I'm not very familiar with CfDs. But I do have strong feelings that whenever a close, anywhere on this project, goes against the numbers or even against a significant minority, it needs to be explained well. Transparency in decision-making and respect for contributors to debates demands it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I asked semiprotection for "Eye", denied because "It's a prominent article so vandalism will be picked up quickly. It's not frequent enough to justify protection locking out the IPs who are making helpful contributions." On the last 100 edits I see perhaps ten helpful edits by IP, which, however, simply change "color" to "colour", "maximise" to "maximize" or vice versa. This is all OK, but leaves two problems to me: everyday in my watchlist vandalisms to "Eye" appear uselessly one or more times; and, most importantly, the page history is unreadable. What can be done to prevent this? --GianniG46 (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'day there - I think the only way for the vandalism to be stopped on this article is the old-fashioned way: by counter-vandalism patrollers. I think that's realistic here. I can't see any more than two incidents of vandalism per day on this article, so it's not frequent and it gets picked up by vandalism patrollers very quickly. If there is a large spike in vandalism, that would warrant temporary semi-protection. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think my comment about a possible block in the edit summary neglected the fact that your earlier tags had been declined by other admins using rollback rather than declined with a reason as is usual. To be quite frank I can understand that you felt aggrieved by that. As for the merits of the speedy deletion tagging, in my view, it wasn't a blatant hoax and that's borne out by the divided opinions at the RfD so far.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you determine why or how the AFD Stastitics tool is broken? I have noticed that at several AFDs where my !vote was "keep", the toolserver instead had myself and other keep !votes listed as deletes... and in a few, several editors are listed as both keeps and deletes. WTF? I know that AFD is not a headcount, but if the tool is to be in the AFD template at all, should it at least be tallying accurately? Please refer to these recent examples of where information being tallied and reported inaccuratey: [1][2][3][4][5] Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.10:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'day MQS - I'm sorry I'm afraid I barely have the technical ability to sign my own posts, let alone determine what is wrong with a tool. However, I do think this tool is inappropriate for the reasons you point out and it shouldn't be linked from anywhere on the project. If there is to be a discussion about that, I will gladly join in.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im sure there was propbably some discussion somewhere when the tool was added to the template, offering reasons and justification for a tool that is seen as inappropriate (chuckle)... I just haven't found it yet. I did also ask over at WP:Talk AFD, and Fram has now set it so the tool will not appear at new AFDs (though still seen at old). I have asked there for its background and how it got broken. Join please, if you have input. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.19:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What might be of more concern (at first glance) is the relationship of the edit to the editor's AfD contribution. It doesn't appear this editor has been notified of DIGWUREN though, which is a necessary prerequisite for discretionary sanctions. I'll look into it and notify if necessary. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notice. I'll refrain from editing the article for some time and will endeavor to use better judgment in my edits. My thinking was that those who were weighing in on the AfD ought to see the longstanding version of the article with all the sourcing instead of the gutted stub which it has been reduced to. Maintaining that vastly reduced version seemed inclined to give a false impression of the article as it has been for year and militate toward a more likely determination of deletion. Mamalujo (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - once an article is under a discretionary sanction regime (as this one is), one's actions on the article will be much more closely scrutinised than they would be on other articles. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:A5000 has removed the POV tag from Mass killings under communist regimes three times in the last three days, although never doing it within a 24 hour period. He has never discussed this on the talk page, although there is an active discussion thread.[6] The edit history suggests to me someone who has experience. TFD (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just want to inform you that the anon that created a new article on the Job Network redirect is the longtime Philippine TV Vandal. The article he created there is 100% hoax. Please see my summary report regarding that vandal for more details. -WayKurat (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. As a courtesy, I am asking you to reconsider your closing of the above-referenced list article, because it ran against consensus (it overrode the majority of reasoned opinions), and because it blatantly ignored the sourcing on the subject that the subject is in fact notable. You also raised a fallacious canvassing argument, which is erroneous as a matter of procedure. It is hard to imagine that anyone who has had any exposure to the issue could proclaim with a straight face that Jewishness is unrelated to acting, and there are some troubling aspects of attempts to stamp out Jewishness as an identity category on Wikipedia. Under the circumstances, I may take this promptly to deletion review if you will not reconsider. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Just briefly: (1) It is not a majority vote; (2) canvassing wasn't relevant to the decision, I mentioned it to highlight that it is not a majority vote; (3) the closing statement addressed the sources as they had been discussed in the AfD. So I'm not inclined to reconsider on those bases. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mkativerata. I've openned a thread at ANi relating to LemonMonday here. What led to your block is just the latest in a series of issues with LM - who was just warned a matter of days ago for having a history of Wikihounding another account, User:HighKing. He was also blocked twice in October for violating WP:BATTLE. I have been relucant until now to enforce WP:GS/BI sanctions but as this is now spilling out into the wider article space I feel it necessary to act. A full series of diffs are at the ANI thread for community examination--Caililtalk15:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I just got the tool today, and secondly, I was already told I wasn't to do that. I only made 2 mistakes, out of about 100+ good uses of the tool. I'm going to accept your decision, but I feel it is not fair one bit. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions on your talk page say "Rollback is only for blatant vandalism". I see in your recent edits the following uses of the tool that are not vandalism: [7], [8], in addition to using it for edit warring on Michael (album) and the revert for which you were warned on your talk page.[9] To get this tool back, you need to demonstrate a clear recognition of what constitutes vandalism. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best way would be to (1) read WP:ROLLBACK back to front; (2) demonstrate that you can correctly identify vandalism by performing (say, 50) reverts manually or with twinkle; and (3) stay away from edit wars. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mazca. Ending-start: as Mazca says I will be more than happy to consider restoring rollback if you can demonstrate good vandalism fighting without it for a while. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring the list for the review. It confirmed for me what the debate suggested. At the time of deletion there was only one non-notable on the list - Michael Rubenfeld. Sorry about the Overturn, but I see most of the Deletes as attempts to stretch policy beyond practice. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you intended to restore a deleted page that is being discussed at DRV, but when I click through from DRV it does not appear (only a template saying it was restored). Just an fyi.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Matthew Yusuf Smith, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mrodgers2099 (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you put it quite well here. You probably won't believe this, but I just want to help, and it is not my intention to cause any trouble. I'm mostly a content editor who has a good knowledge of the WP:EEML and some of the editors involved. It is my perception that most uninvolved editors and admins simply do not know or do not care about what is going on. So someone has to take responsibility for reporting violations, unless the WP:EEML remedies are supposed to be a joke. But I can fully understand why you feel my reporting could be disruptive. As I said here, I can agree to voluntarily stay away from AE for three months. Offliner (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response there, Offliner. I think this kind of restriction is only likely to work if you just allowed other editors involved in content disputes to report incidents, rather than report incidents yourself to other editors or admins to take to AE. By doing the latter, other editors might see it as battling and circumventing the restriction. What do you think? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm drafting a restriction at the moment. I'm considering defining the scope as "user conduct" processes generally because AE is the principal, but not only place, where user conduct issues within the area of conflict can be sanctioned. But I am going to set it at two months rather than three (my original suggestion).--Mkativerata (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect if the need becomes dire enough and I'm honestly the best candidate there'll be some kind of posse rounded up to nominate me. In the mean time, I'd feel reluctant to nominate myself until I had a featured article under my belt and enough time on my hands to learn the processes around such adminly things as imposing blocks and closing AfDs. But thank you for the hypothetical support :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mkativerata, could you userify my a copy of Claire Jowitt so that might work on it to try to improve its notability? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I'm a bit concerned about this abrupt block. From WP:DIGWUREN: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." I could not find such a warning, and the two edits in question are barely inside the 24 hour limit. Can you explain why you blocked immediately? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - this editor has been on notice of DIGWUREN restrictions for some time.[10] It is very clear that this article is subject to 1RR, a bright line restriction that was very clearly contravened. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recreated a page on Richard Lukins - a living person who has been quoted in print as a subject matter expert in the motoring trade.
Part of the page was specifically to air a piece of public domain information, namely the Official Receiver's Report into his previous company's collapse - I feel this is in the public interest and is irrefutable and referenced fact, and the tone of the article was such that someone searching for specific information on Richard Lukins would have found some evidence and further reference to his activities, again, all referenced and in the public domain. This is no "attack site" other than it is presenting a mixture of fact and links to discussions by other interested parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltone (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, it is quite clear that the entire page was designed to cast aspersions on the subject. If you'd like to seek review of my deletion of the article, please do so at WP:DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you may may remember me from the Irving Literary Society brouhaha. I'm here to ask some advice about the Stuart Howe article. I'm probably one of the few editors to have it watchlisted. I review all new opera-related articles for WikiProject Opera and periodically check the list of articles with clean up tags. I had tagged it for {{primarysources}} which the article's creator removed without remedying the the problem [11]. I also pointed out the major problems with the article on the talk page, which have likewise not been remedied.
I woke up this morning to see the kerfuffle over the November 24th edit, re-read the article and was reminded how apalling it is. The article is a piece of personal promotion referenced only to his website. It's full of peacock language, exaggerated claims, and large chunks of copyvio from his website. What's your view is on me copyediting it to some semblance of an encyclopedia article with proper referencing? Apart from being necessary (it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous), it would actually be in his best interests. I have no idea what the problem was with the edit in question, Unfortunately that one slipped under my radar, as I'm used to seeing it edited by various COI IPs. But in my experience articles written like that are often a target to detractors. Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Voceditenore, thanks very much for the note. I'll give you a full reply in about 10 hours, if that's ok (sorry just off to bed soon but I don't want to leave this one hanging). --Mkativerata (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I was dealing with yesterday's issues I must say I turned a blind eye to the state of the article. Looking briefly for sources, it seems the article would stand a better than even chance of surviving AfD, so improving it would certainly be a worthwhile cause. I've been in very productive communication with the subject off-wiki which leads me to believe that there is probably scope to work with him to improve the article. Especially as (a) doing so will improve the chances of the article not being deleted at some point; and (b) doing so may help limit the extent to which the article is a "target". So if you're thinking of doing so, sending him note in advance might help, and I'm happy to help as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry I'm so late replying, got caught up with some other articles I'm writing. It's something I may tackle in the new year. Yes, he would survive an AfD, but I fear the comments there would not be very complimentary. Autobiographies rub a lot of editors the wrong way. I don't mind them, as long as the author/subject is willing to let them be edited for neutral encyclopedic tone and referenced properly without constant obstruction and reversion. I've rescued several from AfD e.g. [12], [13],[14]. In any case, I'll be sure to leave him a note before I tackle the article.
Re Irving Literary Society. Yes, things seem to be thankfully quiet there. I've been doing some copy-editing etc. every now and then. But it still neds a lot work and one of the biggest problems is the dreadful referencing. Some are outright faked (they don't say what they are alleged to say, or do not exist at least under the "bibliographic" information provided). Many of the sources which are online in the Cornell archives, are not linked in the references, entailing very time-consuming hunts for them. I don't think that was unintentional on the part of the original authors either. Once you find the source it actually says something altogether different. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've watchlisted the articles. Hopefully the SPI case can be processed quickly. Unfortunately I know bugger-all about rangeblocks but if he comes back again I'll post to ANI to get the attention of an admin who does! --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've blocked the new IP and the other two for a further 72 hours. I'm not ruling out semi-protection absolutely, it's just I'm reluctant to do it and lock out a globe's worth of IPs just because of one miscreant. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mkativerata. This may seem out of the blue, but I noticed your question on Richwales' RfA and just wanted to mention that I enjoy reading the RfA questions you pose, and the candidates' answers to them. They do an excellent job making the candidates think (they certainly made me think, in my RfA) and I just wanted to note my appreciation for them. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! By the way, I hope to see you back at RfA in a few months. The "experience" opposes (including mine) will vanish. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mkativerata - A short article, Manaf Abd al-Rahim al-Rawi, was tagged for speedy deletion by you today on the grounds that it was an 'unsourced attack article'; I presume it was an oversight, since the article was indeed sourced (to a detailed New York Times article), and the subject of the 'attack' was an alleged member of Al Qaeda. I've provisionally restored the article, with original source, and added a second unrelated source reference which confirms the content of the article. I imagine this was just an oversight on your part. jackbrown (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does this article mention the subject? That was the only source in the deleted version, so it was essentially an unsourced negative biography of a living person, qualifying for G10. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should sit this block out as punishment, the offence being "performing administrative tasks with too many browser windows open". Lucky I didn't hit an innocent bystander. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This toy block is awarded to Mkativerata for blocking himself.(edit conflict) Unblocked, obviously...if you want to sit it out that's your choice (though what would happen if you accidentally indeffed yourself?), but please don't make my script apply a strikethrough to your name every time it appears:) T. Canens (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I still don't really know how that happened - at least I know I'm not the only one who's done it. Those toy blocks are going over to my userpage. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this of another admin, but since you are quite active in the AE requests concerning me, I thought I should notify you of my question as well (also, your input would be appreciated). PS. I may be semi-active over the next few days (traveling). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I got carried away using CAP .. ur ..capital letters at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. It can be quite frustrating when folks who are essentially yelling at me, ignore the obvious point I was making - that they can not simply state on their own that a theory is fringe - especially when the theory is supported by publications in many academic presses - but they have to come up with some reliable source that questions the theory. I don't think capital letters constitute enough reason for a formal warning, but that is up to you. Smallbones (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Normally it would be no big deal, but on an article like this, editors really need to avoid actions that can aggravate other editors. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Do you think I could have a set of those toy blocks to play with? :-) Unfortunately, it appears clear that a large number of people on my RfA are simply not willing to consider my perspective on the question you submitted. (Ironically, if I had answered it differently, I imagine a different large group of people might have put me down for not insisting that admins should be held to a higher standard. Oh, well.) This issue (and also the "rvv" question) probably help illustrate what many of us have known for a long time about e-mail, talk pages, and other written communication — the fine nuances don't get communicated, and misunderstandings can arise that quickly become impossible to resolve. I'm really not a "Judge Dredd" type of personality, even if some folks seem convinced that I am. Assuming (as seems more likely than not right now) that my RfA falls short — and even if, by some miracle, I do somehow pull through — I'm definitely going to have some homework to take away from this experience. Sincere thanks for the practice exercise; please be assured that I harbour no resentment of any sort. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richwales, I'm genuinely very disappointed in the direction that your RfA has taken. I think some of the oppose concerns are quite valid (eg content) but the reaction to the question is sad. The fact that multiple admins and experienced editors are in either column citing Q4 as the reason for being there is obviously problematic. I started to ask these questions because I think RfA was getting to be too much of a free pass for editors who had been around long enough and not broken anything - I though my own RfA was too soft and didn't prepare me for the task ahead. But I will think about dropping the questions now: while I've received good feedback about them, it is very sad to see opposes based on the legitimate exercise of a discretion within policy. So I'm sorry. I do hope your RfA does turn around, it's not out of the question. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of Wee Curry Monster's main opponents (Richard) suggested he be allowed to remain in discussions. That is fairly persuasive to me. I have suggested a 0RR and specific warning about bad faith accusations to replace the topic bans. Please let me know if that seems appropriate to you. Vassyana (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions and wheel warring there were very poor administration and I didn't support you at your RFA for reasons that have been reflected in your actions tonight, wheel warring, immaturity of decision imo and although I accepted your admin promotion and was willing to trust you, your actions tonight have made me change my position and you have lost my trust as an Admin and I no longer support your position. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your message here has conflicted with a note I made on Deacon's talk page. While I stand by my decision not to block the user and I did not cross the wheel-warring bright line, I'm going to take a few days to reflect because I am disappointed in myself for acting impulsively. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob, I'd put it down to a blip. It was partly caused anyway by me seeming to ignore her position. @Mkativerata, I think you need more experience on WP:EW. I'm harsher than most, but 95% of admins would have blocked there ... if only to get the user's attention. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Deacon. To be honest I might have blocked him had I been in a different mood. I'm sure I've dished out edit-warring blocks in less-deserving circumstances than that. Another reason for me to reflect for a while. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EC - The issue was clearly a simple decision which the deacon made easily, there is a time to support new users and a time to let them know that their disruptive actions will result in restrictions on their editing privileges, you failed to recognize that clearly crossed line, you have upset and wasted my time and the other experienced contributor you left a 3rr note and the deacon said he thought your actions disruptive and I agree. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Off2riorob if you want to round up a group of established editors to initiate a recall, go for it. Depending on the identity of the editors concerned, I'd consider resigning the tools without even initiating a formal process. I'll be perfectly frank with you: I have very little confidence in your own judgement as an editor on this project, which is why I stress I would not open myself to recall on your views alone. In the meantime, I'm going off-wiki for a few days to reflect on this and a few other bold calls I've made with and without the tools in recent months: while they weren't necessarily wrong calls (on each occasion I can remember, there were numerous editors including admins who agreed with them), they were certainly bold and were met with opposition. I think it is useful to take time out, reflect on those actions and my general approach to the project as both an editor and admin, recharge, and consider how I can improve. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not going rounding up anyone, I was just speaking for myself, don't worry about it, my trust is on a short fuse, if we can all learn and improve then we will all be doing well. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, your GA review of Adelaide Leak never transcluded and so I've only seen it today! I apologise for the delay and have responded to your comments so far. Thanks! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - it seems I neglected to ping you so no wonder you missed it. I think it only transcludes once it's complete. Anyway, I will continue with the remainder tomorrow morning. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 December 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Christmas Island boat disaster, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Thanks for the super fast pickup on the speedy tag I put on there. In fact you were so quick I was still mid way through putting on a note which created the associated talk page, so I've inadvertantly created an orphan talk page. Would you mind deleting that too. Thanks, --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User seems to have realized he needs to discuss more and has imo expressed understanding of why he was blocked and that he won't repeat the behavior. So I said I would nudge an admin about possible early unblocking. I had the chance to point a few of the exact issues out and he has commented on his talkpage in an understanding way. User talk:Robintetley - I will leave it with you as to what to do as he hasn't actually made a new unblock request, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm I was wondering if you could get me a copy of the article you just deleted named "Umawehiyo". I just wanna read it haha maybe you could post it on my account thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar vin kaiser (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umawehiyo - It is the cheer created by Coach Brylle Jerome Guillermo Tamayo and used by the SJCS Knights SOPHOMORES and the SENIORS Golden Warriors. Chanting the Umawehiyo has been proven effective to boost player spirit and bewilder opponents.
Chanting and Clapping with the beat of the drums and the "wave" effect of the croud, the two batches sitting together are a sight to behold. They Proved that, with teamwork, everything is possible.
I will keep an eye on him/her, thanks for pointing it out. At this stage I see a lot of firm comments about the article's content but nothing personal. I'd suggest if you think his/her arguments are nonsense, just let the IP talk into thin air. But I will watch. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment may have been made in good faith and by an experienced editor. However, those type of comments made at AfD serve no useful purpose and as such, in my book, is the very definition of trolling. wjematherbigissue19:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor concerned no doubt thinks the comment served a useful purpose. And "trolling" (wiki definition linked to show that this wasn't trolling) amounts to a personal attack so please be careful throwing that word around. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not call the contributor a troll, their contribution history would seem to clearly show that is not the case. However the editor deliberately and needlessly made a throwaway remark which was not a contructive contribution to the AfD and was only ever going to elict a negative reaction. Telling people involved in AfD debates to stop "wasting time" and go do something "productive... elsewhere" comfortably fits into the standard definition of trolling and all editors should refrain from making such comments. I do see where you are coming from, but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagee in this case. wjematherbigissue19:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why did you not changed North Korea national team name? and South Korea is not official name. South Korea is a word that you(foreigners) used to feel comfortable. Anybody Republic of Korean people are not write & say South Korea(남한). Republic of Korean people are use Korea(한국) or Republic of Korea(대한민국)(almost use KOREA). Because Republic of Korea is the korean peninsula only unique rightful goverment, understand? and FIFA official name is Korea Republic. I don't understand you why change the name. Sorry for my bad english. I hope to you will be understand my meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetx2002 (talk • contribs)
Hi - thanks for responding to my note. There are two reasons why the name was changed:
(1) There was consensus for the change: here. It's important to follow consensus-based decisions.
(2) Wikipedia does not always use official names. Wikipedia uses the name by which a country or person is commonly known. As the English-speaking world refers to the football team as "South Korea", not "Korea Republic", wikipedia uses "South Korea" even if that is not the team's official name.
Hi. Can you give me a hand with proposing deletion of Template:Volusia_County_Roads? Not sure how to do this for templates. You can't prod the template, I'm guessing, so does it go straight to MfD? Or is there some intermediate step? (The deletion rationale is that the vast majority of the links in the template are, and always will be, redlinks, as the roads they refer to have no claim of notability, and that the remaining notable roads (if any) are too few to justify templating.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they have to go through WP:TFD. Unfortunately I know nothing about TFD, I don't think I've visited there. It's amazing how many weird XfDs we have. My favourite is WP:SFD. And thanks for helping save WP;AN. I just created wp;afd and wp;drv! So much easier to type. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go try that out. Someday someone should make the effort to centralise all these processes. It'd be no more complex than the way that lists are covered at AfD despite sharing many policies with categories. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. That wasn't so hard, just annoyingly time consuming. I'm assuming there's some kind of allowable automation tool for doing these that lets people like TreasuryTag and LibStar do the kind of 30-nomination-a-day work that they specialise in. - DustFormsWords (talk)
I don't know, I think for some people TfD and other obscure areas are their thing so they're probably quite happy to do it manually. I like your "This is my first TfD nomination" qualifier - there's nothing like wandering blind into one of this project's many obscure little worlds :) The last few days I've been trying to get through the backlog at WP:RM - a very strange area I've previously known nothing about. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, they are far outweighed by the number of clowns who carry out bold unilateral moves without discussion. :) (Most RMs seem to be technical - they have to go to RM because the move requires the deletion of the target page which can only be done by an admin). RM is exhausting. A couple of days ago I moved Korea Republic national football team to South Korea national football team. So far I've made about 400 edits over two days to clean up after the move, and have about another 1,000 to go. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, could I ask you for another potential favour? I'm going to be on holiday (and away from Wikipedia) from now until 4 January. If you happen to spot anything happening on my talk page (proposed deletions, non-personal enquiries) I'd be grateful if you were able to field it. If not I'm sure I'll survive! Thanks. - 06:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Mk, I'm out the door and don't have time to file a report, but MikeNIcho231 has done nothing but slow edit warring, editing against consensus, and now uploading a copyvio image to Commons since your December 3 block of him ... see my talk and Talk:Asperger syndrome. If you don't have time to have a look, I'll file a report tonight, but I must get to Christmas preparations. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this (was sleeping!) It seems he filed a report against you that has been dealt with at AN3. Dealt with of sorts. I'll watchlist the page anyway. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(update) It seems MikeNicho231 has stopped the edit war, at least for now. Had I woken up two hours earlier I might have handed out a block. Anyway, I added a note to his talk page asking him to not revert or remove content on the article while there is an active discussion about the content on the talk page. After that note, he's restored the caption to the picture. I've also added a note to the article's talk page explaining that further reverts while the discussion is ongoing won't be tolerated.[17] So it seems things are a bit more under control now but I will keep an eye on the article (and to anyone else reading this post - I will keep an eye on everyone's actions). --Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mk .. sorry, I was out all day ... MikeNicho231 has yet to make a single policy-compliant addition to that article, and the time it takes to deal with such behaviors is certainly ... irritating ... I would like to get some real work done here :) I appreciate your input and watching the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had seen that and I have been thinking about whether to, and how, to comment in light of my disappointment at the direction of your recent RfA. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MRG, although my only contribution to this one seems to be doing a bit of work on it and forgetting about it! I hope you have a very good Christmas (if you celebrate it) and holiday season! --Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive user User:Chelo61 is back and has re-instigated the edit war by editing the album as 'studio' again for the FOURTH time, having been blocked 3 times before. Please do something about it.218.186.8.235 (talk) 05:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thank you very much. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
