intellectually sluggish persons" which are again simply opinions and could be easily argued the other way. The main jist of it is that it offers an opinion of someone else of which Encyclopedias are not supposed to do unless that is what the article is about, there was notable controvesy about what they said (and then the article is about its role in Wikipedia), as well as giving an unbiased case of the facts which ultimately allows readers to make a decision on their own. Unless you can find a way to neatly tie it in with the above paragraph, remove the quotes or explain how they're prominent in Wikipedia's removal in schools, then perhaps Chloe's Wikipedia is the place for the paragraph. Hope you understand. Let me know if you want any help, I'd be glad to. Mkdw talk 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I have rewritten the edit to make it more clear. I have added a few direct quotes of the experts who have made the comments about it. I think that if wikipedia is to be viewed in a serious manner then it should use references which are on paper rather than only web based references. I have provided all the details required for a person to find the article in the THES in case they wish to read it. I think that the new edit (which lacks editorial commentry) contains no OR and is a NPOV report of the views expressed in the Times Higher. The Times Higher is the weekly newspaper which serves the UK accademic community and it is where matters important to the university sector are considered. For instance the tale of Frank Ellis from Leeds is documented in the THES, he is an accademic who stirred up a hornet's nest when he "claimed black people were intellectually inferior to whites" I think that this case has largly escaped the attention of the majority of newspapers in the UK. While the normal newspapers have mentioned the case the THES are contained lots of letters which have discussed the rights and wrongs or the case, in a nutshell the debate was one of "freedom of speach" vs. the very real need to maintain good relationships between the different groups present in university (and general) life. So I think that the THES is more important and trustworthy when considering matters in university life than a normal newspaper.Cadmium

Thanks for the note
Glad to meet a fellow editor with an eye for style! Cyrusc 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead on Vancouver article
Hi - You reverted my edits to the lead on Vancouver. I had cleaned up the format errors and re-inserted the deletions in more appropriate sections...or at least I thought I had. Must not have saved the preview or something. So thanks for cleaning up my mess. I may revisit the article when I have time. The lead could be better written (more like Jerusalem). And I do wonder how many times we should mention and link to George Vancouver in one article. Do you think I should mention this on the Talk page first? Canuckle 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Canuckle, I know you're a legitimate editor so the changes you made I knew must have been an error. A rewrite of the Introduction to the article is definitely needed but doing so should probably be a large group collaborative effort to avoid contest. Your idea of bringing up ways to improve the introduction on the talk page is a great idea. If you take it on I'd be glad to help out. Mkdw talk 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Portal
Just to inform you, I am trying to update the portal and try to keep it featured. However, my computer is not really cooperating. Could you (or anyone) please help?--Canadianshoper 05:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I AM NOT A VANDALISMER
I am not strictly a vandalist, I have "vandalised" a few pages, but I've also contributed some good facts, such as my contribution to the page on the series "Kablam" and I have added a few notable (truthful, also) facts to the Mac and Me page that mostly got deleted. I only vandalised a few times to see how long it would stay. I apologize --Pixiesfan37 06:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any form of vandalism regardless of your other contributions (which are few) is still vandalism. If you persist to vandalize you will be blocked from using Wikipedia. Mkdw talk 10:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question from WoWWiki
Have you recently contributed to WoWWiki under the alias Invision? See. Some other related pages have been deleted upon request of the author, but he linked to you as his wikipedia alias. I fear we had someone impersonating you. Thanks! Kirkburn 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, what a odd situation. I do not have a registered account on WoW Wiki and Invision is definitely not an account belonging to me. I was not able to find a link to my userpage though. Are you sure he linked to my Wikipedia Userpage? Mkdw talk 02:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He linked you on his (since deleted) user page, and he also used a bunch of your user and user talk templates. Thanks for your response :) Kirkburn 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re skytrain FA
Yes, it indeed came through. I'm taking a break from editing from now (on holidays). Dunno what I'll do from there. &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert
What exactly is "not constructive" about the edit? Using an automated tool to make a change based on personal opinion is inappropriate as it does not give a reason in the edit summary. Salathi 09:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries define the action done. It is not a method of discussion. The discussion pages such as this one and Talk:Wikipedia are specifically designed for that. Unless you wish to discuss your changes and the wiping of sections then your changes will continue to be reverted on site. Mkdw talk 09:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I am moving this discussion to Talk:Wikipedia

University of Saskatchewan
Noticed you were a member of Wikiproject Canada - Education.... Celebrate the Centennial University of Saskatchewan Anniversary in the year 2007. Would you please go to Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and vote for this University of Saskatchewan article!!! Tell any and all other editors / U of S students you know who wiki to vote also please!!! Please help Celebrate the Anniversary of the U of S University of Saskatchewan Academics Talk Please help to bring the article to feature status !!!SriMesh | talk  02:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
My sincere apologies! That was my stupid mistake for erasing Harry Potter. No hard feelings?

Duncan McAlister 19:52 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you at least give a reason?
I was just trying to help, and you reverted me without any reason at all. Please could you tell me the reason? TheBlazikenMaster 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The piece of information you added, "It has about a day remaining" is not needed in the article. The fact that the length of the month, when it started, and where it ends gives any reader who knows the current date enough information to know how many more days are left in the month. Your information was redundant and could only have been useful on the current date and would require someone else to come along and fix the article. Also the way it was written provides no useful encyclopedic information to the article and does not conform to the rest of the month articles.


 * Wikipedia has several policies about notable content, encyclopedic content, what not to include in articles, and in this case, information that does not need to be updated in a daily manor articles in the main namespace. I hope this helps. Mkdw talk 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering, really appreciated. TheBlazikenMaster 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Slave whipping blasphemy
I would strongly suggest discussing votes with which you have a problem with the caster first, before removing them and passing judgment on the caster. It's the civil thing to do. Thank you. Sidatio 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Most incidents labelled as vandalism do not require the consultation of that person when reverting their edits. If you want your comments to be taken seriously and left alone, then keep to something we can use. If you want to joke about something, I suggest the Uncyclopedia. AfD's have a very simple method of being used: Comment, Speedy Delete, Delete, Keep, Strong Keep or Delete. If someone leaves their vote as "Kill all with massive amounts of fire" that is vandalism, even if its a joke. "I am more notable than these guys. There's nothing out there for any of the above-mentioned articles" does not provide any means to a legitimate vote. AfD's are tasks that need to be done and making them complicated with votes we cannot consider does not help. If you're going to take the fact that I removed your comment so seriously, and then remove my comment, put a new one back, restore my comment, leave a complaint here, and post a message on my talk page -- then you should reconsider your own comments if you want to be taken seriously. Sarcasm and jokes are fine, but I have to say in this case there was almost no distinction between a whimsical joke in the middle of a vote and the most common vandalism we see here at AfD's. (If you're not serious and want to be taken seriously as a contributor to Wikipedia, then help us out and be serious). Thanks for your time. Mkdw talk 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the guidelines used for AfDs, thank you. Some people aren't as rigid in their accusations of vandalism, and most of the editors I know are willing to give the benefit of a doubt and at least check the contributions of an individual before labeling them a vandal. But hey, we're all different. Personally, I think there's a little room in Wikipedia for a bit of humor every now and again, but I'd be dense to think I can do so in the presence of everyone. I will be more resolute to be more formal in any future dealings I have with you, and you have my deepest and most sincere apologies for offending your sensibilities. :-) Sidatio 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower
As a recent contributor to this article, you may be interested in commenting at the discussion on deleting the article DGG (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack Bauer Family Tree
Hey, saw your edit about 'Carol' and just thought I'd let you know I've added her back in since she is mentioned in Day 2. Jack tells Kim to go and stay with her so that she will be safe from the bomb, though we never meet Carol or see anyone speaking to her, explaining why she isn't listed on IMDb. asyndeton 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I recall, Jack refers to her as 'Aunt Carol' and the way he talks about her suggests that she is Teri's sister. I've looked at the family tree and I do not see your issue with it; it seems completely correct to me. asyndeton 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver
Mkdw I don't understand why you would revert my edit. All the cited sources are either directly to Mercer HR or Economist IU, or indirect references to the same companies. If you follow the links down, in fact you will come to "buy this report" sooner or later - so at the first instance, indeed they are both commercial entities making for-profit statements - the "headline" findings are public knowledge but the actual basis of the reports has to be purchased. I would interpret that as "business-oriented".

At the second instance, upon reading the text of the cited references, both Mercer and EIU are actually quite clear that the surveys are concerned with liveability for expatriates, that is, employees of a foreign company looking at the prospect of being posted to a city -somewhere- in the world. This seems clearly oriented towards business. The reports are actually somewhat oriented towards "risk", as in, if I go to work there, will I get shot in the street?

I opened a topic on the "Vancouver" talk page: "Most Liveable City" and discussed before my change. Could you provide some input there? Franamax 10:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Junior Varsity
I got really confused when you tagged this article for speedy, since they meet criteria 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11 of WP:MUSIC... Chubbles 05:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry at the time a google test wasn't very conclusive as most of the top search results were for Varsity sports teams. With the newly added references, I see that now. Good faith mistake. =) Mkdw talk 02:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/News Browser
I've replied to your message on my talk page.- gadfium 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would like to start maintaining Portal:Current events/Oceania since you do not believe it should be marked as historical. A good start would be to copy items from the history of the ITN panes of the Oceania, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia and New Zealand portals, and to create archives for each month since January.- gadfium 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re. User talk:64.5.147.100
Hello. I blocked this IP back in January. There's thousands of IPs producing as much vandalism as this one. They're often IPs originating from schools whose kids are too bored to do something but vandalize Wikipedia. Still, IPs are almost never to be blocked indefinitely. Vandalism from this one is promptly reverted. It may be blocked for longer and longer periods of time, but an indef block is not necessary. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  03:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well actually you blocked them yesterday on September 17th and since they have vandalised Wikipedia over 20 times, so I just thought... I was under the impression blocking was preventative for protecting Wikipedia, and it is clear this IP continues to vandalism wikipedia on almost an hourly basis. I wasn't refering to an indefinite block, but maybe something longer than 12 hours... Anyway, thanks for your time. Mkdw talk 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

thank u for that

It will not happen again

xoxoxo Martiey meguriw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.93.127 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion
Kindly do not tell me that a week celebrating a major healthcare profession is vandalism, while promoting the 4th Annual Santa Barbara Ocean Film Festival is not. I will be restoring the information you decided to delete.24.247.243.88 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal talk:Vancouver
There is a new comment on the above talk page...Portal British Columbia has been updated with rotational articles, images, biographies, DYK, introduction, what have you, and a robotic server delivering the news. Did you want the same done for this portal? It could be set up preserving the voting - suggestion status that this portal started with, or eliminating the voting altogether with just rotating feature and GA class articles. With the rotation,...if the input becomes inactive for a short time, the portal still shows new fresh content on the main page, until more items are added and there are no red links then.SriMesh | talk  21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood North
Thanks for your note; that article has certainly had enough battles in the past with the "DEYS" affair. Accordingly, I've proposed what I feel is a possible solution at the talk page; please let me know what you think. Thanks again. --Ckatz chat spy  00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood North
I would like to get your opinion on some information that I would like to add to the Hollywood North article. I would like to know if it would be allowed to add a couple of short sentences in the Canada-section of that article where I make reference to Hamilton, Ontario's film production numbers being on the rise and as well if I find anything that makes references to it being part of the Hollywood North in Canada along with citations supplied for it? Nhl4hamilton (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Break a Leg
So do a lot of other Russian descendants. Unless you have solid evidence it's a WP:COI, I wouldn't use that as an argument, or, if you do, just point out that it's a possible conflict of interest. Redfarmer (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only pointing out that, without a user page, there is not direct evidence that this is the person. It could be another Russian or a fan. My "responsibility" is to weigh the evidence as I see it and right now I think you're generalizing. Is it the creator? Possibly. Neither of us know that for sure though. P.S. Chill out and assume good faith. Redfarmer (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I always assume good faith when editing. Perhaps 'tone' was an issue as text can be very easily misinterpreted over the internet. I was simply stating that it was blatantly obvious that the creator of the article was the same as the person in it as not only was it a single purpose editor but the user name and last name matched. Mkdw talk 07:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Jensen Ackles
Thank you. Tanvir che (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Rollback granted. See Template:Rollbackgiven2. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 14:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment from User:FACT NEEDED
I think your action of removing my post can subsitute vandalism. In order to produce wikipedia quality article, you need to include native Uyghur history when you talking about xinjiang history.

FACT NEEDED (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)What you are doing here is active vandalism. if you do not want Uyghur history included in wikipedia, I am sorry for you and your friend the Leopard. Just remind you guys that Uyghurs were the absolute majority in the region just 50 years ago, why you do not want their history being told in the wikipedia?
 * You should always assume good faith when editing. I would strongly suggest you carefully choose your words. Accusing people of active vandalism is a very serious matter. I understand you are new to Wikipedia and I do believe your intentions are good ones, but please be respectful of your fellow editors. You have made 13 edits to the English Wikipedia and calling someone a vandal is not a good start. I have made over 6,700 edits to the English Wikipedia, am a member of the WikiProject Council, am a member of the counter-vandalism task force, and have been entrusted with rollback privileges to fight vandalism. If you think I am vandalising Wikipedia you may report this incident at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * On that note, I have made a comment on the Talk:History_of_Xinjiang regarding your edits and preserved your changes at History_of_Xinjiang/Sandbox. Mkdw talk 09:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Another excuse
I am absolutely not interesting editing your stuff, I just want my voice heard. So do not try to warn me for something I did not do. FACT NEEDED (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The warning in regards to removing comments left by other users was a necessary and also informative response. You may or may have not known, I can only assume, but you removed my comments I left on theTalk:History of Xinjiang page. Please see diff=193671294&oldid=193670308 for the changes you made where you removed my comments. Your concerns are being heard and I am responding to them but it is difficult if you remove my comments as well as accuse me of being a vandal. Mkdw talk 10:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see
that is totally unintentional, could you please revert. FACT NEEDED (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already restored my comment as well as inserted your comment below mine on the talk page.


 * As for the matter of the article, the History_of_Xinjiang, you made some contributions. However, on Wikipedia there are many of us who dedicate our time to fight vandalism done to pages. This includes adding profanity, removing useful content, altering content to make it incorrect, along with a number of other things. Sometimes when we see large areas being edited we suggest that it be done on a sub page or sandbox. Wikipedia is largely a collaborative effort and is the result of many editors working together. I have created History_of_Xinjiang/Sandbox which has your changes. I suggest you useTalk:History_of_Xinjiang and discuss with the other major contributors to the article as well as other experts in the subject matter about the changes you wish to make. Ultimately your changes will get in there, but it will be done in the nature of a wiki and we can be sure it's factual and formatted to the Wikipedia style. Wikipedia is a very laid down encyclopedia with all sorts of editing rules, and styles that should be followed. It's confusing but after awhile you will get the hang of it. There are lots of useful links and things to read that Mighty posted for you. Good luck and happy editing. And remember to try and stay polite with your fellow editors even if they are not with you. Mkdw talk 10:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure
I am a polite person myself. I just want people to be neutral and respect the aboriginal people's history. I will talk about my points in the discussion. thanks, FACT NEEDED (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?
I didn't do anything wrong. You snitched on me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeAnimu10 (talk •contribs) 10:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have been warned several times for vandalizing Wikipedia and making personal attacks about people is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Mkdw talk 10:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate it.
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page so quickly; I appreciate the help. How are things, anyway? Haven't chatted for a while... I've sort of been roaming all over the 'site for the past few months, so I haven't been around the Vancouver project too often. --Ckatz chat spy  11:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Heya
Nope Dave, I remember you :D How're you doing mate? I'm trying to get better *sniffle* :) ~ Riana ⁂ 15:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey!!
I remember (to a degree), nice to see you still hangin' around! How ya been? And thanks on the congratulations. Of course, if there's anything you ever need help with, I'd be happy to. :) Cheers! Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  17:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your enquiry re patrolling
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I review new articles listed at Special:Newpages. When you click on a new page from that list the page displays with a "mark as patrolled" link at the bottom. Click that and the page is marked as patrolled. Hope this helps. --ukexpat (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my contributions
Can you please stop deleting my contributions and remove the reference to being a sock puppet of Stonehut.

My contributions are valid, the change i made to the F. J. Brennan Catholic High School were to the outdated Vice Principals that were listed, this can be verified by going to the schools own website, which i visited in the process of researching Daniel Gagnon, which is another article of mine you had deleted. i had noticed the 'vandalism' that was being added to the page while i was attempting to edit it, but that was not done by me, nor anyone i am associated with.

I do not appreciate my name being associated with someone such as 'Stonehut'.Dnamaster2000 (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very apparent that you and User:Stonehut are the same user. You made identical vandalism contributions as a single purpose editor to several of the same pages. Not to mention that Stonehut has made several edits to your userpage. As I mentioned in my last message, I strongly recommend you read Wikipedia's policies regarding notability and Your first article. Also, recreated already speedily deleted articles is considered one form of vandalism. You have recreated the same article four times which fails WP:BIO. If you persist you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mkdw talk 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to make serious contributions, it appears that User:Stonehut is someone who works with me and was doing things just to interfere with me. I would appreciate it if you could revert the page F. J. Brennan Catholic High School to the last version i posted as it was more correct and since you have removed my changes it is no longer accurate.

Also i would like to know which articles were vandalized under my name as you have stated, i am unaware of any examples. the article you mentioned that we had both made several edits to is the before mentioned deleted article, which i will attempt to recreate once i have more references compiled. Dnamaster2000 (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the welcome template1 --Creaming (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF?
What's the big idea accusing me of vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmithsonian (talk •contribs) 11:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This warning of  appears to be in error, as your revert on the Wonders of the World article appears to have removed content. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear fellow editor. This is a reply to the revisions I made on diff=194392824&oldid=194392735 in the articleWonders of the World. I have reviewed the changes. While I do not agree with the removal of the links, the statement about the Pyramids as the last standing ancient wonder of the world is correct. Thanks for your time and notification. User:Wordsmithsonian, I would like to remind you to always assume good faith. As you may know a Wiki may be edited by anyone at anytime. Unfortunately that draws a group of people who wish to vandalise a lot of the great contributions on the Wikipedia. However, there are many people working to stop and revert vandalism but sometimes we make mistakes. In the future it's best to try and not take it personally and simply talk it out how User:Kralizec! did. Happy editing. Mkdw talk 20:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

New Message
 ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

nip/tuck revert
Mkdw, the revert to did was INCORRECT. it is freddy prune not freddy prince junior at all. The left names are fictional character names and the left are the ACTORS. and freddy prince junior is neither the actor no the fictional character being portrayed. Tj21 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Council roll call
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! ) 22:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Burrard Street Bridge
I'd not read your comments before my recent visit to the Bridge, after which I read the Wiki article, found its use of images not very helpful, and did the following: inserted a photo I took that gives illustrative, informative support for the descriptions of the structure and also for current city planning concerns, opened a 'gallery' file where people can put their snaps, and moved most existing images there. I left in text two historical images and the main identifier.Alethe (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RC and NPP userbox
Hi. I hope you don't mind but I made some modifications to your userbox. -- Menti  sock  11:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Stanley
Great to meet you last night. I just thought I'd take this opportunity to once again bring to your attention Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage for you to see if there was anything that you cared to contribute. Whatever you decide is fine with me. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hey Mkdw, long time no talk (since Monday anyway :) IIRC you have some familiarity with year-month-date articles. Can you take a look at the good-faith contribs of this editor and give me your opinion? If I understand correctly, we wouldn't put detailed information into a higher-level article when it is available in a link (in this case the list of Academy Award winners in a given year, and contrast this with the list of Nobel Prize winners which may or may not be awarded in any given year, and has a different definition of "notability").

Also, if I was reading commentary correctly, there is the question as to whether predictably recurrent events should be in the year articles at all. Again contrast the Academy's vs. the Nobel's, which are recurrent yet intermittent in their awards.

Your opinion is appreciated, thanks! Franamax (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The FA-Team
Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Stanley theatre
Hi Mkdw, how are you? I hope all is well. I've just recently joined the WikiProject Vancouver. I have seen you in discussions for Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage. I was wondering if you could help me with something. I have added coordinates and the Vancouver landmarks template to the Stanley page, but neither of them show up on the page itself. I have tried multiple times to get it to show but so far no luck. Do you know what I am doing wrong? If you could help I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I ended up figuring it out. It's because I hadn't closed the gallery just above with " " that it didn't work. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Movie theatres
Me again. While I have your attention I thought I might throw another question at you. Maybe I should be asking this on the Vancouver WikiProject Talk Page, but since I see you have been involved in a couple of theatre-related articles I thought I might get your opinion first. From my research on the Stanley, I have become very interested in some of the old movie theatres in Vancouver, including those that have long since closed down. I have also started contributing to the Orpheum (Vancouver) page and there's another editor who is interested in starting a Vogue article, so if so I'll likely get involved in that too. But what I am really interested in is doing a Capitol/Capitol 6 page. There is some good info about it here, among other places. I'm sure I could find lots more information around, and have some already. But do you think the Capitol/Capitol 6 is notable enough? Sure, it was a well-loved theatre but it has already closed down. I'd also be interested in doing articles for some still-operating theatres that have a bit of history, such as the Ridge or the Park, but I am not sure if they are noteworthy enough either. One other idea I had was to do an article on the history of movie theatres in Vancouver, which could talk about the gradual trends of movie palaces changing over to multiplexes, some of the major theatres that have come and gone, the different companies that have operated theatres in Vancouver (Odeon, Famous Players, etc.) and then have a table showing all the theatres that have existed in Vancouver (maybe in alphabetical order), their years of operation and some brief info about each. if you had any feedback about any of these ideas, I'd be really grateful. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Sure, whenever you happen to have time, just drop me a line. Good luck with your show! Moisejp (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the tips on placement for WikiProject. Mea culpa- it seems I have lots to learn about layout on wikipedia! CheersCarole Higgins (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Carousel Theatre
Thanks for the suggestions on uploading photos. I'd love to do this but am completely overwhelmed as to the wiki rules on this. Is this something you could do? Carousel owns the rights to our logo, which we created, and we pay our house photographer a licensing fee to use photos.Carole Higgins (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Carousel Theatre
Thanks for your help. I think I may have to stay away from production stills because of CAEA concerns-if someone were to use a photo and not credit the artists that would not be good. I was at hive on saturday and loved it so much I am back again tonightCarole Higgins (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 4
Mission 4, a series of articles on the Everglades, could do with help from the FA-Team! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for volunteering for Mission 4 - Moni3 has helpfully constructed a "to do" list on our Mission 4! Let's start working!Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 4 success!
Draining and development of the Everglades, which in the end we decided not to rename "Complete land rape of South Florida", has achieved FA status! Congratulations and thanks all around! Two down and three to go - head for those copyediting and peer-reviewing parties at Restoration of the Everglades, Geography and ecology of the Everglades and Everglades! Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Everglades have been saved! Just kidding! Seriously, though, big changes are afoot, as reported by our own Moni3 at Wikinews. These developments have prompted a dramatic increase in traffic to the articles, so let's do Wikipedia proud and spruce them up pronto! Awadewit (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Third FA for the Everglades project!
Way to go team! Restoration of the Everglades has just become an FA! Three down and two to go! Geography and ecology of the Everglades and Everglades could use your eagle eyes!Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Proposals
Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team successes!
Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on ''Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? '' is openhere. We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note as you are a member ofWikiProject Council --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) -12:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New FA-Team mission needs your help!
Félix Houphouët-Boigny needs to be copyedited and peer reviewed. We would appreciate any and all help from the crack members of the FA-Team! Sign up here. Merci! Awadewit (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction
Hi, Mkdw. As you are a member of the FA-Team, I would like to ask you assistance. The Oil shale extraction was a FAC, but was not promoted, mostly because of the prose. I wonder if you could be interested to help bringing this article to the FA level. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference reviewing
Hey Mkdw, I saw you put your name on the FA Team as a good person to help identify problems with referencing. Well, I was wondering if you would be up to reviewing the references of the Spokane, Washington article. The article failed its first FAC primarily due to referencing problems, and I just want to know which references would tank another FAC someday and therefore should be replaced. If you decide to do it, feel free to just post the problems on my Talk page, since Im the only active editor of the article. Holler back if you interested so I can stop looking for reviewers. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

TUTS
Since I work with the Official TUTS archivist, someone pointed me at the Wiki entry, I hav been trying to correct the show lists since 1940, sorry If I am using ther wrong protocols, I shall have to read all the editing help articles. Roger Smith for Cecilia Smith, TUTS Archivist since 1980 Archivist (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Roger Smith rogerxray @shaw.ca

Vancouver article needs help
Did you know that Vancouver may lose FA status? The article was listed for FAR on June 18 but there wasn't much response. It has since been listed as a Featured Article Removal Candidate. I am contacting you because you are one of the top ten editors of the article by number of edits. Would you be willing to work on improving the article? If so, you may wish to comment on the review page and join the discussion on the talk page here. Sunray (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw your comment on the FAR page. Good stuff. I especially liked your approach to cutting down the article size. Mind you, the Vancouver article is pretty much in the same league size-wise with other FA-rated cities of comparable size. So I don't think we can trim, rather than hack it up. I've commented in that vein on the FAR page. Sunray (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Charts
TehranIran, most of the images on these articles are carefully selected. The new charts you have introduced are illegible to any reader going over the article and they would need to click and open the image to view its content. You may want to look up Wikipedia's article image policy to review what are considered acceptable images and required criteria for images inserted into articles. And please do not label your restores as reverting vandalism. You are working against policy and consensus and further attempts to mislead or apply false judgement against your peers will be considered a personal attack. Mkdw talk 19:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. The pie charts are perfectely legible and directly from Canada Census 2006. I don't know what you have agains them. I know the Wiki policy on article images: it is Wiki policy to keep images thumbnail size and no chart will ever be readable when its only thumbnail size. If that is your issue with these charts then instead of removing them you should enlarge them. I would enlarge them myself but it is Wiki policy to keep them thumbnail size. But since you insist I will keep them enlarged so the read can read it without clicking on it to enlarge. Also, I labeled my revert as vandalism because that is precisley what it was (removing important and valuable content). Next time before removing content please consult others through their talk pages to explain your reasoning and we can resolve any issue you have with others' edits. TehranIran (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also I see you complaining that there is no way to verify the data. I've provided the direct link on the info page, you can verify it yourself. As well, you complain that it does not contain percentages. I did not insert the actual numerical percentage because it is not asthetically pleasing and because a pie chart is best without that. TehranIran (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

HMS Curacoa
Thank you for your message acknowledging my tinkering with this article. I've just tinkered with it a little more but will now let it be.

I was motivated to work on it when I recalled an old friend telling me that his grandfather was one of the crew lost as a result of the collision. I remembered that the ship's name was something unusual like "Curaco", so it didn't take long to find.

212.84.97.48 (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

PS I noticed that a couple of the paragraphs have the same footnote link after nearly every sentence. Perhaps there's a way to associate a single footnote link with an entire paragraph, thereby making the text look less cluttered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.97.48 (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks MKDW. I'm glad you're still here too. Actually I never really left; the longest amount of time that I have stopped editing is about a month. But my participation has definitely declined for the last couple years, because of increased responsibilities at college, and I did quit patrolling AIV for quite a while. I have recently had time to edit more and started getting back into patrolling AIV again, and I hope to continue but I will be starting graduate school in September so I'm not sure how much I'll be here. I hope you are well and that we will meet around the wiki soon. Academic Challenger (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the invitation to the Vancouver cleanup. I'll try to help out as I can. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Likewise. I can't give a firm time commitment, but I do have the page watchlisted (but of course...) and am always reviewing changes. Cheers, and thanks for taking this on. --Ckatz chat spy  08:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver
Please see Vancouver-talk re date format --JimWae (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks JimWae. I posted a reply on the discussion. Mkdw talk 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can leave the images to me, considering I don't have much knowledge to help with much else... :P In some cases (for example, images with extreme pixel aspect ratios) it's a good idea to force image sizes, and we may do that at the end, but generally it's best to leave them alone (especially as the ridiculously tiny 180px default is due to be boosted to a much better 220px any time now, and such sizes override user preferences to make them as tiny or honkin' as they want.) A new recommendation for images per WP:FA? is the addition of alt text for disabled readers; I've added and restored some rough alt text that probably needs some massaging, but at the minimum User:Eubulides generally helps with that at FAC so it's not as huge a concern as other issues with the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You link to it like any other file; it automatically takes the commons file if there's not en.wp file with the same name. That said I doubt there will be any copyright issues, but I need to check the images in the article for proper copyright info. The image you mentioned should be fine since it's verified, the only issue is that the original source is now dead (shouldn't be an issue, like I said.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the welcome and some good places to start trying to understand both the larger Wikipedia culture and your goals of cleaning up the article on Vancouver and having it accepted as a featured article. I'll keep immersing myself in the criteria for featured article status as well as the style guidelines and hopefully I'll be able to contribute constructively to your project. Anyway, I really appreciate the time you and your team are taking to make changes to the article. And thanks again for the welcome! --Sherwin55 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver map
Hiya Mkdw, no problem and no offense taken. Looking back at them, I kind of agree with you, the maps are not great at small scale, and my attempts to "pick colours that go together" may have been doomed from the start due to my utter lack of artistic taste ;). Thanks for making the effort to fix the Vancouver article, it was sad to see it demoted like that.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver demographics
I wish you luck with Operation Schadenfreude‎. I am too (real life) busy right now to help in a meaningful way but I will be back in January to see what is happening. I have some comments, though, that may be helpful:
 * The Demographics section concentrates too much on ethnicities. Demographics should include other aspects, like age distribution, household sizes, and other stats/trends like incomes, education levels, dwelling types, etc.
 * These are/should be in the ref section already, but are here for convenience 2006 Census (Vancouver) 2006 Census (Greater Vancouver), BC Stats profile
 * The Demographics should go with a graph to illustrate the population growth, not the table of numbers. This should be a Summary style of Demographics of Vancouver, so the raw data should be in the sub-article and the summarizing (easy to understand) graph should be in the main article.
 * The Policing sub-section is probably too long, and I don't think some of it is appropriate. Real policing statitics are here, and specifically here and regionally here. --maclean (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note re your point one that this is a common obsession across Canadian demographics articles and sections. US towns and cities by comparison have the full breakdown, though they tend to give the racial statistics rather than ethnicity/visible minority; but they always have income, family, households etc...sometimes it's absurd, with percentages given for places with only 100 people or less (rather than actual number of heads).  One person becomes 2.2% and so on...age/employment/income are "core demographics" and yeah, me too, I've got a lot going in real life so can't dedicate the time to any of this (or any of fifty other potential projects in wikipedia), but just adding the two bits about these issues not being limited to the Vancouver article and its subordinate demographics page; similarly sections like economy/industry could be more seriously treated, also.Skookum1 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By "seriously treated" I don't mean in an anti-frivolous sense, but in terms of "a serious treatment" with more cites and better economic history and so on; much of the rest of the page reads liek travelogue, but the economy section (and some of the history section) is just a disjointed assemblage; with no figures, also, in re what we expect/assume with demographics; economics is ultimately about data; I'll maybe work up that section a bit, unfortunately without line/page cites as my old library is back in BC (I'm in NS), so over time I'll try and do what I can using what's available on-line; the economic material is related to the democgraphics data on employment/income/assets of course....some description of the industrial tax base, commercial tax base and residential tax base (i.e. where the revenue comes from, and which parts of the city provide it), is all part of the picture; maybe that all belongs on Economy of Vancouver though, rather than here where a precis is needed...Skookum1 (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. I'm glad I roped you into it them. =) Mkdw talk 17:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't touched the demographics section since its a mess. I did remove the graph in place for a table since the graph was actually incorrect when I measured it to the statistics. Also, other cities have opted for a table over a graph, and since those graphs were taking up an entire section of the article that was unsightly, I just moved and was hoping to leave it to someone else for the demographics seciton hehe. I'm looking at you guys as I also think it focuses far too much on the population elasticities over the huge amount of other information that is supposed to be included in demographics. Mkdw talk 22:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam


Re, change,
In regards to this edit, if you took the time to read my edit summary, you would see that I was deleting unsourced information. We here at wikipedia, as I'm sure you know with your 9k+ edits, do not publish original thought or research. I have corrected the grammar, so please, next time you revert someone, try reading what precisely they did, along with their edit summary. You reverted with the AGF link, but you didn't even bother to AGF yourself.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Daedalus969, I reviewed your comments and see my error. I apologize for my haste. Mkdw talk 18:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FA-Team revival
I've made a proposal to bring the FA-Team out of inactivity—with a mission a bit different than we're used to. This is just a generic note I'm sending to members asking for their input. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Request an account
I am formally applying for an account at the Internal Account Creator, request an account tool server. Mkdw talk 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in as well as the mailing list.


 * Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day (a day being from 0:00 UTC to 23:59 UTC), although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.


 * Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Mkdw talk 22:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Homerjay90
Thanks for all your work in tracking down all the variations of the sockpuppet. I hope you have a wonderful new year. <span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> ttonyb (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I noticed the activities across a number of articles I had watchlisted and tracked it back to multiple accounts in common. Hopefully we can tie in all the accounts and this editor's disruptive edits will be ended. Mkdw talk 02:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI
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. Philly jawn (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) As a result you were warned for falsely reporting me. Please read up on WP:3RR and how counter-vandalism does not fit into that category. Thank you. Mkdw talk 09:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't want this to go any further. I won't add the text to flash mob if you stop nominating the rowbottom article for speedy. Also, if you add the tag back in you'll be close to 3rr. Philly jawn (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not nominate the article for its relationship to Flash mob. As an article on its own, it does not link to any other Wikipedia articles, and the sources it uses doesn't support its contents. Frankly, it seems like an unremarkable university nickname and lacks any encyclopedic benefit. The A7 on it isn't for barter, and the process to contest it isn't by reverting it as well as the tags. I am willing to discuss its notability per WP:BIO, but so far you haven't made an attempt to assert how it meets any of the Wikipedia guidelines. Mkdw talk 02:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of going through an AfD, you have pushed this dispute because of the addition of the material to the flash mob article. It was in fact somewhat relevant. You weren't really interested in discussing it. The rowbottom article was not in fact an orphan and it did have references when I took those tags off, you added them back on. I just reported you for edit warring. Philly jawn (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Joseph Rowbottom
Hello Mkdw. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Joseph Rowbottom, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I will nominate it for WP:AfD. Mkdw talk 04:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)