Jump to content

User talk:Mkdw/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Wiki break

Please be advised that I am taking a wiki break for the next two three months while I am traveling. Mkdwtalk 01:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Discussion started at User talk:Cullen328#Re:RFA and carried over to here
You've all missed my point. Like I said before, I know better than to comment on these matters, no one reads what I write and no one gives a damn about any of it anyway. Never have, never will. As for your points, I get it. I invaded a process that was out of my domain and ruffled a number of feather in the process, so I'm done. I hence forth serve notice of my withdrawal from your domain on wikipedia, and hereby sue for peace. I'll leave the rfa stuff to the people like you and in exchange I hope that I will be left alone. Those are my terms. Do we have deal? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And so you shall have it. You willfully instigated the conversation; I didn't hunt you down. You told someone that their "friendly suggestion" was "BS" and then you left a bunch of editors a message that ended with "Drop me a line if you have something to say about it". If you wanted to be left alone, why ping us all and leave us that message? No one was at war with you. And for the record, I got your point about wanting to run a different type of RFA that would standout and reinvent the process. All I can say to that is maybe you should have let the community and the candidate know your intentions in advance because I cannot help but feel sorry for Buggie111 for getting thrown into the pit of RFA without that being disclosed to him. It should have been his RFA, not your hopeful experiment to change the trajectory of RFA. Mkdwtalk 22:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Date formats

WP:STRONGNAT allows for either MDY or DMY in Canada. WP:DATERET does not. You're changing several articles with already established formats to DMY. Please stop and revert those onto which you've imposed DMY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that the Albertans have explained this to you via edit wars. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The WP:Vancouver already determined in 2009 and 2012 that DMY would be used for Metro Vancouver articles. Mkdwtalk 19:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Who cares what the editors there do. DATERET is the principle. You are editing against guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It's called consensus that basis for all decisions and something actually defined at DATERET. Mkdwtalk 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

claims of racism by CrazyAces489

Since you're an administrator, I'm hoping you can tell me why nothing was ever done about my complaint about the accusations of racism and bigotry by CrazyAces489. How does this not fall under a personal attack against many editors? My ANI filing was simply archived off at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive878#Personal attacks by CrazyAces489 with no actions or decisions. Thanks.Mdtemp (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mdtemp: ANI suffers from a substantial backlog and unfortunately many reports posted there are never addressed or even reviewed. There are seemingly an infinite number of disputes on the English Wikipedia and sometimes all that is required is discussion and not administrative action. The instructions at the top of the page state, "Threads will be archived automatically after 36 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment." I suggest you move it back to the main page and request an administrator take a look at it. That being said, racism accusations are often messy and controversial. NPA is not frequently enforced in disputes except in clear cut cases as often there is hostility on both sides. Since I have left comments at both SPIs, it would not be appropriate for me to review the case as I've already expressed concerns about the individual elsewhere. You may want to approach GorillaWarfare or Philg88 to review your ANI post; they both have experience ANI and are often willing to take on the more tough cases. Regards, Mkdwtalk 16:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

User LVerina

Hello. This user account LVerina is a SPA. Done 500 edits, the first was on on the Subject he/she disputed and last is also on the same. I dont think you should waste too much time to explain to him. Just ARV or block yourself if you have those rights. Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Educationtemple: This was briefly brought up at the SPI but we were in agreement not to conduct a CU, at that time, because there wasn't enough compelling evidence to tie the accounts together. I'm also only wearing my editor hat here (aside from blatant vandalism cases) because of WP:INVOLVED. I am super happy though that other editors are engaging in the discussion. It may bring this to a close in another way. Mkdwtalk 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Calling all WikiProject X members!

Hello fellow member! WikiProject X needs your help!

We studied the various needs that WikiProjects have, and have come up with some ideas for our first round of WikiProject tool development. These include:

  • An automatically updated WikiProject directory that surfaces WikiProject-related metrics and automatically generates a list of active participants and potential members;
  • A lightweight, optional alternative to WikiProject banners, featuring an option to quickly send a message to the named WikiProjects;
  • A tool that bootstraps WikiProjects; and
  • A worklist generation script for WikiProjects

We are now looking for volunteer coders to work on these projects. If you are interested in developing these tools, or if you would to volunteer for other tasks, check out our new volunteers portal. Thank you for your help!


Cheers, Harej (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Richter magnitude scale

There are a couple more edits you may wish to make not visible over on Richter magnitude scale. Argyriou (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Argyriou I took a look through some of the more recent edits and selected only those two because they were grossly offensive and borderline hate speech. The other instances appeared to be routine vandalism and didn't appear to be in need of rev del. Let me know if you spot anything in particular. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 17:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Sunrise Ruby

Thanks for doing the DYK nom, and including me. Edwardx (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Edwardx absolutely! Mkdwtalk 18:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Edwardx: Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#June 2015. Mkdwtalk 07:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Re: Note

That will probably be updated shortly. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

CrazyAces489

(refactored from User talk:Bishonen) @Nyttend, Bishonen, and EdJohnston: It has been brought to my attention that there has been a lot of activity at User talk:CrazyAces489. Not only from editors who have been involved with CrazyAces489 previously, but from other editors since the unblock. When I got to the page, I noticed the editor has been involved in multiple disputes including an edit war which EdJohnston warned both users about. It would seem another editor was having a similar dispute separate of the ANI. Looking a bit up the page it looks like Bearian and Carrite had some followup about actions at Crispus Attucks, namely that it was nominated for AFD by CrazyAces489. The unblock was seemingly conditional on leaving serious accusations and the battleground mentality at the door. I would appreciate your comments and insights before continue to review the matter. Mkdwtalk 18:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Mkdw, I took the weekend off. CrazyAces489 has been given a lot of extra chances because the subjects he edits are important for Wikipedia from a systemic bias point of view, and also, at least by me, because I think he does mean well, and means to improve the encyclopedia. Both those things weighed with me when I unblocked. But unfortunately it looks like we've reached the end of the road. I'm sorry to have to recommend an indefinite block, with the usual after six months. Thanks for consulting me. I'm pinging @Nyttend and EdJohnston: too. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
Here are the userlinks:
The editing of User:CrazyAces489 does cause concerns. I think an indefinite block with the usual review after six months is an option to consider. But before anyone does that, a good summary of the problem ought to be prepared. For example, a list of all the past discussions including:
For reference, the complete list of all occurrences of CrazyAces' name at admin boards is returned by this search string. I notice that User:TheGracefulSlick was recently blocked 48 hours for canvassing as described at ANI and somebody should figure out if that has any bearing on CrazyAces489's situation. As you may be able to tell, I haven't been following the case closely and wouldn't be issuing a block myself, due to lack of enough study. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, I got notice my name appeared here. I was unblocked shortly afterwards, I should note. I will not express an opinion on the CrazyAces situation, but I will say he is causing issues. User:Softlavender thought some sort of action should be taken, and that should be considered as she is much more experienced than me. But the block was directly involving CrazyAces if that was the point of my message, and the users thought his edit warring was a part of the reason to unblock me. I can comment more if anyone has questions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2015

@Nyttend, Bishonen, and EdJohnston: Hey, I was out most of the day today. So, I wasn't able to see all the posts going on. I noticed I was pinged in a lot of conversations. I have actually stayed away from a lot of the problem area articles where I was active on (martial arts) as I had strong opinions. I was more active on RSN [1]. This was very helpful in that I identified sources that were not considered to be reliable. Now, TGS believes that I had some sort of agenda against him because I nominated a few articles he questioned for deletion and stated some of the sources he used was questionable. If that was the case, @Mdtemp, Papaursa, and PRehse: would seem to have the same agenda against me, and @Niteshift36: for deleting a number of sources I used as not being reliable. I see the job they (Mdtemp|Papaursa|PRehse|Niteshift36) are doing and for the most part see that they made an effort to only keep strong articles on wikipedia. I simply followed their own method and used RSN as a guide. If I believed an article wasn't notable, I nominated it for AFD (especially if the sources were highly questionable). I always asked before removing as you can see here. [2] TGS, has referred to me as a sockpuppet [3], made personal insults [4] has followed me around WP [5] after I asked him not to post on my talk page [6] he still does [7]. He rants about me on AFD's [8] [9] and RSN [10] . I went to 3rr notice board [11] and AN/I [12] to try to solve some problems. I was previously blocked for putting up a statistic that I found questionable on one occasion [13] but the actions of TGS aren't inferred, they are directly giving strong opinions and a violation of WP:Civil as seen in the few previous sentences. I put in tags of African American's in a few articles and it is removed numerous times [14] [15] . I was really trying to help the project. I was really tired of the battles before, but this has gotten ridiculous. I am burned out. I was already tired in April and still created 40 short articles on some historically important individuals of underreprestend groups [16] . These few more articles brought my total articles created for the year to [17] to over 100. I mean honestly, who was bringing forth articles that could help WP grow in under developed areas like Racial bias on Wikipedia or HBCU Closure Crisis or even Discrimination in bar exam. Things that are necessary to understand some repressed groups in the United States. I have been approached many times about my nomination for AFD for Crispus Attucks, but that way my interpretation of the WP:ONEEVENT policy on wikipedia. I was getting constantly addressed about it. [18]. In the end, there were a few articles I wanted to finish off, but I am done. This is volunteer work to me. I wanted to improve what was offered to the world on wikipedia but not at the cost of my own stress levels. I wish you all the best. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@CrazyAces489: much of the conflict you've endured has been largely attributed to your battleground mentality. It's not common to be the subject of focus at several ANIs; be blocked; engage in edit wars, and to be the centre of so much controversy with so many editors in such a short period of time. In looking back at your edit history, some of the actions are arguably pointy after having unfavourable outcomes in other discussions. You've sought things like WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL for yourself yet ignored them other times towards others. Some of the messages that you've cited as "personal attacks" are more about your conduct and not your character of being. There is no policing Wikipedia for what your interpretations of truth. We must all work together and through consensus find what is notable and worthy of inclusion and what should be removed. As you've discovered, your interpretations on the application of the policies has differed, sometimes greatly, from others or the status quo. You jumped first into cleanup tasks like articles to AFD, placing notability tags, open SPI against those you've disagreed with at AFD, incorrectly applying orphan tags before learning or discussing the relevant policies and guidelines which has been viewed by some as disruptive. If you should return, I would largely encourage you to approach editors in discussion and review thoroughly the relevant policies and guidelines before making significant and impactful changes to the article space. As you've seen, doing the opposite invites conflict. I generally see a rough consensus that an indefinite block with the standard offer after 6 months would have likely been implemented. Blocking is preventative, not punitive, so I am recommending no action be taken since you've stated your intention to retire. That being said, consider this conversation and the statements above as the equivalent of a block on your record. Should you choose to return, know that you will be on a much shorter rope. Mkdwtalk 02:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: Mkdw It appears CrazyAces is no longer retired as he has created an article and has continued to edit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Papaursa and TheGracefulSlick: I'm inclined to wait and see if CrazyAces489 can contribute in a meaningful way now that they've taken a break. The one month away will be counted as a block and they will be a afforded a very short rope over the next while. I know this can be frustrating for the editors whom have had previous interactions but this option and benefit of the doubt would be the high road. It would not have been implausible that the second block would have only been for a month as opposed to an indefinite block. In any case, blocks are preventative, not punitive, so if it wasn't implemented at the time of his "retirement" then that was the only time it would have been appropriately applied. Mkdwtalk 04:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Well to be blunt he never retired even temporarily. The account NegroLeagueHistorian was created almost immediately and clearly is the same person. That said both those edits and the recent CrazyAces489 edits are not stuck in the battleground mentality so the purpose of 'the block that did not happen' appears to be served. A step back was needed but I personally don't care how that step was made.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving this to here from User talk:Bishonen#CrazyAces489. Mkdwtalk 00:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

CrazyAces489 is back

That was a very short retirement for him. Why does it seem like he "retired" just to avoid punishment? Papaursa (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have left my comments at User talk:Bishonen#CrazyAces489. Mkdwtalk 04:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Papaursa I also left a comment there - he never left.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I've moved this to my talk page for the purposes of ease for the remaining parties involved. Mkdwtalk 00:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

MfD nomination of Portal:Current events/Canada/Quote

Portal:Current events/Canada/Quote, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Current events/Canada/Quote and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Current events/Canada/Quote during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes those look long defunct now. I support deletion. Mkdwtalk 20:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:VP Showcase, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:VP Showcase candidates, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BC Entertainment Hall of Fame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorothy Davis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sunrise Ruby

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Rebeca Minguela

Hello, Mkdw. You have new messages at RogueKhan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As you suggested in the nomination for deletion of Rebeca Minguela article, I have filed a "request for undeletion". The article is still live. What do I need to do now? How do I remove it from being live until is properly review and meets the quality standards to be potentially restored? Thanks RogueKhan (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page where the initial conversation is taking place. Mkdwtalk 19:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship

Yep - archiving is coming in a day or two. I'd like to hit my end-of-the month deadline, since it's so near.

Thanks very much for your vote of confidence at my RfA. I hope I am able to live up to it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

17:48:54, 30 June 2015 review of submission by Caseyu27

Hello! I based this article on one about a very similar company -- the one I wrote about has been around a lot longer than this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGallery Can you give me some insight on what I can do to have it approved? I stated facts only, not sure what was promotional about it -- can you let me know? Thank you so much for your time.

Caseyu27 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Caseyu27: There is a misnomer about "facts" and "promotion" being mutually exclusive of each other. If I wrote an article that says, "Subway has a $5 footlong promotion", it would both be a factual statement and very promotional in nature. Encyclopedic articles are focused on content, history, and meaningful information to the broad public. It should WP:NOT be a place to summarize all the services and procedures of a company. The company's official website does that. The lead and the section called "services" needs a considerable rewrite. It literally uses the word "promotes". Also, is it relevant that artwork ships from the artists' studios? That seems like a sale point that only the consumer would need to know. What interest is it to the general public, and has any media sources taken note of this as being particularly important?

Artful Home offers a juried collection of over 18,000 original works of art created by over 1,200 North American artists and designers. The work offered includes fine art such as paintings, prints, and sculpture; fine craft such as art glass, ceramics, jewelry, and furniture; and design such as apparel and footwear. Most artwork ships directly from the artists' studios. In order to sell work through Artful Home, artists go through a jurying process by submitting images of their work to an Artistic Advisory Panel headed by Michael Monroe], former curator-in-charge of the Smithsonian’s Renwick Gallery. Artful Home promotes the work of represented artists through their online and catalog marketing.

Lastly, UGallery does not make a good example article. It too has issues that need to be addressed. Take a look at the article Museum of Modern Art for the type of content and wording it uses to describe its functions and status. Mkdwtalk 18:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of AIV report

Greetings, Mkdw. Just wondering; why'd you make this removal of my AIV report with the summary of "wrong place to file this"? [19] Also, please intervene against this IP; he's beginning to engage in a vandalism revert-war against me. [20] Cheers, Kevin12xd 16:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin12xd: There seems to have been an editing conflict with Helper Bot and our edits override each other. I was trying to revert this edit where an editor was appealing their report. I immediatley restored your report here. Perhaps you need to refresh the page for it to show up again. That being said, I will take a look at it. Mkdwtalk 16:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
MusikAnimal beat me to it. Mkdwtalk 16:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Thank you very much for your recent nomination and your participation. While there are many well-known administrators who meet the criteria, the intent of the award is to recognize someone less celebrated yet deserving of greater renown. As admins typically have already been recognized for their work we feel it is best to limit nominations to non-admins. We hope you understand and will continue to nominate editors you feel are deserving. . Buster Seven Talk 18:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. I somehow must have missed that. I think Editor of the Week is a fine idea so I'm sure I'll keep an eye out for deserving candidates. Mkdwtalk 18:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for taking the time to evaluate the situation at MGK and follow up with actions that support the current talk page consensus. It's really nice when the system works! Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 20:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Keithbob. I actually ran into a similar situation immediately following as well. Mkdwtalk 22:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

PsychopathicAssassin at MGK

Without establishing a new consensus on the talk page and after receiving a final warning on 11 July, PsychopathicAssassin again reverted back to the "Colson Baker" name here. It seems clear to me that a block is warranted. Best, SpencerT♦C 15:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Spencer: Thank you for the notification. I have reviewed the situation and dealt with it accordingly. Mkdwtalk 18:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Neutral so you get a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Many thanks

Many thanks for protecting the Gerald Lorge and William Lorge articles. It was frustrating and irritating reverting the COI edits in the two articles. I am also dismay that William Lorge mentioned he has a Wikipedia article...Many thanks again-RFD (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@RFD: Happy to help. It's not a perfect solution but between that and blocking the editor indefinitely, it should bring some time to figure out if an SPI needs to be filed. Mkdwtalk 18:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jack Vidgen

That's okay. Yes I did create the article but I did not add that content. It was probably a vandal. Lightsout (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Smartvoter2006

A week ago, you protected the William Lorge and Gerald Lorge articles because of persistent vandalism. You also blocked Runningfox34 because of persistent copyright violations on those pages, disruptive editing, and possible sockpuppetry. Today, just hours after the page protection on the Lorge articles expired, ‎Smartvoter2006‎, a suspected sockpuppet of Runningfox34, restored the BrokerBillLorge.jpg and GeraldDLorge.jpg (previously File:Geralddlorge.jpg) images after they had been deleted as copyright violations, and added them to the respective articles. I wasn't sure if you were following these pages, so I thought I'd let you know. 32.218.35.238 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would second this observation - this editor has uploaded the same files that were previously deleted, and is linking back to them persistently. He's evading his block and continuing to disregard copyright strictures. JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@JohnInDC: I'm away on holidays so it's difficult for me to review this case on an on-going basis. If this occurs next time, could you fulfill an WP:SPI and let the folks there handle it? Will take a look at things when I can when I get back but I'd like to see a check user on future ones if I'm going to implement a longer semi-protection on the articles. Mkdwtalk 14:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw that, thanks; it became clear after I posted the foregoing that we had a simmering, rather than erupting, problem and thought maybe it'd resolve itself in a few days (which it sort of didn't as it happens). Thanks for your help, and if he re-emerges I'll go through usual channels. The two blocks will help any future SPI in any event. So thanks again and enjoy your time away. JohnInDC (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The page protection on William Lorge expired a couple of days ago and an IP has resumed with the same edits as the blocked Smartvoter2006 - addition of election results, removal of COI template, that sort of thing - and it might be a good idea to semi-protect it again. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@JohnInDC: Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the IP for 31 hours and protected the article for 3 months. I will implement a 1 year page protection if the article is vandalized again coming off the PP. Mkdwtalk 04:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, and that *you* for the quick attention! JohnInDC (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi, I apologise for the way my comment turned out at the RfA. I should have realised the potential implications. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: That's alright. It was a simple question to answer. RFA is such a battleground these days; nice of you to follow up the way you did as such a contrast.Mkdwtalk 13:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Very nice

A Barnstar Point
For a surprising cheerful and measured response to a pointless and warrantless accusation of bad faith.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In particular for: I have access to the Internet. Just not to a computer all the time (hence needing to find an internet cafe). I'm sure I could have figured it out on my phone but I find any editing on it is almost impossible for me. I noticed the RFA on User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report. You have my word I was not alerted to it by any off-wiki canvassing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks! Sometimes all you can do is reassure people with your own good intentions. Mkdwtalk 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Marking Nrwairport as CU confirmed

Hi Mkdw. I noticed that you marked Nrwairport as CU confirmed to Cyntiamaspian here: [21]. The SPI concluded that they were unrelated based on CU evidence, though. Was this intended? ~ RobTalk 11:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Nrwairport wasn't confirmed as a sock to Cyntiamaspian, however, in that SPI, it was determined that Sandboxtester44 (talk · contribs) was a sock puppet of Nrwairport. As such was blocked for abusively using multiple accounts and Sandboxtester44 as a sock. Check Guerillero's comments on the bottom in the CU section. Mkdwtalk 15:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox locomotive

[I'm moving this here because it's increasingly off-topic at Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Styling into regular infobox.]

You seem to think this is a case for admins to act as police officers; it's not - it's a request for an admin to act as a janitor.

You seem to believe that editors are required to make such requests only at WP:ANRFC; we are not, that's merely one option. (You are welcome to refute this with evidence to the contrary)

You seem to believe that {{Admin help}} must not be used to make such a request; that's fallacious, and utterly unsupported by the documentation of the template.

And you are unwilling to say why you did not simply act on the request I made (nor, for that matter why, if you were unwilling or unable to do so, did not simply pass on by and leave the request for the next passing admin).

Then you end with an unwarranted and unjustified accusation of "admin shopping". Unbelievable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I understand you're frustrated because you think the last two admins who responded to your inquiry were passing the buck. That being said, you've made a lot of accusations and frankly you're now being treated the same way in which you've been treating others. I'm certainly willing to discuss the issue, at length if needed, provided you can keep the tone of the conversation both respectful and on topic. If not, then I propose the issue be dropped or continued at ANI to which I would be a willing participant.
Salvidrim! and I responded to your inquiry separately and you were directed to an appropriate venue each time. For reasons unknown to me, you seem to have taken exception to this because rather than go through WP:ANRFC you acted like you were entitled to a response other than what you received. I asked you if there was an issue in taking it to WP:AN/RFC because I would have been willing to possibly review the situation if there had been a valid reason. Instead, you choose to respond by asking why I didn't close the discussion. It was already clear the reason why the discussion wasn't closed by either of us because instead you were directed to a venue where these types of requests are handled. I probably needn't explain why we have these noticeboards; they're a place where someone who is both interested and hopefully experienced in closing these types of discussions.
The discussion was becoming increasingly more snarky and off-topic. As far as I can tell, you still haven't a reason why WP:ANRFC would not be a suitable next step for you. It's not about time or effort; that's been well outweighed by wikilawyering. I can only then assume it's not about getting a close anymore but you now have a personal score to settle because you felt entitled to it.
Whether you like it or not, I advised you about admin-shopping because it was an appropriate topic to bring up. How many admins need to respond to the same inquiry because you're unsatisfied with previous responses before you think it meets the criteria? It's also referred to as "asking the other parent" because sometimes it only takes two times. I brought it up in discussion because it seemed likely that you persist with the intention to not stop until you got the answered you wanted -- to which has been proven true thus far. Mkdwtalk 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional clarification requested

Hi Mkdw,

My company, EquityZen, has been trying to create a wiki page with historical information about the brand for several months now but both submissions have been denied, most recently by you. I read through the resource about advertising that you provided and don't see how we violate any of those terms. Some clarification would be greatly appreciated as well as any advice you may have as to how we can get the EquityZen page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EquityZen) approved.

A reply directly on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EquityZen page would be great to make sure I see it. Thanks!

Thanks for your help! Bryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.135.130 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply at Draft:EquityZen. Mkdwtalk 03:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice RFA standards page

Just wanted to say that I really like the format of your RFA standards page in your user space. I'm thinking of using a similar format for a page of some sort in my user space, especially since I'm starting to realize that some of my concerns regarding RFA candidates are a bit unique, and as proven in the RFA where we have been discussing. I could probably benefit a bit to disclose my opinions in such a manner rather than have to break them down every time I make a vote. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Thanks but admittedly I cannot take all the credit for it. Another editor allowed me to borrow the layout and a few of the criteria. I have sometimes found it helpful to cite how and why a candidate meets my RFA standards and provide a line, so it certainly stands to reason it might work for you as well. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 20:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn Shephard

I don't think a redirect makes sense as an outcome given that she has had other roles, e.g. starring in Hostages (TV series). Can you remove the redirect, or should I take this to redirects for discussion? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Her other short lived roles and guest appearances seemed like much less significant achievements compared to her main role in Unaccompanied Minors hence I closed it as delete and redirect. Not opposed to deleting the redirect altogether either. Mkdwtalk 23:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Kantar Media Philippines Article

I would like to repeat that Kantar Media Philippines is NOT a conglomerate of ABS-CBN. A conglomerate is a group of companies and/or subsidiaries. As it is being used in the sentence, "Kantar Media Philippines is a conglomerate". If and when ABS-CBN holds or own a stake in Kantar, it should've said that Kantar is a subsidiary or an affiliate NOT A CONGLOMERATE, because ABS-CBN is the conglomerate owning major stakes of various subsidiaries and affiliates. As used in the sentence, it is as if Kantar owns ABS-CBN.

One more thing, the article is being used to defame and demolish the independence of the Media Research Company Kantar Media. It is being distributed publicly to make people believe that Kantar is affiliated to ABS-CBN thus the network can control the ratings being issued. This is misleading people. There were no concrete proofs that Kantar is an affiliate and ABS-CBN owns a stake in the company. That information should not be written there as it is clearly a violation of the verifiability rule.

Now, I am requesting that the sentence stating that Kantar is a conglomerate of ABS-CBN be removed from the article and afterwhich the article be protected from editing indefinitely.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia open to everybody who has access to the net. It aims to inform the people and not mislead them and cause misunderstanding and defamation of an independent company providing data to the public in good faith. The article is being used as such. I hope this is not one of the objectives of Wikipedia.

I am attaching a public document showing/stating the subsidiaries and or affiliates of ABS-CBN. I hope you take the time to read. http://www.pdex.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Disclosure-No.-418-2014-Annual-Report-for-Fiscal-Year-Ended-December-31-2013-SEC-FORM-17-A.pdf

Thank you and I hope this will be resolved soon.

Tony Escudero (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

no Declined @Tony Escudero: The article cannot be protected indefinitely over a content dispute which no discussions have been attempted either at the article talk page or on the editor's user talk page. As an editor not involved in the content dispute, this user talk page is not the correct venue to resolve this issue. I have reverted the re-introduction of the wording citing that a reliable source will need to be included. Additionally, I have started a discussion on the article talk page. I suggest you go there to present your argument and work through the issue with the other editor. If that fails (note only after discussions have been attempted at the article talk page or user talk page), then bring up the issue at WP:DR. You have already been directed to this place after you reported the issue to WP:ANI. Further venue shopping at other places other than the talk pages or DR may result in a block. Mkdwtalk 22:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

quoted

I liked this [22] so much I added it to WP:Policy fallacy; please feel to edit the essay as desired. NE Ent 12:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! I've always disagreed with the concept that society has to walk as slow as its slowest member in order to keep society moving forward. Mkdwtalk 14:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

re:

Hey - the kids do a lot of great things - so I'm gonna steal a line from them: "whatever". :-) — Ched :  ?  12:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I dislike "making work" but I felt that RFA and the post-discussion was going to be controversial. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 13:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamish Jenkinson page deleted

Hi Mkdw,

Please let me know why you deleted page: "Hamish Jenkinson"?

thank you, GR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.14.179 (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@89.240.14.179: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamish Jenkinson. Mkdwtalk 12:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Dfunk006

Mkdw - after reviewing the situation here, this is two different people. More of a WP:MEAT situation with two people promoting their own commonly-held entities. He's agreed to cease mainspace promotional editing and limit himself to talk pages. Any objection to an unblock? Will periodically monitor. Kuru (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kuru: I have no objections but the block should be treated as a CU block because a CU at the SPI determined they were "likely" the same person. Bbb23 would need to grant permission for this unblock. I personally have no objections. Mkdwtalk 16:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month is COMING!

Hi Mkdw ,

The Wikipedia Asian Month will begin in less than an hours, and once again, thank you for signing up! Let's help the world know more about Asia! Below are a few reminders for you:

  1. Please check out the rules here. Some rules have been adjusted—the most important being that on the English Wikipedia, stubs may be expanded with some limitations.
  2. Do take the time to read the Q&A if you have any questions, or ask on the talk page.
  3. The list of participants has been alphabetized so you can more easily find your name and report your contributions.
  4. There is a template that you can use on your user page. {{Template:User Asian Month‎}}

Enjoy the Wikipedia Asian Month :) --AddisWang (talk)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Mkdw:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 01:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

WAM

Hi Mkdw, thank you for joining the Wikipedia Asian Month. I'm very glad to see you contribute to the Asian Month. While your contribution Hee Seo meets the requirement of 4k bytes and 300 words though it has not being expanded 5 times. I will mark this article as (P), so if you submit another four qualified contributions, this one will also count and you can receive a postcard.It would be great if you are able to expand it, please remove my mark after you finish it. Thank you!--AddisWang (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AddisWang. I left it to the last day but it should meet the criteria now. Phew, glad I could add something for Asian Month. Mkdwtalk 05:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, we actually change the rules a little bit. Need to review this article.--AddisWang (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
And thanks again for joining the event!--AddisWang (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@AddisWang: Thanks. It looks like Titodutta reviewed it. Seems like an easy pass since Hee Seo is 13,726 bytes and over 1,000 words and when it started it was 2,386 bytes and looked like this. Mkdwtalk 05:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I noticed it. Good work. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

percentages

I noticed your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biblioworm, and it made me think that there was something of interest in the cobwebs of my memories. IIRC - there was an editor who had little experience in articles, but did manage to have a fairly successful Arb tenure. I could be wrong on it, but I think maybe User:Elen of the Roads would be relevant to what you're saying. — Ched :  ?  18:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I talk to you

I have a history of getting confused in sockpuppet investigations, so I thought I'd drop you a line rather than log a case. The issue appears to be a continuation of the situation discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TechGrizzly/Archive where you blocked and tagged some users. The main article has been recreated at Getmii (I've asked for it to be speedied) and the founder's article is up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Angus Meyer; these articles were created by User:HarvardiLab and User:HarvardLaunchLab1. They seem like socks to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Yes the evidence seems fairly clear under WP:DUCK. A single purpose account with all the hallmark edits and articles for that of TechGrizzly. I have deleted Getmii and salted the article for one year. I have also speedily deleted Mark Angus Meyer under block evasion. I won't salt that article because someone else may come along and create it if the subject meets our notability guidelines. It doesn't seem likely but we have to give it a WP:CHANCE. If it's repeatedly recreated by other socks then I will go ahead and salt it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. In the future, you can also add this evidence to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TechGrizzly where this latest incident will be added to the article once dealt with from an administrative point of view. Sometimes this helps in establishing a pattern of behaviour. Mkdwtalk 06:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Mkdw. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow!

I was left dumbfounded by these [23][24]. The racism rants continue and the "your people killed my people" part seems over the top. Some things don't change. Papaursa (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Papaursa: What a mess. I'm away travelling right now but I'll have a look when I get back. Mkdwtalk 17:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian funerary practices

I hope you don't mind but I extended your protection to 6 months. The 166. IPs are WP:ARARAT on a tear again and he'll attack the article as soon as short term protection expires. See User_talk:NeilN#Ararat_arev_again for more info. --NeilN talk to me 23:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: No problem NeilN. I thought it might be a little lenient but I didn't see any previous protection logs on that article. Mkdwtalk 00:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

SECOND CHANCE

You can not give me second chance and you just intimidate me to block, block and block my account. My account is ever blocked once. Why all of you not give me a second chance? I am the real person, Irene Tandry, who try to make and describe the new page.

IreneTandry (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@IreneTandry: You were given many chances. In fact, I warned you to give you a last chance about WP:ADMINSHOP coming off after a block and you continued your pattern. You've been blocked for 2 weeks now to which you will have yet another chance. After that, you may be blocked indefinitely if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Mkdwtalk 22:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hee Seo

Thanks for your work on this article! Dkreisst (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dkreisst: Thank you! I'm surprised you noticed though I see you're heavily involved in ballet related articles. I may call upon you for some help at some point. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 04:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Artistic director, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin McKenzie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Location" field in citation template

You seem to be confused. Here are my three edits on Hee Seo: 1; 2; 3. None of them changed the place of birth, in fact I added the category Category:People from Seoul. The "location" field in a citation template is not used for the place of birth of the subject of a biography, but the location where the document referred to by the citation was published, and KoreAM magazine is not published in Seoul. Please refer to Template:Cite news#Publisher (underlining mine):

place: Geographical place of publication; generally not wikilinked; omit when the name of the work includes the location; examples: The Boston Globe, The Times of India. Displays after the title; if work is defined, then location is enclosed in parentheses. Alias: location

Regards, 210.6.254.106 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@210.6.254.106: Yes, you are correct. I must have been looking at something else. Regards, Mkdwtalk 00:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

I seem to have edited an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Bogdanov (boxer)) after you closed it. When I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts the article was still open so I commented. Papaursa (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Papaursa: No problem. I have reverted the AFD back to its closed state since the discussion is officially closed. Thanks for the note. Mkdwtalk 20:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well said

This, very well said. I appreciate it. I'm reading over this discussion and I'm having a hard time believing I'm reading this in 2015. How is it that some people are still so uncomfortable when they don't know someone else's gender? Is it that they think only of plumbing? Is it insecurity? But On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog--we could all be liars, and we probably all are. Ah well. Moving right along! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies. That is exactly it; it's 2015 and opposing an editor because they haven't disclosed their gender is the very word of prejudice and has no place in the modern world. I'm not sure if Wikipedia will be around for all that much longer. Maybe a decade or less, but it will be looked back upon as being extremely hostile to women. The whole situation made me realize that there is no real place where claims of sexism could be realistically brought and dealt with, not even among a huge number of admins. Mkdwtalk 03:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about that--but it's clear that many expressions of sexism are not deemed blockable, that's for sure. BTW, I don't see this so much as sexism but as an unhealthy obsession with knowing gender, as if that somehow matters. It may be that there's sexism tied into it as well. There is of course still considerable disagreement over what remarks are sexist, and that doesn't help. In the meantime, we can be allies and denounce expressions such as this, and, as you saw, no one defended the remarks, so it could be worse. But blatant expressions of sexism are, as far as I'm concerned, blockable, though I prefer to talk first. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy

If this has ever been a male first name - which I very much doubt - you should add that to Dorothy (given name). Are there any WP bio examples? Surely it was never so "in the last 80 years". It has a certain usage in gay contexts though. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I find this comment in very bad faith and makes wrongful assumptions on my comment and only highlights gender issues and problems here on the English Wikipedia. Despite your doubt, here are some links that support Dorothy has been a male's first name: [25] (type in Dorothy and click male), [26] and [27]. I'm not sure if there are any Wikipedia biographies but I didn't use Wikipedia as my source for the information -- which it seems you used as a synthesis for your pre-existing, and wrong, assumption. Lastly, your suggestion about improving Dorothy (given name) I find it insincere and more pointy than anything. I have a number of other things on my to-do list and adding that to it isn't likely. Especially considering the circumstances and how it was presented to me. It would be like me counter-proposing to you to research and write articles about famous men named Dorothy now that I've clarified how your doubts and assumptions were incorrect. I'm not sure why you thought this was a necessary thing to point out, but I suggest we each do what we're both interested in doing and move on from this discussion. Mkdwtalk 22:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
My, you're a touchy one! [28] produces no male Dorothy's, and the others aren't RS. If it happened at all, I expect it is a US thing only. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Perhaps no one has ever explained this to you, but when you leave bad faith comments like that, it serves no other purpose other than to stir up conflict. The first link I provided only does a search for 2015. The link I provided doesn't allow you to refine your search. Try this link and scroll down to the tab "popularity of a name", select "1900 & later" from the drop down menu, and tick male. You'll see some results. Obviously Dorothy is predominantly a girls name but then again that's not the point you came here to wrongly point out. Speaking of reliable sources, what have any of your assumptions been based upon. You may not be aware of this but Disney is one of the largest media conglomerates in the world. Among disneybaby.com they are responsible for American Broadcasting Company (ABC) and ESPN. I would be hugely surprised to find out this is new information to you considering how prolific a writer you claim to be. You're welcome to argue one of their websites is not a reliable source but if you believe that then I have little interest in explaining it to you. As I mentioned before I think we should move on so I'm going to leave the conversation here. I would ask you respect my wishes in the matter and not continue this discussion. Sometimes walking away is best. Mkdwtalk 05:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Mkdw: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 19:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Season's greetings!

Hello Mkdw: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience t 21:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!
Hello Mkdw:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

North America1000 03:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Mkdw

Peppy Paneer (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2016. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2016 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2016 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Happy New Year, Mkdw!

Happy New Year!

Mkdw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. PokestarFan (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Mkdw!

Happy New Year!

Mkdw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


A barnstar for you!

The Asian Month Barnstar
Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about a week?

Obviously the Albanian actor is not yet mainspace material, and we do need to discourage those who simply resubmit drafts without working in them, considering they might win the lottery of a reviewer who might accept their draft. I am concerned that a week might be somewhat harsh, unless this editor has a track record of doing the same thing after a block. I haven't checked that. Their interactions with me have been cordial, but they fail to grasp what is being said. I have put that down to me, at present, considering they may not necessarily have English as their native tongue. Fiddle Faddle 21:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Unfortunately Starkco was blocked for 31 hours on 27 October 2015. They were blocked following a series of warnings for creating a number of articles in the mainspace such as Scissorkick Group, Scissorkick (about 35 deleted revisions), David Elmasllari, and David elmasllari. There were also issues about licensing on images that were resolved through the OTRS system. Their user talk page has about a dozen notices on it and they've failed to adhere to any of the advice offered at their draft such as this edit where they resubmitted the draft without making any changes. At this point in time, I believe there is a lack of WP:COMPETENCE and unwillingness to read about our policies and guidelines. I'm willing to unblock the editor if you're willing to adopt and monitor their progress for the next 6 months. A preventative block was appropriate considering the amount of time several other editors spent involved in cleaning up. Mkdwtalk 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that history, thank you. Fiddle Faddle 23:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: No problem. I usually try to give them the benefit of the doubt. They'll have one more chance after this block expires so hopefully they use the time to read about WP:RS, but after that they'll have used up all their WP:ROPE. Mkdwtalk 23:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It was just so unusual to see an AfC editor blocked that I felt it important to understand why. Now I do. Frankly the albanian actor can go to MfD as impossible to redeem Fiddle Faddle 23:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Mkdw, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dirtlawyer1. Mkdwtalk 23:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of Andrey Bogdanov (boxer) deletion

Two main reasons for the reconsideration request. I think it was a no consensus or keep. I know its not a vote, but it was 2-2 (or maybe 2-1.75 in favor of keep). That shows a split of opinions. Additionally, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Boxing#Notability guidelines shows there is a split on if WP:NBOX was met which would change the whole WP:BURDEN rationale for deletion. As it states in the start of WP:DGFA "When in doubt, don't delete." It would appear to me it is in doubt if WP:NBOX was met. Also, a number of English sources were found and in view of WP:BIAS I think that at the very least the result should have been no consensus. RonSigPi (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@RonSigPi: The nomination counts towards the consensus so suggesting it was 2 editors for keep and 2 for delete is not correct. As you've stated, it's not a vote and we look at policy based arguments. One editor for keep was a "per argument" and essentially an argument to avoid in a deletion discussions because they also did not satisfy WP:BURDEN by supporting their argument with the sources they presume to have found. You essentially also undid your own argument by admitting the coverage you found was not in-depth and you presumed there were Russian sources but failed to produce any. Again BURDEN. I suggest you read the introductory paragraph to WP:NSPORTS. NBOX is merely a guideline to help indicate whether an individual is likely to meet WP:GNG. Whether NBOX was met or not in no way changes the requirement for BURDEN. The burden of proof must be met for every single article on Wikipedia. No exceptions. Even if the subject had met NBOX, that does not mean they meet our criteria for notability as demonstrated by significant coverage in-depth coverage in reliable sources outside of routine coverage. DGFA didn't come into play for me because it was clear the article had not demonstrated WP:SIGCOV. The appropriate place to appeal this deletion is at WP:DRV. Mkdwtalk 23:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Page Deletion Merrill J Fernando

Hello, Would like to know the reasons for this page (Merril J Fernando) deletion and what we can do to keep the page active

Thank you--Katex267 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Katex267: The article Merrill J Fernando was deleted after an investigation determined an editor creator several promotional articles for financial compensation. The editor failed to disclose this conflict of interest and therefore violated our policy on paid editing. Further, the editor was found to be operating multiple accounts which violated another policy. Due to the implications of these series offences, the work product of this editor was essentially all put up for deletion through WP:AFD, WP:CSD, or deleted under WP:TNT. It is possible that some of the topics may have met our notability guidelines. If you're interested in writing a new article about this individual, I strongly suggest you create a draft and submit it through WP:AFC. That being said, if you are here because you engaged, for financial compensation, an editor to create this article, then you must adhere to our conflict of interest policy and it is also encouraged you do not create this article. Mkdwtalk 08:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Tomas Gorny

Hey,

I believe that the page was deleted hastily and that the subject is notable enough to be on Wikipedia.I would like to request you to undelete it so that editors including me are given an opportunity to reason with the other editors why the article should be on Wikipedia. If then the article fails WP:GNG or WP:BIO then the process of deletion can follow afterwards. Thanks you in anticipation. Aha... (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kwisha: The "process of deletion" did occur, for one week. There was a unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (2nd nomination). The article was created in 2014 so the article received a fair WP:CHANCE. I am going to decline WP:UNDELETE due to the strength of the AfD discussion, but you may officially request it be undeleted at WP:REFUND. Mkdwtalk 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArthurRead1234

Hi. It looks like another sock has appeared. See my addition at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArthurRead1234. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done All the hallmarks of the previous socks including mobile editing tags, no edit summaries, editing at User:WaterQert1/sandbox, and common editing to Total Drama. Quite a bit in only a handful of edits. Mkdwtalk 17:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tomas Gorny

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tomas Gorny. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Mkdwtalk

@Salvidrim: I received an email that my UTRS account has been disabled because "no longer a sysop". I assume this is a mistake unless I'm unbeknownst and imminently about to be desysopped. Mkdwtalk 18:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yea, sorry to break it to you. Your stuff is in the box by the door. You have until noon to clear the floor. ;)
Okay, more seriously -- apologies for that and I've already reactivated your account right away. For some reason the UTRS software tells me "User:Mkdw" does not have sysop permissions on enwiki. It's a weird thing and we'll look into the bug for sure. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Salvidrim do I get to keep my stapler? Mkdwtalk 18:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
At least mine proves I'm not trying to compensate for anything ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

why did you delete my entire entry

hello, I'm new at this. I spent an entire day painstakingly re-editing the 'flash mob' entry, with probably two or three dozen citations from books and newspaper articles, only to have it completely deleted by you and the old, incorrect article reposted. I got a note saying I needed to cite reliable sources but that's exactly what I did - plenty of them. In no way does my research imply or reconstruct anything that didn't happen -- in contrast to the hugely incomplete and partially fictional text which stands on the page now. Please let me know what else constitutes 'reliable sources' if not the books, newspaper articles, and quotes from the founders of the movement which I cited. Thank you. Summer b (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Summer b: Thank you for taking an interest in editing Wikipedia. I reverted your edits for several reasons. In this diff you added wording such as "fraudulently claims" yet failed to provide a source. Meanwhile that information has been supported by several reliable sources such as CNN. The other sources you provided would not constitute reliable sources such personal blogs, directly contradict information from much more notable and reliable publications, or either did not support the information being added that they were used to cite. The websites for the "Tales of San Francisco Cacophony Society" and "Improv Everywhere" are also not reliable sources and in fact Improv Everywhere has its own article. Based upon the changes, you challenge much of the existing information about flash mobs as written about in very notable publications such as Time Magazine, Wired, The Huffington Post, BBC, Oxford English Dictionary, and many others. In fact the article is very well referenced. I take it from your message that you believe they're all wrong and therefore I suggest you read WP:TRUTH. While these fringe websites may hold the "truth" about the origin of the concept, they stand in the vast minority of publications and are overshadowed by publications that are well known for editorial excellence. These other sources are relatively unknown and don't undergo fact checking or editorial oversight. Therefore, even if the editors here "known" the mainstream media has it wrong, which at the moment I'm inclined to believe, we would have to defer to the information in these much more reliable sources. Mkdwtalk 02:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah thank you! Yes the entry as it stands isn't wrong so much as incomplete. It doesn't go back in time to the actual creation of flash mobs with Santacon in 1994, nor its worldwide proliferation due to the Squidlist. At any rate, "Tales" is a real-life book by a big-time publisher so I'll figure out how to cite better -- i.e. cite Tales' ISBN and Improv Everywhere's Wiki and not their Web pages -- and narrow down my citations to only the most heavy-hitting newspapers and published books I've already included. Should that do it? Give me a chance to do better lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summer b (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Summer b: I looked at the book but I wasn't able to verify the content or the sections being referenced. I would suggest that if it does seem that there are conflicting editorials about where flash mobs start, that both be explained in the article and given their relative due weight. I wouldn't propose removing the information being cited by these very notable publications. There's the issue that even if this one book or a few sources support this alternate theory about the origin, that they're still in the minority of publications that cite Wasik as the modern day creator of flash mobs. I would suggest using the article talk page to outline the sources and proposed changes so it can be done the proper article standards. I think it would be particularly helpful to find a source that discusses why Wasik hasn't recognized his assistant in creating flash mobs. Surely a publication must have broached this subject rather than simply printing claims that it was this other individual. Mkdwtalk 03:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of page for "Smith-Kettlewell Institute"

I'm trying to understand the situation with the page for Smith-Kettlewell Institute, which I asked to be reinstated by User:Tokyogirl79 last year, and you subsequently deleted again. I had personally posted information to that page, but saw that it had become a place where competing unsourced viewpoints were being argued over. The topic is linked from several other pages (e.g. Paul Bach-y-Rita, Sensory substitution, Remote infrared audible signage and Christopher Tyler) which are significant to people in that field, and yet it seems like it is now impossible to create any page on the Institute. Is deleting the page the answer, blocking certain users, or pushing the argument over to the Talk page rather than the main article? I don't know the answer within Wikipedia's rules, but I had hoped that editing it rather than deleting the page heads in a preferable direction. Is this possible?

--Snowen (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Smith-Kettlewell Institute was tagged by User:DGG under WP:G10, namely that it made negative and contentious assertions about an individual and organization without providing any sources. Namely the focus on the Executive Director's salary increase and how it was framed in the sentence about a non-profit organization, as well as sentences like "Most of the institute’s scientists left, or were pushed out". When an article is tagged, the current state of the article is reviewed and in looking at the history, had not changed much in well over a year. Articles in these states are often deleted. If you're intent on creating a well sourced article that meets our notability guidelines, I would suggest going through WP:AFC. Mkdwtalk 19:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Snowen what's more, the first of the 3 paragraphs was straight promotionalism. The negative material was the second.The third was a list of areas in which work was being conducted. There wee for good measure no references for either the positive or the negative material. One of our absolute rules at WP:BLP is that we never allow uncited negative information about a living person. Assuming you have no conflict of interest, there is no reason why a proper page cannot be constructed ---if both the accomplishments and the problems at the institute have been discussed by 3rd party independent secondary sources. Please check our rules on WP:Reliable sources for an explanation of what's meant by secondary sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)`
Mkdw Thank you for explaining the WP:G10 procedure. I believe that most of the negative and contentious content, which violated WP:BLP, was added in the previous year by a single user (and perhaps edited / moderated by a different user). I didn't participate in that dialog, and I feel that relevant changes I had made to the page before this action have been lost. Taking into consideration DGG's comments about the poor quality of the page besides the controversial content about the Executive Director, it seems like the general policy is that it was better to delete the page and start again. My misunderstanding was that it was no longer possible to create a new page, but it sounds like it is. So the question I have is whether I can access the history of the page (before it was defaced and deleted last year), so that I can at least look at the information I had added, and then use that in concert with WP:AFC and WP:Reliable sources. Or are you and DGG asserting that those previous edits I made should be discarded? I'm just trying to clarify. Thank you both. Snowen (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Snowen: It's not impossible, but challenging to restore only sections of the article. Even going back a year or more the article still lacked sources. I'd recommend starting from scratch if you can and I'd be happy to review the article as you're working through it. No promises on endorsing whether it meets notability standards or not, but I'll certainly provide you feedback. Mkdwtalk 00:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:RFACP

Hi, Mkdw. First of all, I want to thank you for your time giving an honest vote at the WP:RFACP submission I held. I want to ask you for your guidance and input regarding my occasional inaccurate submission of reports to AIV. Over the last months, I've caught myself reporting accounts that have been clear vandalism-only accounts, despite their warning level. If I see multiple edits that are only clear vandalism, and an unambiguous case of WP:VOA, I've just gone ahead and reported. These seem to me like clear situations where an AIV report is okay. Is this wrong? Are there no situations where I should report early? Must I always wait until a final warning is posted on the talk page and until they vandalize again before reporting? I feel conflicted; I know that we should AGF, but in cases where the account solely exists to vandalize and troll (after making edits that are only vandalism and more than once), I don't see a problem with reporting. What is your input? I want to make sure that I am submitting good reports and 100% of the time. Although I'm not perfect (nobody is), I do feel like I'm starting to report early in this situation, and I'd like to talk about it. Thanks in advance, Mkdw. Again, I very much appreciate your honest opinion; I'd like to take the opportunity to ask, receive clarity, and learn. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah. I'm currently travelling right now and cannot edit Wikipedia in any meaningful way right now. I'd be more than happy to chat more about it with you when I get back in a week. Lightly to touch base on the matter, while some very obvious "vandalism only" accounts that have no received warnings may be reported at AIV, it's important that they are very obvious and also causing a lot of damage. These are urgent accounts that need immediate attention. That threshold can be very hard to gauge but caution and restraint should be shown to new editors even if it seems like for certain they're not here to edit constructively. Blocks without any warnings for new well meaning users who accidentally blank sections or do not understand things like 3RR etc. will also not understand blocks. While it's more work for patrollers, this due process protects the well meaning, and it's a mandate for us involved in custodial maintenance. Mkdwtalk 02:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Mkdw - No worries; travel safely! I absolutely agree with your arguments in favor of AGF; new users should be educated rather than shoved out with a block. I'll await your safe arrival home so we can discuss it more. I'd really like your input on the matter - If I have an opportunity to improve on something I consistently do a lot (like vandalism reversion and reporting), I'll definitely take advantage of it ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Following up on this conversation from last week. I remember going through a shift in thinking when I first became a sysop. Before my RFA, I identified vandalism and reported it at AIV. That was essentially the beginning and end of my involvement in process. When I became a sysop, the process started with reading AIV reports, making a decision, and then extending well beyond AIV. When you block another editor, you become involved in all the steps following. The blocked editor contesting the block, unblock requests, ANI reports, comments made on the talk page, and so forth. There's often some follow up involved. It is for these reasons why process becomes important and why sysops should be careful not to deprive editors of this due process which is in place to protect them. If you haven't already, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Blocking and putting yourself in the shoes of an administrator each and every time you block an editor. Imagine the editor contests your decision and asks for a second opinion or a community review of the report. You should feel confident that you have been diligent and followed the outlines the community has entrusted you to adhere when using your tools. I think it's easy to feel that when you've found a vandal that if they're not dealt with right then and now, they'll good unnoticed. At the end of the day, there are plenty of editors doing good work at AIV. With the way Huggle flags the contributions of editors who are warned, giving an editor another or first warning does take a bit more time but it's very unlikely that someone borderline an "obvious" vandal will go unnoticed for long. Mkdwtalk 01:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Mkdw. Thank you very much for following-up with this conversation; I really appreciate it. I hope your travels went well. Flying can be a real pain in the butt at times :-). Thank you for providing some administrative perspective on the post-AIV tasks that you constantly and routinely have to undergo. I completely understand; if it's a "borderline case" where AGF could apply (even if it a small stretch and it's more likely bad faith editing than not), it could come back at you hard if you were to carelessly block the account - especially if little to no warnings were left and/or the account hasn't edited since the last warning. I've reviewed WP:BLOCK WP:ADMINGUIDE/B before, but took some time to read it again; it's never a bad thing to re-read Wikipedia's policies now and again to get new perspectives based off your Wikipedia experience or tenure. Your response definitely puts a good perspective on when the right time is to report VOAs (even if they're possibly obvious ones). It makes the ANI and post-ANI process easier, and (if anything) it provides good levels of "cover your ass" (to put it quite bluntly, haha). This was a big help; thanks again for your honest opinion on my RFACP. This is great; this is all really great :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oshwah: No problem. Also, just one point of clarity, WP:BLOCK and WP:ADMINGUIDE/B are two different pages. The latter is a guide for administrators about blocking, and the other is the overall blocking policy. Mkdwtalk 01:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you know what? I linked WP:BLOCK in my previous response to you instead of WP:ADMINGUIDE/B by mistake. Derp! I striked out and fixed my previous response. And for the record, you are correct. They are two different guides. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing

I am new to this & simply want to correct one word in an article "Mute Witness" (the movie). The direction to the movie "Bullitt w. Steve McQueen is incorrect in that it states that the book"Mute Witness"was written by Robert L. Pike when in fact it was written by Robert L Fish! Would you be kind enough to make this correction because I could not comprehend how to do so & I do not have the ability to figure out how to do it, but it should be done. Thank you. Marienne Branch (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Marienne Branch. The article Mute Witness has a hatnote on the top the article informing any readers looking for the 1963 novel "Mute Witness" written by Robert L. Pike that the article Mute Witness is actually about the 1994 film. It's commonly to help clarify subjects that share the same name and should not be removed. Regards, Mkdwtalk 02:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of People Like Us, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 12:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Admin for an editathon?

Hi, It would be a case of checking on the articles being created/worked on during the editathon just in case someone tries to delete/revert the article summarily. Having an admin remotely overseeing things would obviously help us ensure these fledgling articles have their best chance of life. Apart from that, you could also assist with helping tidy the articles up a little where obvious glaring mistakes have been made and/or just help myself and User:lirazelf welcome the new editors to the Wikipedia community. Main thing is protection against over-zealous deletions. Let me know if it would be something you could help with. Cheers Stinglehammer (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: Sure, I think I can help you out. Does the editathon have a wikipedia page where it's being organized? e.g. schedule and articles. I'm going to leave the admin help me request still up as it might not be a bad idea getting a second sysop involved: I'm in a North American timezone so having someone else to split the day up or simply be another pair of monitoring eyes. Mkdwtalk 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, The link is here:Creating_an_Open_Body_of_Knowledge_editathon_series. As it turned out we ran out of time and a lot of good preparatory research work remain in the sandboxes. 3hrs went by SO quickly. Basic editing training so cutting down on editing training tomorrow (17th Feb: 10am to 5pm GMT) and the day after (18th Feb: 10am to 5pm GMT) to allow for more writing and editing. Returnees should also be able to improve on their sandboxed articles too. Hopeful for much more content. Cheers. Stinglehammer (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: Okay, well feel free to leave me a message here if you need anything. 10 AM to 5 PM is essentially the very wee hours of the morning to the late morning but I check my talk page regularly (after I wake up) even if I don't register any edits. Mkdwtalk 23:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Closure

Dsaun100 just posted a comment to the discussion you closed. It's clear that he started his comment long after you closed it because it was in reply to my post, which was a few minutes after the closure. However, mine was an edit conflict. I had started it about 7 minutes before you closed. And my post was to reply to his claim that I was stalking him. Rowssusan (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The editor has restored the content again, and refuses to accept the difference between an edit conflict vs. beginning a post after closure has already happened. He also continues to falsely allege on the board that I am stalking him. Rowssusan (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rowssusan: Editor has said they're walking away. You have two choices. Leave it and never think of it again, or be "right" and you can live in the comfort of that and also in the discomfort of the conflict it will produce. I'll leave it up to you but if the only rationale is to preserve the archive that I put in place, and choose whether the comment sits inside the purple box or outside it, then I would say it's not worth it. It's pretty obvious what occurred from anyone reading it and those final comments don't change anything. Mkdwtalk 16:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, I'll let it pass. But let's be clear. I started writing my comment well before closure, and the issue was not about being "right" but rather about replying to a serious allegation (stalking) that any reasonable editor would consider a personal attack and block-worthy when repeated. It wasn't the first time he made that allegation on the page; it was actually the fifth. Yet, all you did was tell him that ANI is the proper forum to report suspected stalking, rather than warning him and saying "Stop. Either report it to ANI or do not say it again. Otherwise, you will be blocked." And what did he do after you told him that? He made the allegation yet again in his final comment, which he obviously began long after closure. So here you have an editor who kept yelling stalker, stalker, stalker, and added another attack comment post-closure, but you did nothing about it. I appreciated your calm and reasonable tone with him, and understand you were probably trying to avoid conflict with a volatile editor, but you are an administrator and therefore should not be afraid to take appropriate action when you see clear violations like these. Editors like him will never stop their disruptive ways once they realize that admins will turn their heads and let them get away with it. Rowssusan (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Rowssusan: It was my prerogative in that situation to showcase leniency. If you felt it should have been handled differently, then you're more than welcome to approach another admin or run for adminship yourself. I might add that I find your characterization of my actions a bit misguided against my actual intentions. If I wanted to avoid conflict I wouldn't have engaged in the discussion in the first place or for as long as I have. I did not enact a block against them because I was "afraid" of them or conflict. Being given the power to block is also the power not to block. Disruption in any form has a short life on Wikipedia and I think you should trust in the process that if they continue they will be dealt with accordingly. Mkdwtalk 20:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Failing to issue even a warning after five separate accusations of stalking is not leniency; it's disregarding blatantly inappropriate conduct. Letting one or two go is understandable. But five? Let's be serious. So instead of simply warning him and telling him to knock it off, you thought it was better to give him the impression that his allegation had merit by saying... hey, here's where you can report it. Any reasonable person can read that thread and see that although your intentions were good, you were coddling a disruptive editor that was arguing with literally everyone in the discussions. The "power not to block" is very admirable in cases where an editor falls into line quickly, but not in situations like this where the bad conduct never stops. It would've been nice nice if you had just admitted that you should have warned him. Rowssusan (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Would have been nice if you had simply admitted you weren't faultless either in this situation. Likewise, any "reasonable person", as you put it, would have seen the shadow of WP:BOOMERANG overhead which was actually at the forefront of many of my decisions. Not only did you recently receive a block for edit warring with this very editor, you continued to involve yourself with them (whether you read about it or not), and then persisted to edit war over an edit conflict and archive hat on the noticeboard. Warranted or not, edit warring so quickly after a block with the-very-same-editor is optically very poor. Your demeanor in the discussion hasn't been pleasant to say the least and harsh words have been exchanged on both sides. Both. Finally, while we have WP:CIVIL, we also have WP:BITE and WP:AGF. It's clear you don't believe this editor is entitled to any of them but they are whether they're difficult to work with or not. If you're insistent, I'm willing to go the full length of this conflict and open a report at ANI but I should make it clear that it will be my intent to review both of your behavior and conduct first starting with your blocks -- and frankly I don't think a block over that exchange on the noticeboard for each of you would be a stretch in the context of your last block. Whether you agree with my assessment or not can and will [be addressed] at ANI and through due process. Mkdwtalk 22:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A different question about the same closure: you closed the subsection "Admin help", but should you in fact have closed the whole section "Jim Brown"? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I involved myself in regards to the edit war report. The discussion about the inclusion of a controversy section is an editorial issue, not an administrative one. If there's a lack of agreement or further action against the consensus, then myself or another admin can step in. Mkdwtalk 20:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Teddybears (TV series)

Hello, sorry to bother you, at the above afd, could you strike through the second vote of electricsburst, as that editor has made two delete votes.ThanksAtlantic306 (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Mkdwtalk 16:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

RFA

I did not continue with my request after you removed it due to formatting errors. However if you do not mind me asking why do/did you believe my request would fail? I am curious nothing more. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 06:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Krj373: I think you would get a lot of useful feedback if you put yourself up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. A list my RFA standards can be found here. I think you have a ways to go, especially regarding content creation, to meet these standards and others like it. As for your RFA, your answers to the questions could be much more detailed and specific. Each one should be answered with thoughtful consideration and express in different ways why you need the tools and how you intend to implement use of them. Also formatting and technical errors in transcluding an RFA has almost always been met with opposition for candidates as it demonstrates that the candidate needs a better understanding of how to technically edit and alter the wiki. Hope this helps, Mkdwtalk 08:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; once the formatting errors were pointed out. I seen no reason to proceed. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 04:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I put the name forward on this. I would appreciate you response. one way or another. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 04:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

I invite you to discuss a move proposal related to one of your interests. --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunter Singer

(refactored from User talk:Wolfgaenger) I left closing comments at the top of the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunter Singer. You will find them there. For the sake transparency, I have replied to you here as I reserve email for confidential matters, or for reasons in which you are technically prevented from using my talk page. Mkdwtalk 04:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, Mkdw. I appreciate it!Wolfgaenger (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ed the Sock

Thanks for putting back the image. I removed it twice along with a bunch of his copyvio images. I couldn't keep track. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I had assumed it was another copyvio image after I reviewed the issues with the redirect but upon further investigation it appeared to be a long standing fair use image. It's unfortunate it turned out that way since you invested your time welcoming them and repeatedly asked them to communicate and work together with others. Mkdwtalk 17:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Biography of Kundan Srivastava

Hi,

I understand and agree with you. I promise! will never submit article until coverage directly about Kundan Srivastava. Earlier I make a sandbox to Draft: Kundan Srivastava, and was unable to do so. I urge you to give me a single chance when i will get direct coverage about Kundan Srivastava, will write. the title is now salted against re-creation so i would like to request please forgive us and make the title for re-creation.

I hope you make the title for re-creation as a passionate writer for me.

Thankyou!

Techguy91 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

no Declined There has been too many attempts to promote this non-notable individual including the deletion of this draft now for the SIXTH time. If the subject becomes notable and an editor in good standing requests it be unprotected, then it can be requested at WP:RFUP. Mkdwtalk 02:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

WIR A+F

Hoping you enjoyed the recently-held in-person Art+Feminism meetup,
we cordially invite you continue your participation by joining the
virtual worldwide online event
hosted by Women in Red.
March 2016 (Women's History Month)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A RFA you might want to take care of

An editor has started this[29] but didn't include it at the RFA page. It looks to have been started almost a week ago. The candidate wouldn't have a chance even if he had opened properly. You might want to take care of this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WilliamJE. I've taken care of it. Mkdwtalk 18:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hee Seo

The article Hee Seo you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hee Seo for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment of Hee Seo

Hello, I just wanted to apologize for any mistakes I made while assessing/reviewing the article about Hee Seo. I have noticed someone did not agree with the article being listed as GA. I just wanted to let you know that I tried my best while reviewing the article, especially with consideration to your own approach to the article and the feedback you gave me about it. Hopefully, it will be resolved shortly. Sorry again for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I'm not entirely sure if you made any mistakes in your review. The threshold in which the other editor is pressing for is well above anything I have seen for a GA. It's more in line with FA reviews. I accept your move to seek a second opinion from an uninvolved editor, though I would also support seeing if the editor who has brought up these concerns would be willing to take it through WP:GAR which might be more appropriate. Especially since they have stated they cannot work with me at all. Your opinion is just as valid as theirs. You have technically taken it through the GA process, so if they want it delisted, there is an equivalent process. Mkdwtalk 01:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support. As I said in my review, I do appreciate all the work you put into the article, but I just thought it would best to get a more experience editor involved just in case. I hope that it is not too much of an inconvenience for you. I apologize if I messed up the process as I am still new to Wikipedia >< Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

21ST EMPIRE AWARDS

Can you make new page about 21st Empire Awards?

IreneTandry (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

According to their website the awards will take place on March 20. I would recommend waiting until the award ceremony has passed. It's very likely someone will come along and create the article. Alternatively, this is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit; you can create the article yourself. Mkdwtalk 04:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Can add a speedy deletion tag on a sock puppet investigation page?

A sock puppet investigation page was created ,a tag on that page is {{SPI case status}} ,the investigation under process. Can we add a speedy deletion tag for this page? Sock puppet investigation pages(Under process) are eligible for speedy deletion? (Okmikjnuhb (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC))

This probably relates to a decidedly abnormal case. Bogus SPI pages created by socks of a blocked user Nsmutte to harass editors may be speedied as G3 or G5. And those created as talk pages of non-existent SPIs or because the SPI page has been salted are also subject to speedy G8. See:
and probably others I didn't notice. Meters (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC))
@Okmikjnuhb and Meters: We have no frame of reference for what you're talking about. User:Nsmutte was long since blocked, and the red links of deleted SPI's have already been deleted. The most recent editor, Boddedabalakumar has already been blocked. So what is it you're asking us to do? Mkdwtalk 05:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to do anything. I noticed a brand new account show up and ask the same question on 3 editor's talk pages that may relate to a very recently active sock case. You can make up your own mind if this was a good faith question or more trolling. If you were already aware of this case then sorry I bothered you. Meters (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Pssst....

I stole your RfA Standards page. Just saying. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: Admittedly, I stole it from someone else and others have since keep using it. I believe the original was deleted but it lives on! Mkdwtalk 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hahahaha, that happens. My userpage design is from Tiptoety (albeit I modified and cleaned it) who had taken it from someone else too. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Cite formats

As per WP:CITEVAR, I have reverted all of your changes to the HMS Curacoa article. Please do not waste any more of your time making these pointless changes. The cite style for an article is established by the first editor to use a cite and should not be changed without establishing a consensus. You are unilaterally doing this and can be expected to be reverted frequently. I would urge you to spend your time expanding articles that need the work rather than this trivial sort of thing that's invisible to readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: With all due respect, I was editing the article long before you were, as early as 1 June 2009‎. The citation format of using a single reference section and a single further reading section was in place long before you came along and changed the article. You broke WP:CITEVAR first without discussing it with the other major contributors to the article including myself. But unlike you, I did not revert your changes and call them pointless. I went along with your new changes because I don't take ownership of the article and thought your changes were improvements. I preserved the format but included use of feature that allows editors to click the reference and it draws them down to the cited work. However, now that this is clearly an issue, I will be removing the GA nomination as the article is under contention under GA criteria 4 and I suspect we will need to take this to dispute resolution. I will expect to address your attitude problem. Until then, I suggest you also follow CITEVAR and restore the original citation format and then preferably work to build a consensus on whether a change is required. Mkdwtalk 17:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
When I started working on the article this month, I found two cite formats being used for books. The original one done on 15 October 2009 [30] and the other one done by Feb 2015 [31]. I chose the one that I prefer and preserved that format, even though I see no reason to have years in citations unless there's one or more books from the same author that need to be distinguished from each other. You changed the format to sfn while I conformed to the existing format. Feel free to sent this to a drama board, but it won't look good. I'll be awaiting your self-revert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Upon looking at your comment again, you seem to be upset about something that CITEVAR doesn't apply to. Actually click on the link at the beginning of my comment to see what it covers.
I left the further reading section alone, as that follows MOS:APPENDIX, but I split out the notes, footnotes and bibliography sections in accordance with MOS:APPENDIX. "When appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings=="--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I've read WP:CITEVAR. You've not adhered to this yourself while selectively enforcing it. It's fine if you don't think it's an improvement, but don't use something that you've failed to adhere yourself. Preference in style is something that can be discussed in consensus building. Separately, I've never considered dispute resolution to be a drama board; perhaps we've had very different experiences there. Based upon your first comment on my talk page, you're a seemingly very hostile. I actually think it's a huge waste of your time to have such an anti-collaborative approach to editing; I was completely willing to work with you on the article and make compromises along the way. Anything that you unilaterally implement but cut others short of doing themselves is hypocritical. You have to learn to work with others. I see content dispute being a good thing in this situation. I'm not suggesting it for appearance sake and I would recommend you not worry about that either. Mkdwtalk 06:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion question

There is a discussion at WT:NSPORT#MMA fighter notability proposal that seems to have run its course. Over a month ago I suggested it be closed, if an admin thought there was consensus, but nothing happened. I, personally, would like to see these new criteria for MMA fighters approved, but I think that this discussion should be closed regardless. Is there any way I can get someone to close this discussion and make a determination on its result? Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I hate to bother you again, but can you respond to my reply to your comment? I'm not seeing that RfC is the right place and I don't know how to bring it to RfC even if that is what should be done. All help is appreciated. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

AIV

Hey, thanks for declining that report. I reported the wrong IP and you beat me to the punch before I had a chance to revert my mistake. Much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for reverting all the vandalism from that sock. Mkdwtalk 23:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You bet! Always happy to help! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the heads up at Edmodo23. I have decided to decline the unblock request as this behaviour is clearly part of a pattern that was not interrupted by their previous block. HighInBC 14:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Yes, some very troubling editing. While I don't necessarily think the information is fictional, the way it was being introduced was inappropriate and seemingly in a way only to slander specific individuals. Mkdwtalk 19:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:AEndorsed

Template:AEndorsed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ RobTalk 16:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Deleted under WP:G7. Mkdwtalk 20:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Cwengile Jadezweni

Hi there, I'm unsure why you placed a {{notability}} tag on Cwengile Jadezweni. He is a professional rugby referee that has been officiating in the Currie Cup - a fully professional rugby union competition, which the general notability criteria as per WP:NRU. There are text referring to him making his debut in that competition, plus references backing that up. Is there anything I'm missing? Thanks, TheMightyPeanut (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@TheMightyPeanut: I did not feel the individual, despite loosely meeting a criteria WP:NRU, satisfies our notability guideline which supersedes it. A WP:BEFORE search reveals that this individual has received some, but not a significant amount of coverage, to warrant inclusion. I remind you that NRU is merely a guideline and many subjects may meet some of the criteria but fail our primary notability guideline. Mkdwtalk 20:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

multiple accounts

Hi Mkdw,

I have only one account but some times I edit wikipedia and forget to login. Is this a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mielhoney (talk • contribs)

@Mielhoney: It's clear that the account AhmedClf was either you or at best a "meat puppet". The account was a single purpose account whose only edits crossover 100% with articles you have edited and were active around the same time. In each case their edits centred around the duplicate articles Lohan Yoga and Lohan yoga. Subsequently, another account Clfclfclf created a nearly identical article. Based upon the behavioural evidence, both accounts were tied to you (directly or indirectly as perhaps subsequently explained by you here) and blocked. This greatly exceeds our policy regarding the use of multiple accounts and is a problem far more serious than simply forgetting to log out. I would strongly recommend you discontinue to edit around the subject of 'Lohan Yoga' and use only one account to constructively edit Wikipedia or your editing privileges may be suspended indefinitely. Mkdwtalk 14:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Tomas Gorny

You were the admin that deleted Tomas Gorny after the January 2016 AfD [[32]]. It was the subject's second nomination and second deletion. The AfD found that the subject lacks notability for he only had local coverage. This summer, there was a huge wave of stories about him that were published; the AfD nominator, Rklawton, and I both agree that Tomas Gorny is now (rightfully) notable after all this coverage ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rklawton#Tomas_Gorny ). Could you unsalt the page? Please include a talkback in your reply. Thanks. CerealKillerYum (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@CerealKillerYum: The page was salted by JzG. I do however agree that it was required at the time, not only because the article was repeatedly recreated but also because the article became the contentious regarding NPOV. A number of editors were blocked over seemingly sock puppetry and undisclosed paid editing. Therefore, if there is an interest in the article being recreated, I would strongly recommend it go through WP:AFC at which point I would be more than happy to review it for NPOV and WP:V. JzG may have other thoughts on the matter which I would defer to them as the initial salting admin. Mkdwtalk 19:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
haha I didn't think JzG was a user: I thought a banned user created the account and then the account got deleted but nope, that's just his user page. I'm fine with going through AFC.. or do you just want me to ping you once the page's up? @JzG:, what do you think about this? CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@CerealKillerYum: It would be great if it could be submitted through WP:AFC. You may also ping me once the AFC is submitted for review. That way, either another editor or myself will review it. Whichever may come first. Mkdwtalk 03:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll submit it through AFC and then ping you -- that way it wouldn't take an eternity to get reviewed. CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

http://www.ziare.com/afaceri/oameni-afaceri/a-ajuns-milionar-la-22-ani-apoi-s-a-trezit-in-pragul-falimentului-cum-a-renascut-ca-pasarea-phoenix-1424455 http://redazione.finanza.com/2014/09/13/tomas-gorny-da-parcheggiatore-a-milionario/ http://phununews.vn/bai-hoc-kinh-doanh-tu-cuoc-doi-len-voi-xuong-cho-cua-trieu-phu-tomas-gorny-241496.html http://www.business.it/storie-di-successo-tomas-gorny-da-parcheggiatore-a-imprenditore-milionario/ )CerealKillerYum (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo Patrolling Loophole

I'm notifying you of this because you're the last admin I talked to. I actually don't know who/where to report this to. Could you help? I found this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Herman which was created by a SPA. The photo that's uploaded to Wikipedia is here [33]. That photo was obtained from Flickr and was autopatrolled by FlickreviewR 2 bot. The copyright says it is under the CC license. The thing is, if you go to the Flickr page, you'll see that the spammer made a new Flickr account, uploaded the photo (along with two others), and then referred to the Flickr photos to get around photo patrolls [34]. The photos are probably not released under the CC license. The same thing was done for two other Biographies on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Becker and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Herman (both photos for those profiles are connected to the same Flickr account). Because the Flickr username is ankush2441255, I'm pretty sure the spammer has moved on to new Flickr accounts already. What should Wikipedia do to stop this spamming? Who should see to this? CerealKillerYum (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@CerealKillerYum: Thanks. I've started to look into it. It may take a couple of days to get sorted and the issue with the images will need to be partly addressed at the Commons Wiki. Mkdwtalk 21:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mkdw/Archive_6&oldid=1190146281"