User talk:SW3 5DL/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

email note

Hi Malke, I have sent you a email, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to include you in the first place (and probably others too) but I just went to the most recent contributors and since that page was going really fast, your edits and comments didn't show up.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)

Self

Yo Malke, I left an update on my talk page of my status in case you want to check it. I'm just saying. yeha, bye 'The Ninjalemming' 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

tahnks you Malke, but your time thingy is saying it is 0:24 and you are on between 12:00 and 24:00; seems abit out to me. I'm just sayin'...again. =P *Ow my spin* OH GOD that was quite scary 'The Ninjalemming' 00:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I know about the time thingy. I actually lifted this clock from Moonriddengirl and those are her hours. One of these days I'll get around to putting up my own hours. I've missed you. I've sent you an email just now.Malke2010 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Returned =P And I get the time thing now 'The Ninjalemming' 00:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

returned...again 'The Ninjalemming' 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not recieving anything =S 'The Ninjalemming' 01:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, nothing 'The Ninjalemming' 01:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied 'The Ninjalemming' 01:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Janis Joplin

I've left a couple of replies on MRG's talk page. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Me

Check the talk page for more, hot off the press info (that sounded so weird) =P 'The Ninjalemming' 23:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

tea party photo

I cropped some from the top, and also added the "upright" attribute top the image markup, so it takes up quite a bit less vertical space now. It still goes a bit into the references section for me, though. You might consider moving it up the page by a paragraph or so.--ragesoss (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TB on RfC stuff

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adding that I'm not intending to step on your toes, but I'm presuming that you hadn't gotten around to starting anything. If you have, let me know, we'll incorporate it. I'm not sure yet what kind of Pros and Cons we'll have, since I'm not sure yet what the parameters are of the disagreement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

tea party photo

I cropped some from the top, and also added the "upright" attribute top the image markup, so it takes up quite a bit less vertical space now. It still goes a bit into the references section for me, though. You might consider moving it up the page by a paragraph or so.--ragesoss (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TB on RfC stuff

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adding that I'm not intending to step on your toes, but I'm presuming that you hadn't gotten around to starting anything. If you have, let me know, we'll incorporate it. I'm not sure yet what kind of Pros and Cons we'll have, since I'm not sure yet what the parameters are of the disagreement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: O'Neill coat of arms

Thank you for the links. My maternal grandmother comes from O'Neill and Kennedy Irish families, which led me to take an interest in the articles concerning those families. Since heraldry is also my interest, I tend to focus more towards that. A common error with the O'Neills is forgetting which hand to use, and which hand is for Ulster, and an encyclopaedia should not continue so common a mistake. Thanks again. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you related to one of the Fitzgerald families? I know of the arms of two Fitzgeralds, one a duke the other an earl. Mr. Medevev of Russia, I do not know if you have seen his work, but he has rather the amusing rendition of the duke's arms, with the monkeys and all. Then there are a few Fitzgeralds that have crests listed in a book I have, I am sure some are related since they are knights and all and likely appointed such because of their relationship.

Seems the Kilkenny arms in the Wikipedia article could use some work, too. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never personally made a drawing of the Fitzgeralds yet. I was familiar with them through Mr. Medvedev and through the arms of John Kennedy, who descended form teh Fitzgeralds of Desmond. Since the Fitzgerald article wrongly presents the viscount's arms as the duke's, perhaps I should next have a go at the duke's arms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Subpage opened

• User talk:Malke 2010/Mentorship

• Good call, holding off for more conversation. :) Don't forget about our subpage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Malke2010 11:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed Norton

Cool. I'll take a look. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, because I think it's better than the one there.Malke2010 02:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved from subpage, with permission

• Sorry to barge in again like this, if I may share something with you Malke. I have to confess that it wasn't easy for me too when I first started editing here... sure I've banged a few walls and step on some toes along the way but I made up my mind to focus on military related articles, so I charged head long into this arena... no prize for guessing whose those walls and toes are. But one thing's for sure, I kept a humble attitude and apologises whenever I made mistakes, just like what you would do in real life, and accepted corrections/guidances from the other editors, that gave me a lot of leeway and understanding from them, especially so when it was related to citations/references. Another thing they taught me was to shut up. Yes, you heard it right, shut up. Much like playing your hands in a poker game, you have to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. Let me just quote myself from my own talk page: "Note: I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to take further action through permissable means.", which is comparable to the words utter by a cop when he is about to arrest you: "You have the right to remain silent", of course nobody is going to arrest you here but the rationale applies still. Please be a wise soul by getting a third party advice from someone uninvolved and they would normally tell what or what not to do. Hope this helps, best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep it all in mind, especially the bit about shutting up and looking for third party

advice.Malke2010 20:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your request for protection of the invasion of Normandy

FYI. Article pending protected for a couple of months, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. That was nice of you to get it over there for me.Malke2010 15:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

Switch to the below format for use on your user page (just copy and paste it!), makes it look neater. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Yeoman Editor Userbox}}

This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Thanks for that. I actually like the bigger picture, but when I add to the page I will probably use the box above.  :) Malke2010 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

US Postal service mailplanes=

Although a variety of aircraft were employed by government, private contractors and the military, this list should give you a comprehensive picture of the aircraft in service: <http://www.airmailpioneers.org/history/US%20Postal%20Service%20Aircraft.htm> FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's great, Bzuk. Thanks.Malke2010 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart and TIGHAR

I am certainly aware of the TIGHAR findings that have purported to support the Gardner/"Nikumaroro" theory and unless there is credible evidence that points to Earhart, I find the speculation as just that – speculation. As a former member of TIGHAR, I saw that the predilection and focus on a single theory about Earhart's demise was so prevalent that no other theories were acceptable. Every little find was literally "shoehorned" (pardon the pun) into a corroboration of the Nikumaroro habitation. When after the initial skepticism that followed and inevitable retraction of the media release heralding a bona fide discovery died down, TIGHAR went back about its business and that business was selling the Earhart mythology. When you recently claimed that the report of the latest expedition warranted mention because it had an established verifiability, I would counter by saying that the findings lacked notability and merely restated the obvious; namely that another excursion to Nikumaroro produced nothing of note. By-the-bye, the report from the carrier pilot who overflew Gardner in 1937 was considered less then substantial. How do you determine recent habitation from the air? As a pilot, I would treat any report made that affirmed human contact with some respect. The search master chose not to continue with any further reconnaissance of the area. Later expeditions to the area proved equally fruitless and the bones that were discovered later were not positively identified as female but instead later forensic review of photographs concluded that they were of a male, perhaps Noonan, but then again, who knows? Certainly not anyone from TIGHAR whose leader, Ric Gillespie has been mildly circumspect in latest media contacts to not state any conclusive findings. Bzuk (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for your comments. You do make a good argument there, but the findings of TIGHAR are notable. They point to a particular person, namely Earhart, as the inhabitant of the Gardner Island campsite.

As regards signs of habitation, sighting a campsite, or makeshift shelter, etc., those can be seen from the air. I haven't read the pilot's report. With respect to the bones, I do know that making a determination in 1941, given what I know of the practices in pathology up until that time, it would be easy for a pathologist to assume the bones were more likely to be male than female, given the location they were found, and the fact that Earhart was taller than the average female. It would be a judgment call since at that time there was no DNA testing available to conclusively determine male or female, and he did not have a full skeleton to work with. Specifically, he did not have a pelvic bone to examine which would have made the determination much easier for him. And forensic anthropologists who later examined the measurements were able to determine that the bones were more likely to be consistent with a female of Northern European descent. Remember, that the focus and training for a pathologist is very different from a forensic anthropologist.

Calling off the search of Gardner Island might have been due to the fact that the Navy believed Earhart had ditched near Howland Island, not Gardner Island. But these are not the key matters at issue right now on the talk page. Gwen Gale has made a cogent point that the edit is verifiable. It does not require that editors believe it or not, only that it is verifiable. The fact that TIGHAR has found items consistent with what Earhart was known to have in her possession, and the fact that no other person is claimed to have been gone missing at the time, narrows the field down to the real possibility that Earhart made a safe landing and survived for some time on the island. Just knowing who she was, a very determined and resourceful person, suggests she would have been skilled enough to land on that island. And don't forget, Noonan was an accomplished navigator. And he did have a sextant with him, which was also found along with the bones. Earhart said she was 'on the line' and gave her bearings which put her close to Gardner Island, not Howland Island.

I'll find one of the video links and post it here. In the meantime, I do suggest a compromise edit rather than both sides just maintaining a line in the sand.Malke2010 04:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a video from a while back where Gillespie discusses earlier findings and he mentions the radio signals as well.[1]Malke2010 04:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only did the Navy and the Coast Guard as well as Putnam and Mantz discount all searching of the Gardner area to concentrate on the Howland approach and overflight based on the radio transmissions and the last known position, but so do nearly all Earhart scholars and historians. The TIGHAR group, in contrast, remains steadfully convinced in the theory that Noonan missed Howland by accident, set up a new track to the only possible landfall given the fuel remaining, and Earhart carried out a landing there, sending out radio messages for at least two days after her crash-landing and then the pair succumbed to their inevitable fate. Let's assume that Amelia in the midst of her frantic transmissions, realizes that she is lost and has Noonan plot a flight to Gardner. Why wouldn't he have instead set up a standard search track to get back to his original estimated location of Howland? The charts of the time were notoriously inaccurate and Howland's location had a navigational error of over five miles according to preserved copies of the time. The USCG Itasca remained on station blowing smoke to give Earhart and Noonan a visual target but the day was extremely cloudy, making the chance of seeing the relatively flat and featureless island even more difficult to see. Noonan did have his sextant with him to shoot the sun for a global positioning. As an aside, Earhart ditched every bit of "extras" even removing the long trailing antenna. She did not feel confident in Morse code according to her mentor, Paul Mantz and instead relied on radio voice transmissions. The Itasca crew monitored every incoming message and the last ones were 5 X 5 indicating close proximity. No other message was received by the Itasca yet the so-called post-crash messages were received for two–five days in locations as far removed as San Francisco. The radio play on her flight was being broadcast at the same time further confusing operators who thought they were receiving an authentic Earhart emergency call. Not one of the later messages has ever been authenticated despite the fervent belief in the Betty diary. Given that maybe the Lockheed Electra and the people on board had decided on a new flight plan and headed off south to Gardner, what would they have done then? land on the beach or try a landing in the undetermined landscape? Most pilots would choose the least dangerous option. Earhart could not have made a standard landing and would have to put in the L10E wheels-up on or near the lagoon. The Electra was not able to float, but there was emergency equipment including a multi-color flare gun, a bright yellow inflatable lifeboat and parachutes. If the pair had made it to Gardner, these items would be instantly recognizable from the air. I repeat none of the finds on Nikumaroro can be correlated conclusively to Earhart, even the shoe size of the heel fragment that was offered as evidence is completely wrong according to her sister. The modern forensic reinterpretation of the data indicates male not female, while the contemporary results were that of a European female, perhaps it was Noonan? but making such a leap-of-faith supposition is exactly what is the root cause of TIGHAR's problems – all of these "discoveries" are complete speculation as to their connection to the Earhart story. TIGHAR operates from a "reverse engineering" approach where they take the Gardner/Nikumaroro theory as credible and the only possible scenario and then try to fit all discoveries, finds or information into the same "box". You perhaps realize that the group sells the idea of aviation archaeology to the general public and their "volunteers" pay for the privilege of going on the Nikumaroro expeditions. I have been part of archaeological excavations but they were always carefully supervised by a trained archaeologist and the work was monitored and reviewed constantly by a field team from a lab set up on site. Do you detect any of these requirements within the TIGHAR excursions to Nikumaroro? I finally gave up on their decades-long guess work that accompanies the TIGHAR project and have come to believe that they are well-meaning but ill-equipped to be the ones to unravel the mystery of the Earhart/Noonan disappearance. Other observers have been less kind in their assessments of the group and detected a less-than-altruistic bent to their pursuits. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

Bzuk, you make a good argument regarding TIGHAR's methods and that their crews are made up of people who are paying their own way, and I certainly understand your suspicions about the quality of their work and their motives. But that wouldn't necessarily mean they're wrong.

On Noonan being without a sextant, I would find that hard to believe. As regards Earhart's lack of Morse code, it would certainly have been part of the ground school/instrument training of the era, and even if Earhart were not adept with it, certainly Noonan had to be, or he'd never have qualified for flight with Pan Am. I don't think Earhart was a great pilot, certainly not like Jackie Cochran was a great pilot. Earhart was more show and this seems to explain her lack of skills in certain areas. You ask why Noonan set vectors to Gardner and my explanation would be it puts them within reach of three islands, and increases their chances of making land three times greater than if Noonan just gave her vectors to Howland. The difficulty of reaching Howland Island in the first place was part of the reason she had the Navy trying to guide her in. But since she was on the line to Gardner, it is not unreasonable to believe she made it there, especially given the findings of the bones, and the sextant box, and the other items. And it appears to me that it was Noonan who put her on that line because he reasoned that Gardner would give them a greater chance of survival.Malke2010 00:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, goofed here as the supposition that his case for the "sea" sextant was the one TIGHAR had claimed to have found. Noonan carried a sextant that dated back to his time as a seaman; his original sextant from his Pan-Am days is located in Pensacola, Florida. The supposed sextant box found at Nikumaroro is merely a box. Earhart was not good enough at Morse Code (neither was Noonan) but decided on her own to drop the trailing antenna over the objections of Paul Mantz, even though the longer antenna gave the best chance of sending and receiving messages over long distance but limited to Morse signals. One of the primary reasons that radio communication was so important was that the duties on the Electra were split and Noonan from his isolated station did not have access to the radio, so Earhart was tasked with communications; she preferred using voice transmission by radio. The way that the Lockheed 10E was configured was that the modified interior at the central fuselage was made up of fuel tanks, blocking the way forward to the cockpit. Noonan entered from the rear door and sat by himself, only communicating with Earhart by using a fishing line/note system that was strung up to the cockpit. Due to the engine noise, he was not able to talk to Earhart. On some flights, however, he sat up front with Earhart and shared some of the piloting duties as he was a licensed pilot, otherwise Earhart had to do all the flying herself. The flight plan indicated that Noonan would plot the flight from Lae to Howland, but due to the problems of getting a VFR fix on the tiny spot, the use of picket ships provided by the US Coast Guard with the Itasca stationed at Howland, would allow Earhart and Noonan to be guided in by radio for the last stage of the flight. Due to the reliance on radio messages, the excrutiating series of transmissions that were both made by the Itasca radio operators and Earhart where confusions in time, radio frequencies and replies took place, doomed the flight. The last clear-cut message from Earhart was so loud that one of the Itasca crew actually had to snatch his headset off as it was painfully loud. The simple marking of the location of the Electra by using the strength of the radio messages placed the wayward crew very close to Howland. The guesswork behind Noonan setting a course to Gardner flies in the face of standard operating procedure when a pilot is lost. Pilots are the "captain" in charge, not the navigator and the choice that Earhart would have logically made was to retrace their flight from the last known point, approximately 60 miles from Howland. The SOP would be to "sow" back and forth toward the map coordinates that marked Howland, unfortunately inaccurately presented on the aeronautical charts of the day. No pilot would veer away from their supposed destination and an indication of how Earhart would react to a similar situation is her actions earlier in the world flight when Earhart ignored Noonan's directions and ended up missing the African coast by 20 miles or more. On that occasion, she reversed her course and worked back to the correct location. Nothing convinces me that a pilot short of fuel, unsure of her flight path, and loosing radio contact, would do anything other than "retrace her steps." As to the "findings", the bones have now been reclassified as male (although they could represent Noonan, but the height is still wrong), the other objects found on Nikumaroro could not be identified as specifically belonging to Earhart, no matter how much TIGHAR tried to make the connection. A whole line of conjecture on the line 157 337, was it a sun line? compass line? and did they track along it? While TIGHAR and others believe that there was up to four hours of fuel remaining, the calculations by Elgin Long show that by the time of the last transmission (garbled, and not usually mentioned), Earhart was nearly out of fuel due to unforeseen head winds reducing their air/ground speed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On the sextant, might they have been using Earhart's sextant? I'm trying to imagine your scenario and it strikes me that knowing they would be out over nothing but ocean, do you think Noonan would have chosen to sit up front with Earhart? Especially as it sounds as though they were unable to communicate. I don't understand having an arrangement like that on a flight where I should think communication would the first priority. I do understand from seeing documentaries about her, the one on PBS is especially good, that she wasn't that great a pilot and she did things that other pilots wouldn't have done, but even given that behavior, I should think Noonan would be up front with her. I do think it's likely Noonan plotted the line to the Gardner group for the three fold chance of reaching land. If I were him, I'd have given up on her finding Howland. Also, is there a citation that shows Noonan was not capable with Morse Code? I am aware that Earhart removed the trailing antenna.Malke2010 15:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Earhart did no navigation and relied on both Noonan and Captain Harry Manning (her first navigator on the aborted initial attempt at a world flight), so being unable to communicate directly with Noonan on the final leg created a near impossible situation. Noonan was not particularly adept at Morse code although it was "the language of the sea." See: <http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0299.shtml> for a brief overview of the radio problems and the lack of skill with Morse code. The entire problem of having Noonan direct the next phase of the flight is that is tantamount to giving up the role of PIC (Pilot-in-charge) which is just not done, especially in an emergency. Even in the latest Miracle on the Hudson, you hear the Captain declaring that he is in charge. I sincerely doubt that Earhart would have relinquished the role of flight command but anything is possible, although charting a new course with slip notes sent out to Earhart would be a daunting proposition. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at those links now. Did you see my note on your talk page about another matter? Thanks.Malke2010 19:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Launched

The RfC we've been discussing on color and consensus is launched and located at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. I am in the process of publicizing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Great news, thanks.Malke2010 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

spot on

...which is notable, verifiable and in the cited sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

XD, thanks. I couldn't let that one pass.Malke2010 16:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And btw, well said above.Malke2010 16:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

Hi Malke...nice to hear from you again. You probably know there was a major rewrite of the MoMK article. I contributed quite a lot to the writing and am now trying (but not totally succeeding) to stay out of the discussion....I don't want to get too emotionally attached to my own work ;-) Things have settled down a lot there, now that the editor who was on a personal crusade is no longer editing. We had some intervention from an admin (MLauba) who completely kept out of content issues but took a very firm line on civility, good-faith and general good behaviour of editors. That has made a huge difference! There is still some debate and some strongly-held views, but that's normal. If you haven't looked at the article recently, you might like to give it a quick look-over and see what you think. I definitely think we have improved it and made it more neutral but a fresh pair of eyes would always be welcome. Cheers! Bluewave (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! You mention barnstars: well I was given one by Salvio for my work on the article at a time when I was "at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors" and, having received it, I felt kind of honour-bound to earn it. That was one of the reasons I stuck with the article when things got very unpleasant! With regard to Guede, I think most of the newspaper sources are heavily biased against him (and his family aren't funding a PR campaign to re-present his image). I've seen some extracts from the "Darkness Descending" book, which seems to have researched Guede's background, and I'm trying to get a copy...unfortunately my local library hasn't got it in stock. Finally, I think your suggestion of going for GA status is an excellent idea. It would keep our focus on improving the article rather than arguing over the significance of particular pieces of evidence, and that kind of thing. Why don't you suggest it on the article talk page...? Cheers! Bluewave (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar. You'll have gathered that this is not something that I take lightly, so I feel very honoured. I'll try to live up to it :-) Bluewave (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your mail

I recieved your mail. How can I help you? Thw1309 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've sent you another email.Malke2010 22:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sword Beach

Howdy,

I have justed noted that you have added yourself to our Normandy team and have info on German defenses; would you care to take a look over the German section of the Sword Beach article. I have expanded what i have but if you have any additional information that would be great.

Cheers :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look at it.Malke2010 12:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

help please

I want to find a recent AN/I thread about my block. I want to retrieve diffs from it for another editor. How do I do that?Malke2010 12:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't in the history and the editor who made the comments, his history doesn't show it either. It's past 500, which is all Wikipedia shows. I've seen other editors come up with ancient diffs, so I know it is possible. Thanks.Malke2010 12:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You can do a search in the archives box, I think what you're looking for shows up in these results. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Malke2010 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I didn't notice this discussion, I think the most recent, in those search results, which is strange since I used the search box on ANI to look also. --Onorem♠Dil 12:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's right there at the top of your link. I just didn't notice that it showed up as a subtitle for the discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 12:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you.Malke2010 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was just coming to tell you about Operation "Normandy", but it appears you have already found it. :-) Good luck! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

They're some of the best editors and people I have ever met! If you have any questions, you can come to me or any one of them. Until then, happy editing, and thanks for helping out! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You comments

Thanks for you comments on my admin page. I've also responded to your comment at regarding the maps trying to summarise the situation. --RA (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.Malke2010 01:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

help please 2

{{help}}

I'm trying to put an RfC template on this page [2]. I added in the categories to the rfc template "history and biography" but the template says the request will be added to the "unsorted list." Have I done this correctly? Thanks.Malke2010 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You used the full words; these aren't recognized. The codes are hist & bio, which I've corrected. However, I don't think you've (collectively) put this RfC in the right place. It is very specifically about images for one article, and unless the subject is generalized, I think the RfC needs to be at the talk page for that article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it, MRG. Malke, see Template:Rfctag for the list of tags. I also agree with MRG that the RfC tag should go on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My, what an impressive help desk this morning.  :) Thanks to both of you for the help. The thing is, Xanderliptak posted it there. I just posted the template. You could ask him on his talk page. Also, my impression is that an RfC is for the comments of uninvolved editors, so does that mean that editors who have already commented on Leo XIII, won't be able to comment again?Malke2010 13:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can comment, but the hope behind an RfC is that it will catch the heed of "fresh eyes." Gwen Gale (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, GG. That's good to know. Where else does something like this get posted? Or does the bot do that?Malke2010 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean the transclusion(s)? Looks like it's already up. Again, you can see the page list at Template:Rfctag. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it's not handled by a bot, it's only a transclusion, the tag says there may be a 30 min delay only because of the cache delay. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've announced it at the article page, including my belief it is misplaced. As to whether editors who have commented are forbidden from participation, if so, Xander couldn't open it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking if people should be forbidden from it. I saw mention on the RfC page and I got the impression that it's meant for others to now comment, so I didn't know if I would be able to comment again. I'll find the page so you can see.Malke2010 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The same principle would hold true. Xander has prior involvement,and he has requested comment using his own interpretation of the conversation: which I daresay differs dramatically from that of History2007. Why would he only be permitted to influence the outcome of the RfC? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's start over. I didn't know how an RfC works.Malke2010 14:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yes, you are able to comment, just as Xander was. Others who have been involved will also be able to comment. Ideally, you would keep your comment brief and to the point; don't follow-up on somebody just to say you agree if you've already stated your position and it is obviously the same as theirs. However, it's okay to explain why somebody else's perspective is wrong, in your opinion, keeping in mind all the rules of civility and whatnot. The admin (or whoever) who closes the RfC will be looking at the strength of policy behind the various positions and then the numbers supporting the various positions. Does that help? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't quite get the mention of WP:STATUSQUO by History2007 directed at Xanderliptak. Is he saying that the page is closed to images? He seems to be saying, a status quo existed before Xander put the CoA into the article and so no matter what, that status quo is fixed.Malke2010 14:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The notion is, if there is a dispute over some new edit which has been reverted, then leave things as they were until it gets sorted out through consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Amelia Earhart, I have a journal from a relative who was a young girl in 1937 who mentions the flight and then that Amelia is missing, and then mentions later that there's no more news coverage. She was mostly listening to the radio. Apparently, Amelia was very impressive to her because she was doing something that showed her equal to the same task as a man.Malke2010 14:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, one reason Purdue University gave her the Electra (and put her on the faculty) was that she drew so many girls into colleges to study professional careers like engineering. AE was a media icon. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Especially about girls taking up engineering for a college major. Interesting. Thanks.Malke2010 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I wanted to clarify, I didn't know if/how things would be different with an RfC being posted on a project page like the Images talk page since I've only seen RfC's on article talk pages. So I wondered if there was a different rule when it was posted some place other than an article talk page. And of course, I know the answer now.Malke2010 16:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Leo XIII

Hi, Malke.

I've reverted your inclusion of the tag here. You may not realize it, but the original RfC has not been closed. Until something is done with it, this one can't open; two RfCs on the same topic is not good form. :) I've already left a note about this at User talk:Xanderliptak#Pope Leo XIII.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that. So, Xander needs to close the other. Why not just move the whole thing over? That seems like the solution. Malke2010 02:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty irregular to relocate an active RfC, but it can be done. It just needs Scolaire to agree. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is seeming so complex. Can he just close the thing, and open a new one on the Leo XIII page?Malke2010 02:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily no, that would be "forum shopping" (open an RfC, get an answer, close it and open it again somewhere else), but this is a really unusual situation in that the new location would be, really, the first one. So I think so. Personally, I would hope User:Scolaire would approve of that first, though. The talk page for the article is clearly a better home for the RfC, since it is specific to that article, but the discussion has already been troubled by talk of canvassing and forum-shopping, and I worry about escalating drama. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, drama is bad. But in this case, I think it's just a lack of savvy with the form. And that's apparent. And I already explained about the email, which I'd be happy to post. It's in German, though. Scolaire is a good guy. I know he's irritated, judging by his comment at the RfC on the Images talk page! But he's a good editor. I'm sure he wants this to be settled as much as anybody else.Malke2010 02:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we talked about that at User talk:Malke 2010/Mentorship. I still don't think it's necessary. But I'm not referring only to that; there have been concerns about cross-posting and canvassing throughout, as I recall. I don't think there's any impropriety going on, but I do think the odds of cordial resolution are higher if people feel confident that things are above board from here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that talk about cross-posting and canvassing does not involve Malke_2010 in any way! And it's apparent from posts, etc., that Xander just didn't know all the details of the thing. I've never posted an RfC to a wikiproject page. Because originally, you thought it would be good over there, but then later, the article. I think Xander missed the posts about the article being the better suited place. Oh well. :/Malke2010 02:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, originally, it was supposed to be a broader question: not which image is best for the article, but a question about image selection in general. A general RfC would be appropriate at the guideline page. The RfC isn't really inappropriate where it is, but I worry it will get less response. People who may follow the RfC link to that page will then have to click over to the article talk page, and the more steps you put between reading and responding, the less likely people will be moved to do so. Assuming any are anyway. I've seen RfCs go completely unnoticed before. And, yes, that talk about cross-posting and canvassing is general to the conversation, not specific to you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail's opinion helped focus the matter, so it does look like it's just a matter of getting consensus for an image.Malke2010 03:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope not

I hope we are not having a case of WP:Wikihounding here where articles I have worked on are getting tagged by you, all of a sudden. I assume not. Please see the case on Rosary of Holy Wounds and address that before starting a tag-machine. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. But as a member of the WikiProject:Catholicism, I am editing pages under that project. And the Chaplet of the Five Wounds is not the same as what is being presented. The article needs work and a new title. Also, we don't put the papal emblem on just any article. It refers to the Papacy, the office of the Pope, and using it on an article like that is incorrect. Putting tags on the article is necessary so editors will know the article needs work in those areas. Not everything is about you.Malke2010 14:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you were dead wrong on the Chaplet, as explained there. And it seems really strange to be fighting you right and left all of a sudden after the Leo XIII story. You need to cool it, per WP:CALM. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have questions about the articles, then it would be better to post them on the article talk pages. Also, I'm not 'fighting' anybody. The argument over the images on Leo XIII is not my argument. I'm simply supportive of Xanderliptak and Canterbury Tail's arguments that there's no reason the images can't be used. Leo XIII is only on my watchlist because of his canonizations. Whether the images make into the article or not, is not important. My concern is the same as Canterbury Tail's where he noted that you seem more bent on trying to make some policy to ban the images all over Wikipedia. Malke2010 14:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is Canterbury Tail's exact comment: "History2007's is an incredibly bad argument, the crux of which is basically, well if we let him do this, then he may do it elsewhere and then it'll be the world standard for coat of arms. That's not an argument, that's an I don't like it trying to come up with a reason. At least it's how it reads." Arguments like that are bad for Wikipedia. Malke2010 15:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello FitzGeralds!

I just discovered you talking with Xander in his talk page archive. If you go to User:DinDraithou and scroll down you will find we are cousins. I have been trying to expand and improve FitzGerald dynasty and have recently created John FitzGerald, 1st Baron Desmond, James FitzGerald, 6th Earl of Desmond, and Thomas FitzGerald, 7th Earl of Desmond. More I hope will follow them. The Desmond branch especially are poorly covered in Wikipedia. DinDraithou (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They're well covered in Boston. Thanks, Cousin, I'll check out the archive.Malke2010 18:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I love it! Thank you! And you have reminded me of the tale regarding the origins of the FitzGerald war cry. Croom, County Limerick was the principal and last home seat of the O'Donovans, and Crom Ua Donnabáin apparently took his name from it. But he couldn't hold it and his descendants have hated the FitzGeralds ever since! That infuriating war cry makes a mockery of O'Donovan disorderly non-existence for the next three hundred years! DinDraithou (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

XD, that's a great story.Malke2010 18:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have updated those pages with what I recall. Not sure where to put any of it on the FitzGerald front page yet. The castle has a website,[3] and I may contact them to suggest a couple small changes to their History section. DinDraithou (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Yes, they could make some changes in the history section. Do we actually have a wikipedia page? I've never looked.Malke2010 20:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It definitely needs one. Totally notable (or was). It's even mentioned at the Dukes of Leinster's page concerning their coat of arms. And it might be that a notable architect, J. J. McCarthy (see under Works), was responsible for cannibalizing part of it to build the Croom Castle House, which is what they're actually advertising. Possibly. There is this Croom House Stud,[4] which doesn't look like the same thing, and also this other "Croom House" currenly for sale.[5] Then there is this "Croom House main gate" photograph.[6] Then this page says the castle house is 18th century and built into the old structure.[7] Then this page offers the only "decent" photographs of what is definitely the old castle, or mainly its high wall.[8] Finally there is a tiny little more info on it here. Hmm. DinDraithou (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's make a page. Why not? What's the worst that can happen? Somebody will make an AfD? That's why I've got the picture of the kitten. Ha. Malke2010 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got good sources for the O'Donovans, whom the authorities are fairly certain were seated there from earlier times, even if we can't tell Crom from Dermot or whomever, and don't really know when they left. That allows them maybe a quarter of the article, for being on the site. The majority should be on the FitzGeralds, for whom I have fewer sources. But I doubt they'll be hard for us to find. Then a little on its modern history. What do you think? DinDraithou (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's enough to get started. Wikipedia was built one byte at a time. And I can look for other sources, too. What about pictures?Malke2010 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do look for other sources! You're the real Honey Fitz. Finding or taking pictures and learning about the architecture will be the hardest for us. A nice narrative may entice someone to upload one, and we can also ask the proprietors. I have just found the crucial passage to start the story with,[9] from an entry in Lewis' 1837 Topographical Description of Ireland. Now we know about Dermot O'Donovan, but still almost nothing about the FitzGerald capture of the strategic site, undoubtedly mentioned and buried in volumes discussing the military history of the period, and possibly in detailed FitzGerald pedigrees. DinDraithou (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about the pedigrees. We could look there. There has to be something mentioned in some book about the capture. We could email the librarian at Trinity in Dublin. She could give us sources. Also, local historians sometimes self-publish and a pamphlet or book might be for sale. Malke2010 01:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the unreliable Clancahill pedigree published by O'Hart,[10] it was "Crom" who built it, and his son Cathal who lost it, to Maurice FitzGerald, 2nd Lord of Offaly, grandfather of John FitzGerald, 1st Earl of Kildare. But it looks like we have our answer in the Career of Gerald FitzMaurice, 1st Lord of Offaly. The source is Charles Mosley's brand new Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, and essentially agrees with the entry in Lewis' Description. We should have thought to check the pages linking to Croom! DinDraithou (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:DinDraithou/Croom Castle. I will try to create the page sometime today! Or as soon as I can. Find whatever you can! The excellent Britannica article you found offers several promising sources at the bottom. DinDraithou (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• You might be related to Carlos Fitzcarrald whose original name apparently is Brian Sweeney Fitzgerald (If you believe Wiki :) ). If so, that could make a story worth for an article (although it'll be hard to find reliable sources I guess). Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MCK. I'd never heard of him before. How have you been? What's new with you?Malke2010 22:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new. Just the same old: Little fellows trying to have a feast XD but I don't talk about it ;) .

Did you see the movie with Klaus Kinsky? If not, it's a must see, like it or not.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen the movie. I haven't ever had one of these, either. Right at this very moment, we are having a mini-earthquake. Our house is swaying a little bit. So the epicenter is far away, maybe central California, or down in San Diego. Not close by.Malke2010 23:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The only (mild) earthquake I experienced myself was way back when I was still a kid but I still remember the rattling noises in the middle of the night while I was home alone. Quite scary at the time as I didn't know what happened till the day after. Hope nothing broke at your home, structure or inventory.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you didn't see the movie yet, go for it and let me know what you think afterwards. I'm a sucker when it comes to that "crazy" Kinski and Werner Herzog is an excellent director anyways.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I will look for the movie on Amazon.com. And about the quake, nothing broke or fell this time. Thanks for asking. You're right, the night time quakes are the scariest.Malke2010 00:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you won't like the movie as much as I do so you could rent it first (Blockbuster, Netflix or else). Just don't blame me if your taste is different than mine in regards of movies. Such things happen XD, Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I will check Netflix.Malke2010 01:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Croom Castle

Crom a Boo! DinDraithou (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul Farmer

With this edit [11] you undid 2 months worth of contributions to that article, and without an edit summary. I can only presume you pressed some buttons in error, so I have undone your mistaken edit. Please check your edits more carefully before using Twinkle again - you certainly have to provide an edit summary, and Twinkle is for vandalism, not editing disputes. Please read the page on Wikipedia:Twinkle - misuse of Twinkle can lead to a block. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Weak. You're right. I did not mean to do that.Malke2010 09:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought so, but I though it best to leave you a note as I have seen other editors encounter problems after using Twinkle by mistake (even though they had made a good faith error). Happey editing. Weakopedia (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have too. I'll be extra careful with those twinkle buttons at the top of the page from now on.Malke2010 10:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Civility barnstar

		Civility Award
		For being extremely civil and good-natured in working out the issues on Talk:Rosary of the Holy Wounds‎. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. :D Malke2010 04:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus

I saw that you built Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus. I reviewed the page and marked it as reviewed/ok. I actually think you did well there. There are a few minor things to point out:

• It is certainly due to Liguori. That is correct.
• But it is Redemptorist, rather than passionist. E.g. it does not need to be blessed by the Passionist priest before use.
• I think in general it is called Little Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus, if you move it to the new title.

Then I think you will have a good page started. That chaplet is actualy referenced in "The complete works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori" by Saint Alfonso Maria de' Liguori and Eugene Grimm 1926, and that would be the best reference for it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The chaplet isn't considered Redemptorist or Passionist. Neither order owns it. It was written by a Redemptorist and is promoted by the Passionists. The Passionist order promotes devotion to Christ in all things regarding Christ. If lowly parish priest Father Jack writes a new devotion on the sufferings of Christ, the Passionists would be the ones to promote it, although, any religious could promote it. The religious don't own these devotions. They create them and promote them. Orders have been founded just to promote a certain devotion. All the Marian orders, the Sacred Heart followers, etc,.Malke2010 13:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Williams, David (2004). The Five Wounds of Christ. Gracewing Publishing. p. 28. ISBN 0852446209.

What are the words of the prayer used in this chaplet? History2007 (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand the devotion. You are creating articles from original research. You seem to think that by dropping and adding new words, you've created a new devotion. As I explained exhaustively on the talk page of the now former Rosary of the Holy Wounds, there is only one devotion. Christ received five wounds, in one crucifixion. The devotion is to the Five Wounds. You cannot claim that the Redemptorists or the Passionists have different devotions. It doesn't work like that. And again, the Passionists are promoting the devotion that St. Alphonsus created.

You also don't seem to understand that there are long and short versions of prayers in devotions. Here's the reason: St. Alphonsus sitting around in the monastery has loads of time to meditate and become passionate about Christ's suffering and his Five Wounds. Alphonsus probably cried his eyes out writing it. But the rest of us have real life to deal with and while we might want to be devoted to the Five Wounds, we're afraid if we don't say it exactly right, it won't count, and then we've made a blasphemy and we're going straight to Hell. So better to not say the thing in the first place. The Church accounts for that fear by saying, it's okay if you've left off or forgotten something. It's your intentions that count. But the devotion is still the same. The same Five Wounds of Jesus.

And now, I don't see how I can be of any further information to you. You don't appear to accept anything I say, but instead want to engage in disagreement or circular arguments, or somehow prove the opposite. I don't know any other way to tell you that Indulgences are meaningless, Imprimatur's don't mean what you are interpreting them to mean, there are Five Wounds of Jesus from one crucifixion, and that My Sunday Visitor is not a reliable source. What I'm telling you is the truth. Trust me, this is 12 years of Catholic convent school talking.Malke2010 15:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it be easier if just go separate ways and try not to interact? History2007 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to me to have the energy to edit and source things, but I think the problem is your understanding of things you're finding. Other editors have taken note of some of the things you've claimed in articles but you've not heard them, and I think it's because you probably didn't get 12 years of education in a convent school, so you just don't understand their argument.

So my suggestion would be, if you want help on Catholic articles, I'm willing to help you. I'll be editing Catholic articles anyway, especially since I've noticed so many of them need work. You'll be there on some of them too, no doubt, so as far as I can see, better to make a friend than an enemy. I wouldn't be the only one correcting things, you'll still have other editors to deal with, and some Catholics I've seen on Wikipedia, especially the religious, never hesitate to correct. If you want the help, it's there for you, but my condition is, I'll not argue about things I've been soaking in for 28 years.Malke2010 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. There is a rumor that Catholics are very good at forgiving and making peace. So we can just go forward and put this behind us. But I can not pay you any percentage of all the money Wikipedia pays me.... Just kidding on that. Now, when you mentioned convent and help, I asked myself what needs most help in Catholic pages and the answer was simple: Thérèse of Lisieux. It is a very long article that talks about all kinds of things except the one element that is perhaps most important: her spirituality. As I said there: if the mother sold lace or almonds is less important than the key items such as her motto and poems: "love can only be repaid by love", "to live by love" etc. And her focus on Eucharistic meditation which ties directly into her composition of "to live by love", her literary masterpiece, has been ignored. So if you want to help improve that article, that will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Grapeseed vs rapeseed

Are you sure about changing rapeseed to grapeseed here? Grapeseeds are not typically grown as a crop, rather they're a byproduct of growing grapes. However rape is a common crop across Europe and is grown for oil. In North America we usually refer to it as canola - as in canola oil. Toddst1 (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, Todd. I was actually going through counties looking at maps for comparison regarding questions being raised here [12] when I noticed it.Malke2010 20:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when did Norfolk become famous for it's wineproducing? Weakopedia (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to Farmers Magazine article about the uses of rapeseed in agriculture [13] :) Weakopedia (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, Weak.Malke2010 20:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledgment and thanks

BTW, I should acknowledge all the good work you seem to be doing lately and constructive engagement with others. I'm glad you accepted MRG's offer and we still have you as an editor. Thanks for making the effort. Wikipedia is a better place for it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1, thanks so much for the kind comments, and for following my progress. I very much appreciate it.Malke2010 22:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edward Norton

What is the thing with Edward Norton not being in The Avengers? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on. Different things being said out there. But this is his agent:[14]. And this is him on Facebook: [15].Malke2010 22:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FitzGerald coats of arms

I haven't heard form you so I don't know if you noticed, but the arms of the FitzGeralds, Earls of Desmond is done now. I have started a bit on the Kildare-Leinster branch, and hope to have that soon enough. :-)

File:Coat of arms of the FitzGeralds, Earls of Desmond by Alexander Liptak.png

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

help

{{help}}

I want to put this barnstar on my user page but I can't seem to get it right. Can someone tell me how to do that? [16]. Thanks.Malke2010 18:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste works fine.  Chzz  ►  18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You copy and paste better than I do because when I tried that, it didn't come out right. Thanks. Malke2010 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on User:Wildhartlivie's talk page

Hi, you don't know me but I just left a sad message on Wildhartlivie's talk page. I just thought I should bring it to your attention so you know she is not ignoring you. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Malke would have thought that anyways, since Wildhartlivie replied on this very talkpage some 32 minutes prior to your posting. Weakopedia (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I didn't catch that she had responded. I received an email requesting to put a comment on her talk page, which I did. At that time I noticed the question to Wildhartlivie so I made a notation here so that Malke 2010 would be aware of the death in the family in case WHL didn't respond in a timely manner. I didn't read this page, just put this notice up. I'm glad that WHL had the time and energy to answer the question. I hope this is explains my reasoning for all of this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No explanation necessary. My commiserations to all those affected. Weakopedia (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at User talk:Malke 2010/Mentorship.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not vandalism / WP:BITE

You recently left this message for 71.213.227.8 (talk · contribs) about vandalism to Zsa Zsa Gabor. You could say that was WP:SYNTHESIS or more generally WP:OR, but that edit is clearly not WP:Vandalism.

Beyond that, the Washington Post says it's accurate information. I think you owe the IP a retraction and likely an apology. Toddst1 (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I must agree, Malke, that was not even close to vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

At the time of the edit, there was only one source: [17]. It didn't say anything about what show she was watching, therefore, especially given the title of the show, it appeared to be vandalism. Any other sources that are there now, were not there at the time. I removed the warning from the IP's page.Malke2010 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I can't understand what this IP is doing with these edits. He puts in the edit, then reverts himself, then puts the edit back in. I don't know anything about Cary Grant, but it's possible this edit is not accurate. [18]. It might be a good idea to ask Wildhartlivie, as she is familiar with the backgrounds of actors.Malke2010 01:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wildhartlivie isn't contributing for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie is still around. I'll leave a message on her talk page.Malke2010 04:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You may not have seen the notice posted on her talk page. Also, she hasn't contributed at all for four days. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I had not seen this notice on Wildhartlivie's talk page. After she left this comment below, I received an email from her telling me about the death in her family.Malke2010 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just passing through and thought I'd say that there is no question in my mind that at least half the edits by that IP to Cary Grant were clearly vandalism, see this edit and this edit. Grant's name is not and never was "King Jasic", nor was he born in 1849 or on December 20 nor did he die in 2000. He was born in Great Britain, not Canada nor "Jesus Land, Iowa". He was not active professionally from 1849 until the year 2000. That would have made him actively working for 150, which is the age the IP had changed it to reflect. That he undid his edit twice is the only reason I personally wouldn't template for vandalism. I'm off to make funeral arrangements. Bye. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Livie. So sorry about your aunt's passing. I've sent you an email.Malke2010 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Any luck with Croom?

Any luck? I imagine if we just leave it there things will appear eventually. But it needs some FitzGerald attention. You're Desmond not Kildare? DinDraithou (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it. I think we're Kildare. There's a book I'm going to get at UCLA library that goes into the history. I think it will have some stuff we can use. Also, I'm still looking for pictures. Malke2010 04:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. I have no way that I can think of to get a nice picture myself besides contacting the proprietors, but I want to wait until we have more in the article. The extent of my contact with Ireland was a now dead great uncle who visited the Lord of Clancahill's estate Hollybrook House about 15 years ago and had tea with his wife. He then annoyed the chief (a cousin) by sending him a letter requesting his genealogical assistance on a matter as if that was his job, and I inherit that embarrassment so I won't be calling them (and I'm sure they don't know who I am). America does bad things to families. Hollybrook is far away from Croom in any case. Incidentally the information was available on the internet or in a quick look through Burke's. Duh. Lazy.

If you're feeling brave you might be able to find a way to contact the Duke of Leinster's household, who I'm sure must have thousands of volumes, and there's a good chance he knows exactly how his own war cry and motto Crom a Boo came into existence, or at least knows the tradition. I don't know your precise lineage but a FitzGerald's a FitzGerald and I'm sure his house knows that. Just make clear you're not looking for any favours or titles and that it's in the general interest of the family to have out there a coherent account of this ancient fortress in the middle of nowhere, especially when people are now vacationing in it. I would even make the suggestion the Duke have a little stay in it so they can put that on Croom's website, which would be charming. Then maybe Clancahill could hear of it and go stay in it too. They could write little victorious notes to each other. It looks like it was fairly massive for an Irish castle too, to judge from the walls. Plus I'm really interested to learn how it was that this Kildare branch conquest and considerable construction came to be in the Earldom of Desmond and how the two branches worked out rights to it. Anyway I'll stop here. DinDraithou (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to work on it over the weekend when I have more time. I've sent off an email to the reference librarian at Trinty College, Dublin. She's been helpful in the past, I'm sure she'll have some good ideas where to look.Malke2010 22:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! So I went on like a fool and sly braggart after you hadn't even tried that yet. The secret is that you FitzGeralds still intimidate many other Irish in their memories. The O'Donovans have been groaning and obsessing about Croom for eight centuries and probably will never stop until they're finished as a race one day, whenever their time comes (hopefully never). It's kind of pathetic but some still apparently visit Croom on trips to Ireland, although why there aren't pictures all over the webs is strange. About the library I guess I thought you already had tried and they were of limited help. DinDraithou (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with getting pictures seems to be that one of the owners is claiming that nobody is allowed to take a picture of the castle for commercial reasons. I found some pictures, and I'll post the link here, where the photographer talks about this. I've never heard of this in Ireland. Anyway, maybe that's why there aren't that many pictures. I'm asking my family if we have pictures of it. If so, I'll use those, otherwise, I'll have to get somebody to take a picture.Malke2010 00:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

vacation until September 2nd

If you need to get in touch with me, please email me. Thanks. Malke2010 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! You too! Have a nice vacation! DinDraithou (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Delayed

Hello, it has been a while since we last spoke. Work got in the way and I hadn't time to paint and edit the FitzGerald arms until now.

File:Coat of arms of the FitzGeralds, Dukes of Leinster by Alexander Liptak.png

FANTASTIC! I love it. It's brilliant. And most interesting about Father Michael. I'll look in that. Where did you come across his coat of arms?Malke2010 06:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I came across the arms of a Most Rev. Michael Fitzgerald, Auxiliaries in Philadelphia [19]. Another coat of arms of a FitzGerald to add to your collection. :-) [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a priest who keeps up to date with Church heraldry, and posts the coats of arms of newly promoted clergy. So I can't take the credit for finding it, just passing it along. :-) [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex.Malke2010 16:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The deleting of others' work

Extended content

This discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Thanks. Greetings Malke 2010. IMO, killing a bunch of material because one person finds it to be UNDUE, is not a legitimate reason to delete the valid sourced contributions of fellow editors and collaborators. I would exercise more caution when removing the work of others - especially on a political article like this where many are likely to disagree. Be bold on your additions, but carefully consider your deletions. (Especially when there is a request for expansion, as was the case here.) It was definitely bold to remove this material, but because of these concerns I have reverted it back to its original form. Please feel free to look for consensus for removal while adhering to the BRD model. Thanks. 67.58.153.46 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Please don't go round the bend with this. It is WP:UNDUE and has been legitimately removed on several occasions and will be again. Please use the talk page to justify your rationale. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Please AGF. 67.58.153.46 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Please use the article talk page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I did already. Thanks. 67.58.153.46 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Please don't post here anymore.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I was responding to you. What is the problem? 67.58.153.46 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please collapse this thread "The deleting of others work." I used the "hat" but it collapses everything that gets posted afterwards. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, but why?  ℳono  01:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Question: where do you find these things on Wikipedia?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly from trial and error or memory. However, there are quite a few at Wikipedia:Template messages that can be used.  ℳono  01:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mono, I appreciate it.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

IP-trolling removed.TMCk (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Danke, mein Freund. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

help

Where on Wikipedia can I find instructions for collapsing threads, etc. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See above.  ℳono  01:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Long time no see...

Nice to see you around again after I thought you where gone for good when I didn't see you on my watch-list for quite some time. Guess you write less and are busy with your family and other private business. Anyhow, I'm still not very talkative (most of the time) so consider this post some kind of "honor".  :) Wish you the best, TMCk (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

XD, thank you for the honor. We were away for several weeks. Lots of things happening all at once with family and job. I did enjoy the break. I've missed talking with you. Glad to see MoMK got an extended protection. What's new with you?Malke 2010 (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The last thing I knew was that you where on vacation and hope you enjoyed it and glad to hear that you at least enjoyed your wiki-break. The MoMK article will be a "hot-spot" at least till the final verdict is spelled and with the appeal upcoming it would be wise and a good decision to keep it protected. What's new with me? Don't ask so I don't have to lie to you ;)

Take care, TMCk (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ich werde nicht fragen. XD. Bezüglich MoMK ändern sich Dinge in die Welt, aber sie ändern sich auf Wikipedia nicht. Derselbe Schriftsteller, der jetzt weg ist, scheint zurück wieder mit einem neuen Namen zu sein. Hope I got that right. I didn't read a German book or listen to a Pimsleur German CD in the last six weeks.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mmh, no, don't think that's the case and problem (obgleich auch eine gewisse Verbindung nicht zu verleugnen ist aber das geht zusehr in Speculationen die nicht zu beweisen sind und auch besser nicht auf Wiki diskutiert werden sollten.)

Best, TMCk (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ich stimme zu. Wir sollten nicht auf Wiki besprechen. Ich denke wirklich, dass es eine Beziehung zwischen ihnen gibt. Aber ich denke nicht, dass sie dieselbe Person sind. Best, Malke 2010 (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Richtig. So the best is to let it run it's course.TMCk (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Power of prayer

You are hereby asked to answer the questions one by one regarding your tags. Answer teh first question on the talk page please. And ONLY the first question because the accusations you have made are all mixed up and I want to address them ONE by ONE. So answer the first question now please. History2007 (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please keep all discussion to the article talk page. Please do not post on my talk page. In this way, all editors will be able to view all discussion. Thanks. Also, bear in mind, this discussion is not confined to you. The tags are in place per Wikipedia policy in order to alert other editors. There is no time limit on Wikipedia.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Disruptive editing?

I am not ready to issue a warning to you regarding WP:Disruptive editing, but once you place tags, you must respond to questions about them, and justify them, to positively participat in article improvements. Hence, please read the talk page there and answer questions regarding your tags, "one by one" in an orderly manner, else a warning will have to be issued. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have posted my legitimate concerns regarding this article on the article talk page. Please confine all discussion to the article talk page. If you have concerns regarding my editing, then you are free to take such concerns to the appropriate noticeboards. Otherwise, please review the article talk page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I will reserve the right to post to notice boards, in time. History2007 (talk)

Username shortening

Please don't argue about reasonable shortening of usernames -- if I had a nickel for every time I was called "Sarek" or "SoV" here, I'd be living comfortably. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sarek, Oh, I don't mind it, he's being rude in his characterization that I was 'butchering' the article. You might go look at the incivility on the talk page Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer, as well as multiple other pages where this user happens to edit. And right now he's edit warring over on Catholic devotions.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUND warning

Malke, you seem to be WP:WIKIHOUNDing me, changing items on pages I edit, removing references I have added, e.g. the reference and image removed from Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) shortly after I added the reference to the image. These edits seem to be asking for an edit war, and that is not my favorite activity. Please avoid an edit war. We are already debating on 3 pages, do not let it spill over to others. I had warned about this before. Please read WP:CALM and stop activities that may seem like WIKIHOUNDING. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop following me.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide examples of where I have followed you. I do not follow your logic. Please provide examples. On every article edited by both of us, I have many, many more edits than anyone else. Please see the edit histories of:

• Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) [20],

• Catholic devotions [21],

• Blessed Virgin Mary [22],

• Holy Face of Jesus [23]

• Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer [24]

and see who has more edits to those pages than any one else. It is clear that "all pages we have interacted on" have two thing in common:

1. I have many, many more edits on them than anyone else.

2. You have claimed WP:OR in all cases shortly after your arrival.

I watch those pages all the time, protecting against vandals, etc. as the edit histories show. And on pages such as the project Catholicism page, I had edits before and I watch that page routinely. You edited Blessed Virgin Mary and Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) for the "very first time today", and on Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) deleted a reference I had added a few minutes before. I have not been following you. And I had issued a WP:WIKIHOUND warning to you before. In fact, as i am sure you recall, "your mentor" Moonriddengirl specifically advised you to stop following me about 2 months ago. You stopped then, but now seem to have restarted. I suggest that you continue to follow the advice of your mentor. I have not been following you. It seems the other way around. History2007 (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been following me all day. You've even turned up on WikiProject Catholicism. Any admin can see that every time I made an edit, or I made a talk page post, you came right behind me and reverted the edit, and made a talk page post.

I don't see any diffs to support your claims, either about wikihounding or about Moonriddengirl's conversations.

It appears to me that this wikihounding claim is a red herring to divert attention from your desire to control the articles in question. It's unreasonable to think that you can have sole discretion over the edits there as these are articles of high interest to Catholics.

If you believe you are being wikihounded, then go to the appropriate noticeboard, or in the alternative, find an admin who is still active at this hour and ask him about it. Sometimes EdJohnston is still around now.

In the meantime, please stop following me to these articles and reverting my good faith and well documented edits, and please stop harassing me on my talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I will ask Moonridden girl about her advice to you. But you did not deny that she advised you to stop following me, just asked for a diff. Do you deny that she advised you to stop following me? And we can add:

• Roman Catholic Mariology [25]

again an article I have edited more than anyone else, to the list of items above above, where you removed a large amount of referenced text and called it "rmv" - while there was no vandalism at all. I restored the referenced text there by WP:BRD. Please stop WP:disruptive editing. History2007 (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion about you here. [26].Malke 2010 (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose RfC on History2007

If you start an RfC on this user, I will certify it. I'm fed up with this behavior. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never done one. How do we do that?Malke 2010 (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I just thought of something. I've an AN/I thread going now. Wouldn't starting an RfC/User right now be like forum shopping?Malke 2010 (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is the easy part. The hard part is that you have to be able to show, with diffs, that a real problem exists, that you tried to resolve it with the user in good faith, and that the behavior did not change. Once you have all that, creating the RfC is easy, because you can use a template to do it. I don't know where you got the idea that it's forum shopping, but very often, ANI reports are closed as "start an RfC". I'm saving you time, as that will be the outcome. In other words, you will be asked to file an RfC, or you will be told to drop your complaint. Sorry, I thought you knew this. Viriditas (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea it would be closed. Why would they say to drop the complaint? Also, yes there are lots of diffs to show that, as well as multiple outbursts that just made me cringe. I can see where editors would give up and stop editing these articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of a literal close. I'm saying that the outcome at the end of the discussion will be "start an RfC". Just trying to save you time. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment on users for more info. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I've been watching you over at the AfD, and I think you are approaching this wrong. It is generally bad form to respond to every vote on an AfD, and the less you say the better. I've made the same mistake as you, so I'm speaking from experience. All of the things you are bringing up on the AfD should be brought up separately on specific noticeboards, such as RS, NOR, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never done nominated an article. Live and learn.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Malke, please retract this immediately. There is no way to interpret that other than your deliberate notification of a contributor you expect to support you. This user has no involvement in that conversation, and his conflict with History2007 in another is clearly prejudicial. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, but I've seen admins do this. I thought that when an AN/I was active it was okay, but not in content disputes. Good to know. Also, while you're here, you might want to look at compare these two:[27][28]. He lifted it entirely from this source.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. It is fine to notify contributors who are directly involved, but not to bring in others who have had disputes with the subject. The Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain. Verbatim content should be fully attributed, if it is not, but it is not a copyright concern and is unrelated to this matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The website has a copyright notice at the bottom.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

They can put up all the copyright notices that they like, but they cannot copyright content that was first published in 1911. See Wikipedia:Public domain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I don't know why Twinkle won't let me post the notification, but in any case, I have blocked you for 24 hours for your continued wikihounding of History2007, as shown here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not wikihounding. I've brought copyvio issues to MRG before. This is something I was going to ask her about last night but she was off. She had a headache. I left a message on her talk page. It's got nothing to do with that. And I think you've been watching these exchanges across several pages waiting for a chance to block me. It would have been better if you had discussed your concerns here, or in the alternative, discussed it with MRG first. I believe that is part of the conditions agreed to previously. That a discussion with MRG would come first. Please unblock me. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The diff you've provided shows something different than what you posted on MRG's page.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't follow the reason you've been blocked for (only roughly) but it seems the block was valid. Even so SarekOfVulcan could've waited for a response from Moonriddengirl he was under no obligation to do so plus waiting too long would have rendered any blocking as moot (as being not preventively anymore but punitive). Nonetheless, editors are sometimes blocked even if they meant good but made a honest mistake or two and since you're "free" again very shortly I'd say let go, cheer up and enjoy editing. Just look at the smiley one placed for you below :) . Best, TMCk (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hallo mein Freund. Vielen Dank für Ihre Unterstützung. Der Betroffene hätte jede Entschuldigung verwendet, das zu tun. Es ist egal. Die anderen sehen es auch. Hope you are well, :D Malke 2010 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Moonriddengirl, I just noticed your post on our page, but I can't reply there. Is there a way to unblock that page? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea about the rmv versus rm. It's an abbreviation, and if anybody is accusing me of making that kind of comment they should be ashamed of themselves. Please note I usually write, "rmv WP:OR, etc. I give the wiki reason.

One thing to keep in mind about the Catholic articles, is that the pages eventually all link together so most of the time when I follow the links, I have no idea who has been editing there. Many times the only reference is a link to another wiki page, which I later discovered is being put in by History2007. Going back to another wiki page doesn't seem like a reliable source to me, but who has time to fix all of that? And of course, the content forks he's created over on the Virgin Mary pages, all link together.

Incidentally, when I found the Raccolta page I immediately recognized the text as being essentially identical to the text on New Advent, so I saved the links. I was going to put a copyright tag on it last night, but then I saw who it was, what a shock, which is why I was bringing it to you. I really thought it was a copyvio.

I think the situation could have been handled by you, and I think Sarek could have waited given the mentorship, which seems to be going well. Machts nichts. Not an expert, just my opinion.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. I'm several hours behind in responding to this. Sorry. I'm afraid that your subpages can't be unblocked, but we'll be back in action in a few hours and can discuss in more detail any points you'd like. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Sorry to hear you were blocked. Make a list of problems on a user subpage and address each of them, one at a time. Try to deal with each problem in terms of the encyclopedia (copyright, RS, OR, BLP, etc.) rather than as a dispute with an editor. You will get much more done this way, and the onus will be on History2007 to explain why he isn't helping. This is the way to proceed. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Where have you encountered this problem before?Malke 2010 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny, you should ask! :) While doing deep history changes patrol (where you look into the history of edits on a given topic to hunt down the origin of a problem), I found some issues with redirects from a user named Clinkophonist. When I brought this problem up on WikiProject Christianity for discussion, I discovered the following:

I was doing some research on Christianity today, only to find that all of the information I was looking for was no longer available and was redirected by someone named User:Clinkophonist in 2006. That's a huge surprise to me, since the redirects did not contain the information that was in the original articles. I was going to contact Clinkophonist and ask what was going on, but the user hasn't been active since March. In my opinion, most of these so-called "merges" (actually redirects with no merge) were poorly conceived and should be reverted. For only one of many examples, I went looking for information about the phrase "fishers of men". There was once an article about it called Matthew 4:19, but Clinkophonist merged this information into Twelve Apostles (now called Apostle (Christian))in April 2006,[3] but that content is no longer on Wikipedia. So to start with, could someone tell me why all the articles on biblical passages have disappeared? Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

During the course of that original discussion at 04:10, 25 December, I discovered that a user named History2007 had previously duplicated articles on a single topic and forked out content he didn't like against the wishes of other editors. See this thread:

I've asked History2007 if we need two different articles on Miraculous draught of fishes ‎and Miraculous catch of 153 fish, with no response. Both articles are largely unreferenced with only links to primary sources. I can understand the argument for keeping separate miracles on different pages, but can someone look at both articles and decide what to do? There is, after all, significant overlap and a lack of citations. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

History2007, along with someone named Carlaude, did everything in their power to ignore the problem and try to shut me up. At one point, Carlaude even closed and archived the discussion. Not giving up, I pursued the matter as an article RfC, and they were eventually forced to concede the problem and merge the pages, however, they still refuse to fix the POV forking. Although I could quite honestly care less about this topic, their disruptive behavior was truly intolerable, and if you and I have the same experience, you can imagine how many others share it as well. That's why I offered to certify a user RfC. I know what you've been going through. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, as St. Ralph would say, "Good Christ." I have had this exact experience. It was quite a learning experience for me. That article too, got merged, deleted.

After that, I started looking at the WikiProject Catholicism and looked at the Angelus, and started following links and came to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and then I couldn't believe there was also a Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). Plus, there's a Mary, mother of Jesus, etc. And then there's the Blessed Virgin Mary, (this is the official Christian version.)

Then I found this link to Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. It actually has nothing to do with Catholic beliefs. But the Wiki problem is that it's loaded with fake citations, whole blocks of text without any source whatsoever, and where there are sources they are only links to Google books with trivia, etc. So I tagged it in July, left the talk page note, thinking he'd make some effort to fix it. I went on vacation, came back, he's removed the tags, but he's changed nothing. So I put the tags back, and started editing the thing. I gave him all that time to fix the thing, he never touched it until I started editing it.

I can see on the one hand, that he writes these articles, (sure he's got an anti-Catholic POV,) and he wants to protect them, but they aren't even close to being Wiki correct on citations, neutral pov, reliable sources. They're made up out of whole cloth.

I think other editors see this too, but what happens in the end with them is that, he becomes so confrontational and refuses to engage in editing compromises, and persistently reverts good faith edits, that people get discouraged and rather than waste more time, just leave.

An RfC/U won't work unless all those editors who've been through this are able to see it and come back to comment. And even then, who knows?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's take small steps. First, you may want to consider stepping away from this dispute for at least a week. Work on other things, occupy your mind with something you enjoy, that brings you peace of mind. Then, come back to this in a week, collect your thoughts, and write about the problem as best you can in your user space. At that point, you can invite other users to comment, and if there's enough momentum, we can move a working draft(s) into a user RfC, or perhaps a noticeboard report focusing on content. I'm thinking we can even split this up into three areas: user (behavior), article (issues) and project (consensus). The best thing you can do is approach this with a clear mind, from a centered place of equanimity. Just remember, when your block does expire, do not return directly to this topic. Administrators look for that kind of thing, and will block you on sight. Stay away for a while and work on other things. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the outcome for something like that? Who evaluates these things?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking, but you can read Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block. Your block log says "Personal attacks or harassment: wikistalking". Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

XD, no, I mean what is the outcome for these RfC/U's. Is there some kind of resolution so that the behavior is checked and the editor promises to get on with other editors and not write articles that say the earth is flat, that sort of thing?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I understand your question. It's a forest for the trees kind of thing. A RfC/U is one step in a larger Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Don't get hung up on the outcome. Just worry about what you want to see change in terms of the user behavior and the problems in the articles. Taking this a step further, it will also help to look at your own behavior and edits and to determine if you could have done something differently. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would only be interested if the outcome would be that the content forks could be stopped. That seems like a process for AfD as the wikipolicy on this is clear.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood. So am I to understand that you will not be pursuing the ANI matter or concerns with user behavior? That's fine, but remember to keep yourself above reproach. If the last AfD didn't work for you, you should ask what went wrong. Viriditas (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the ANI thread or the AFD(s?) which I didn't follow or even take a look at but would like to give some general technical advise about AFD's.

If an AFD didn't work in your favor one way or another you can either accept the outcome by consensus or if you think you have a reasonable case that the AFD had some flaws influencing the outcome you can place a request for review at WP:DRV. Only make such request if you're certain to have a good case. Otherwise it might weaken your reasoning at a future AFD about the same topic. Hope that helps, TMCk (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going to answer both of you in the same post:

Viriditas, I think the RfC/U is a good idea, as I now understand its just the beginning in a long process, so I'd say, yes, that is worth pursuing because it can benefit everybody all around.

TMCk: This is the only AfD I've ever done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer. I don't think it's closed off yet. My primary reason is that it really does not enjoy any notability. There have been no papal decrees regarding this, etc. Also, the article has citations that don't support the content. And it's original research. As this is my first one, I don't know if my presentation was correct. If you don't mind, either of you, taking a look and letting me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to nominate a few other articles. I'll have to ask Moonriddengirl about that as I don't want the bit about hounding repeating itself.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Note

You've got mail.TMCk (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

...and read.TMCk (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Now to something totally different: Bummer that you're blocked again after providing a "smoking gun" link at MoMK.TMCk (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again for the dog

You are blocked again for continuing to WP:Hound user History2007 (talk · contribs) immediately after release of the previous block for the same issue. There is no way you're going to convince anyone that you arrived to edit Padre Pio of Pietrelcina on a random walk. It is clear you are continuing to follow his edits and that is highly disruptive. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010, what part of "when your block does expire, do not return directly to this topic. Administrators look for that kind of thing, and will block you on sight. Stay away for a while and work on other things" didn't make sense? As for the page move, you should have proposed it on talk first, and then waited for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Todd, I have not gone to the Blessed Virgin Mary pages. Padre Pio has nothing to do with those pages. I was doing a search today on Padre Pio and noticed the Wiki page. I looked at the talk page, there was a suggestion made higher up in the thread, I agreed and moved the page. I left a note on the talk page. Also, if you notice I did the same the other day on the Newman Centers. I don't understand what History2007 has to do with this.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching your page, trying to keep an eye on you from afar. All I can say at this point is stop. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, as I mentioned before you were doing very well earlier this summer. I was very pleased with your progress with MRG.

However, your recent denouement with History2007 is not at all good. Given the very low number of articles s/he has edited in the past few days, for you to arrive on that article without any previous involvement leaves no doubt as to what you were up to. I would love to AGF here but frankly that would be patently naive. Given the number of blocks for NPA and harassment you have in you history, and that you're already under mentorship as a condition of a previous unblock, I'm afraid there aren't too many options here. Toddst1 (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've explained to the best of my ability in the unblock request.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

help please

{{help}} Could someone please put up the unblock template for me? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just place {{unblock|your reason here}}.TMCk (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether your were hounding History2007 or not (I think it's possible you weren't, that you just happened to edit an article with his name in the history, as he has edited many articles in your topic of interest) you need to come up with a reason that admins will unblock you for in the first place. You should take my original suggestion to heart, namely, promise to take a break from History2007-related topics and work on something else. Say you are sorry for causing any problems and make an effort to bring an article to GA or above, preferably something not involving History2007. I wish you had listened to my original suggestion. You have to understand, you could be completely innocent of these allegations, but to the admins, it looks like you are hounding. That's why I asked you to avoid this topic when you returned, to avoid this mistaken perception. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I too was thinking the same and hope you can manage to do so for a while.TMCk (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not edit any of the articles in contention. All of them are Marian articles. Padre Pio has nothing to do with that. History2007 has not lodged any complaint and has only reverted vandalism on Padre Pio's page. It's not reasonable to expect that I can't edit any Catholic articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

block/unblock request

{{unblock|Hello, I moved the Padre Pio page and have been blocked for it, as this is seen as somehow wikihounding History2007.

The claim that I was wikihounding and the block apparently, is based on The Raccolta because I notified Moonriddengirl I thought it was a copyvio. Padre Pio has nothing to do with this issue, nor does he have anything to do with the Marian articles including Mariology and Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) where both History2007 and I have had issues.

I did not edit there today and I've not planned to do in the near future. I am not aware that I am not allowed to edit Catholic articles. I did not see any editing by History2007, certainly none regarding any discussion about the name of the saint, nor any recent posts on the talk page.

I moved the page to Padre Pio of Pietrelcina because this is how he is best known to Catholics and others around the world. I did the very same thing for the Newman Centers the other day.

On Padre Pio, I first checked the talk page and noted there was already an old discussion about his name being changed and I agreed. I did a Google check just to be sure, and the figures were there, so I moved the page. I am baffled as to how this relates in any way to History2007. There's been absolutely nothing between us regarding this article.

I don't know how many articles History2007 has edited, but I know enough to avoid the Marian issues. That is the topic I believed I was suppose to avoid. I'm a member of Wikiproject Catholicism. If I'm forced to avoid all Catholic articles, on the off chance that History2007 has been there, it seems like some sort of defacto topic ban.

I don't note any complaint by History2007, I've never had any discussion with him regarding the topic, nor any discussion regarding any saints. I don't believe the page move was disruptive, in fact, I believe I have well documented it as I said above.

I think this block is just a misunderstanding. I did not get to the Padre Pio page through links, etc. I've known about Padre Pio since I was in the 3rd grade.

As regards the claim that History2007 "Just edited there," I've just checked the edit history and History2007 has only reverted vandalism there. He's not an active contributor, he's not active on the talk page, there's no complaint lodged against me by him, etc. Thanks.}}Malke 2010 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is going on? My experience with you is that you have been a calming influence in controversy. This has to be misguided. How can I help? Eastcote (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, God, yes please help me. I have no idea what is going on here and I can't find Moonriddengirl, I'm upset I can barely type. Please go and find her. Also, if you can show anything that lets other admins know I am not a bad editor, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. So where do I go to be a "Charactor witness"? My experience with you, and you recall when, was that you helped myself and a "misguided" editor to calm down and speak rationally. What happened to "assume good faith"? Eastcote (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Perhaps go to the bottom thread and post there so the unblocking admin can read it. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Note from blocking admin

The block has nothing to do with The Raccolta. I saw the thread Malke brought to ANI and noticed she had been blocked for hounding and that the block had expired. I took a quick look at what she was editing after unblocking and came right upon Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, one of the few articles edited in the past few days by the object of Malke's hounding. If any modification of this block occurs (which I do not recommend), I would suggest extreme editing restrictions as this user is already subject to mandatory mentoring as a condition of a previous NPA/hounding issue and numerous similar blocks. (see my note above) Toddst1 (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not see any editing by History2007. I am not a bad editor, and I would appreciate it Todd if you would withdraw these comments as I don't believe I deserve this. I think you have a misunderstanding here and if you would step back for a moment you would recognize it. There is no condition that says I can't edit Catholic articles. Commonsense says to avoid the articles where there's been an issue with History2007.

I see nothing from History2007 claiming any wikihounding. This seems to have been assumed by you in an honest mistake.

My understanding from the post by SarekOfVulcan, was this his block was based on the Raccolta. In any event, the only articles in contention were the Marian articles I have already named. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at the history on Padre Pio and History2007 has only reverted vandalism recently. He's not added content, he didn't name this page, etc. He's got nothing to do with this page. It's not like he named the page and I came along and reverted him, etc., that would be construed as Wikihounding, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been a party to anything that has gone before in this situation, biut I would like to chime in here as a "Character witness", and plead for leniency in this block. Malke was a very calming influence in a couple of contentious situations I encountered in the past with other editors. When I was ready to throw in the towell in the face of irrational argument, she drew me back to the table. When I became a little overbeariung, she restrained me. I have only ever known her to deal in good faith, and I believe that whatever this situation is, she IS dealing in good faith. Eastcote (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

History2007 edit history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/History2007

• I do not see any recent content contributions to Padre Pio.
• I do not see any narrow editing history that confines History2007 to Padre Pio.
• His only current edits seem to be to revert vandalism.
• He's no where to be found on the article talk page,
• He is not now, nor has he ever been, a regular contributor to Padre Pio.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

help requested

{{adminhelp}} Please will someone review my unblock?Malke 2010 (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your request is already visible at CAT:RFU. Additional help requests are unnecessary.  Sandstein  06:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the block, I disagree with it. While there are real concerns about Malke 2010's previous behavior towards History2007, I do not see how the edit at issue - moving the Padre Pio of Pietrelcina article - constitutes hounding or other disruption. The move is not a revert of History2007 and does not seem to have been opposed by History2007. I recommend lifting the block. Since I do not like to lift blocks without the consent of the blocking admin, though, I'll leave this comment here for other block reviewers to consider. Malke 2010, it might be best for you not to clutter up your talk page with more unnecessary comments or sections.  Sandstein  07:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Malke was unblocked earlier and allowed to edit only through mentorship given by User:Moonriddengirl, I think waiting for input from Moonriddengirl on this block would be the must helpful thing to do. I also think that following her input, an unblock might be both helpful and likely. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not very comfortable with this block. Sure, the move wasn't correct per the MOS, but it's a questionable call whether Malke editing a fairly high-visibility article is hounding. Yes, there are very real issues here, but all of History's edits to Padre Pio within the last three months have been use of the rollback button. I think a month was too long a block for what happened in this case. I'll contact MRG, since no one seems to have. Courcelles 09:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock, but with clarification While I understand Todd's concern, since my first thought on reviewing this matter this morning was some dismay that Malke's first article contribution was to an article which had last been edited by User:History2007 ([29]), I believe Todd's block is excessive. I don't think Malke should have edited that article, but I think she is innocent of ill-intent.
  
  That these two share an interest in Catholicism is obvious, or they wouldn't have come into contact to begin with. I don't think History 2007 can be construed as a heavy contributor to that page, certainly not recently, as his last three edits to it are [30], [31] and [32]. Malke's previous interactions with History 2007 have been problematic in that the two of them disagree fundamentally on article development, and she has been objecting to and altering a great amount of material he has authored (whether rightly or wrongly is immaterial at this point; the problem is the way she has gone about it). This does not seem to be at all in the same vein, as History2007 did not create or name this article and has not, that I can see, weighed in on its creation or naming. I do not believe there is any intention to hound here, and I think that a month long block is unlikely to be helpful. She has made great strides, though we've got more work to do. I would recommend that the block be lifted, but suggest also quite strongly to Malke that she may need to recall that I have some authority in guiding her actions, per her own agreement.
  
  Malke, if I suggest a three day interaction break, you don't need to look for consensus. You need to take a three day interaction break. And if I say, as I did at ANI that "I don't think admin intervention is appropriate at this point", you should not disregard that and open a new section calling for a block of the contributor. If you don't want my mentorship, let me know, and the community can determine whether you are now ready to go solo or if somebody else would better suit you. If you do want my mentorship, you need to remember that you agreed (see here) to edit only with my guidance. I do not expect (or want!) you to clear every action you take with me, but I do expect you not to act in opposition to what I am telling you. As I told you then, "My goal here is to help you interact with other contributors in a way that does not seem combative or closed to criticism." Although you've come a very long way, you have not yet achieved that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Per MRG and others, I have changed the block to expire in 4 days. Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl commented about a 3day personal interaction block not a five day block from the whole wikipedia, you should unblock now there is no danger to the wiki at all. I would also like to ask you to stop using your tools at all against Malke as you are very involved . 14:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

A four day block? For what? I see nothing in MRG's comments supporting this, and; quite frankly; no justification for it. There's still a pending unblock request, and I see no reason Malke shouldn't be unblocked now, not on Monday; though with the full knowledge that going anywhere near History2007 would be a bad idea. Courcelles 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misinterpreted what was said: 3 day break = unblock on day 4. Per this group of Malke's fans and my respected fellow admins I have unblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

help

Would someone be kind enough to stop the bot from archiving my page? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. See my edit, [33] for what to reverse if you ever want automatic archiving again. Courcelles 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you so much for your kind support here, but especially for understanding the situation. That means everything to me.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No problems, but please help yourself by winding it down a level and staying in a quiet corner wiki gnomish or some such relaxing pastime, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

XD, wiki gnomish,Malke 2010 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, can I give you a couple of jobs that need looking at? Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it's something I have some knowledge on.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Often I find it's the subjects that we think we have knowledge on that cause us to be overly involved and get us into the most disputes. You understand cites and content and it is good imo learning about things, anyways.... see below - Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Raju Narayana Swamy

Article was promo written and tagged with issues, connect user has been removing the templates, no discussion so is blocked. Subject is Indian political type, public servant, there are three citations, content needs trimming back to the actual noteworthy stuff and the citations require moving inline. Raju Narayana Swamy Basically, wikify and stubb back and format the citations, a worthwhile improvement to the project. - involved admin is User:SpacemanSpiff who I work with sometimes. Theres a couple of comments on his talkpage regarding the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• - This work to Raju Narayana Swamy has been  Done by User:Finemann - Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have more such useful contributions waiting for you if you are available. I suggest you leave such drama attractions as Tea parties and Meredith Kercher for the distant future. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Turkish Prime minister. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Subject is a Sunni muslim, he is in the cat but it is not supported in the content in the article. talkpage discussion and citaton here, needs adding to the body of the article somewhere related to his personal faith and perhaps to the info box as well. Additional cites, perhaps better arose in the RSN discussion here - Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look today.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, take your time, no hurry no worry, just please stop editing the drama articles for the time being. I have a few more articles waiting for improvements that are in need of a contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry my friend, I have a list of my own. I'll look into this today.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

nelson antonio denis

American politics? Nelson Denis - Ex new york congressman, presently standing in primary for 71 dsitrict, article was a fat COI user indef blocked and sock blocked and has been trimmed but still contains worthless cites, needs improving and the cites formating and the worthless ones removing. This is the recent campaign - http://www.manhattantimesnews.com/Election-Watch/the-candidates.html - Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aww thanks :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Aww welcome. You deserve it. You're a hard worker. :-) Malke 2010 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's nice to know. If you need any help with some MILHIST related article, don't be afraid to give me a call. I've probably got at least one source on it if it's fromt he past 200-500 years. All the best,--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I've been thinking of trying to bring Westland Lysander to GA. Maybe ask Wehwalt to copyedit. Feel free to help.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I can do what I can no it but my best airplane sources involve things like the ME-109.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Everybody has a favorite, I guess. This one is hard to find books, but another editor here helped me locate one at a London dealer. It should be here any day now. I've got all the information, just need the time to add and copyedit.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. See if Wehwalt can assist you.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin recall

Hi, another needed and interesting work that is waiting for contributions is the Admin recall guidelines. IMO the project would benefit from discussion of this through RFC and finding a position for consensus acceptance. I am looking for someone to create the RFC and format the questions and help clerk the thread as needed, also finding and providing links to all the previous related discussions . Would you be interested to help with that? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I think of the admin recalls. Don't. Do this instead:

• All admins get elected to two year terms. They would have to reapply and go through a reelection, just like a House of Rep guy. (Reps are good with voters; U.S. senators w/6 yr terms/not good at all.)
• Reelection is by the community based on a review of the admins' accomplishments during the two year term.
• Institute a 'block review,' that reverses inappropriate blocks with the edit summary indicating that it was a bad block and does not count in the overall block. And add an mark that shows that.
• Repeat blocks not allowed by same admin who is now 'involved.'
• Three strikes rule: three bad blocks and the admin gets the admin tools suspended and cannot run for reelection for another two years.

This would work. This puts the onus on the administrator to behave and does not put it on the community to police him. This is simple behavior modification. Admins with little oversight will act like it. Or, as the saying goes, 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

Make the admins accountable for their behavior and they will modify it. And editors who aren't willing to behave responsibly probably won't put up an RFA in the first place. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Some very interesting points there Malke, when I get the RFC formatted and off the ground I will add them for discussion. Thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would help with an RfC that proposes term limits, etc., but just a straight out recall, that will never succeed. At best it would be a drawn out bureaucratic mess. The fox can't be guarding the hen house.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we could open two or three threads covering and looking at levels of support for fixed terms and other main issues, there have been a few discussions as regards the issue, which need finding and linking to, such as limited terms and numbers for requiring some action, such as removal or requirement for initiating a RFA to see if the users still has support for continuing to use the authority tools. Other possible issues could be discussed also, like limited tool removal, if an Admin is having issues with blocking users and those blocks being overturned then he could have that part of his authority removed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be something that is clear and simple, and defined by the outcome you're seeking. What do you want at the end of the day? I think limit setting the use of these tools and clearly defining the circumstances for their use, and a clear and rapid remedy for abuse of them, is a good start.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Before you go too far down this road (says the admin standing by), do give Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Adminship a thorough read. Consensus can change, but it might be helpful to find out what has already been discussed and what supports/objections have been raised. (Rob, your "repeat blocks not allowed" has very recently been hashed out and rejected at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Get rid of "involved administrator" rule. Again, consensus can change, but it's a good read anyway. I myself am firmly opposed to that one for the reasons I've explained there.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I also suggested the "no repeat blocks" as well. I would add though, that this is one of those decisions that has to come down from the top, not the bottom up. My suggestion is to make up the suggestions in list form and post it on Jimbo Wales' page. Keep it simple with bullet points, no lengthy narrative. Just because he doesn't use the tools to block people doesn't mean his opinion doesn't count.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be posted to Jimmys talkpage, he has enough going on there regarding Pending protection trial. I think we need to take a few days looking at all the previous discussions and integrating those discussions as repeating discussions when there was recently little support is of little use. Then if we come to two or three ideas worthy of general community discussion we can open a RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the details Moonriddengirl. I'll have a read of those tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I might not have been clear. :) I oppose a rule against repeat blocks. In copyright work, I do them quite a lot, and I explained at that page why I think such a blanket rule is bad for the project.:) I agree with Rob that posting these suggestions on Jimbo's page would probably not be the best approach. (See Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo for why.) If you want to influence policy, you should do it through the usual channels. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We'd make an exception for you, MRG, as obviously, you're doing specific work that requires the exception. Also, it's obvious you've always been responsible and fair, like so many others.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I suspect there are a good many reasonable and fair admins. I don't disagree that we need a better method of addressing the ones who aren't. In fact, shortly after passing my adminship, I used to try to talk people into creating some kind of mentorship program where experienced admins help new ones. We learn on the fly, as it were, and we have very little direct guidance. It's a wonder more of us don't break the project. :/ (I have never deleted the main page, but on my first range block, I managed to hard block several hundred thousand people. Not a shining moment for me!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding this , admin breaks, as a requirement, admins should have breaks from being an authority figure, and occasionally edit as a simple user. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be problematic for Moonriddengirl. There's nobody who could take over all that copyright work. That's a huge part of Wikipedia and she's an expert. Also, I don't want to impede good admins in anyway. I think it's the ones who abuse the tools that should be the focus. That's why I say, three bad blocks and it's time for a time out. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. :) I might be inclined to cry out a joyous, "Yeehaw! I'm free!" and scurry back to writing articles, but I'm afraid that the backlog I'd return to might send me to permanent retirement. It took me weeks to get CP in order when I first got there, and we have (gulp) dozens of CCIs waiting attention. Get us a whole lot more, and then we can rotate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Aw Moon, burnout is an issue though ... as an answer to Malke's Q on my talk, they are just floating ideas and feedback. If you think there is enough to form a few questions then I will create a page for that so as to liberate your talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't I know it. This work has literally moved me to tears more than once. :P That plea for a whole lot more was serious. :D (OTOH, I still feel good about keeping CP under control, so I keep going....) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the community seem far too lax about picture copyright and there is still a lot of the idea that pics should be free even if there not, I remove more and more pics recently. Its a bit like try to hold back a tsunami. I would rather have you three weeks out of four than a burnout. Later I will create as page for any ongoing discussion so as to free up Malke's takpage of this. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

{User_talk:Off2riorob/Admin recall discussion feel free to open threads about any points worthy of discussion from here and to add questions, ideas or thoughts of your own. There is no hurry and I expect the discussion to slowly develop and refine. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. How do we let other editors know it is there?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am just having a discussion about moving it to project space, as regards notification I was thinking, slowly to leave a note on WP:AN and word of mouth and such like, lets see if it gets moved first. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• - ok,  Done its here User:Off2riorob/Admin recall discussion - moved from user talk to user. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at ThinkEnemies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imorthodox23 talk

Hello, I am an Orthodox Christian, I head that you're a Roman Catholic and here to talk about the article of Mary, mother of Jesus. I can understand that we are different types of Christians. I just want to ask: Would you agree, that in the article about Mary - should have both views, Catholic and Orthodox views. We must not disprove the truth. We must respect our own Christian views of Mary. Imorthodox23.

The Catholic view cannot be presented as a comparative view that criticizes the Catholic view. The article reads that way now. You can't make the claim that your view is superior and that the Catholics are somehow heretical (which is a common evangelical view). The views should not be criticized in any way. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. It's here to merely present the views.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Imorthodox23: But if a Catholic tries to delete the views of the Orthodox Christian, should he/she be blocked? Imorthodox23 (talk) 9:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. If you have content issues with another editor, start on the talk page and address him directly. The article has tags now so that other editors will see the article has problems.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Imorthodox23: Thank you, see you later!

Thank you Malke 2010, I am a new here so I will read the options first and than block people because I don't know all the options on Wikipedia. I do respect your views, god bless you! Imorthodox23 (talk) 9:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with the block thing.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Already responded :)

Hi, Malke. I had seen your note there and since you didn't leave me a TB figured you didn't need it. I already responded. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malke! FYI, I responded to you on my userpage. Thanks for your suggestion. NancyHeise ^talk 23:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Standard & Times

You said you read something in the Catholic Standard and Times so I was wondering if you could help on the CS&T article I started (it's a stub). Thanks and God bless! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 23:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

PS Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks!

image veneration

Hi Malke. I was just noticing that venerated images issue is, in out in out, please take care not to continue with that. I would suggest presenting some additional citations that support your position on the talkpage, also see where the general consensus lies about the issue. Cool. - I found this interesting commentary - http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp - Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, notice that I did not try to put it back and that I went to the talk page. Yes, I'll be posting the citations. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

MOMK

Hi Malke. I've been very busy in real life and haven't had time to make any contribution to Wikipedia for a few days. Let's hope that the unlocking of the article does not cause any problems but, at least, there are now several independent admins watching the page. No, I haven't heard anything from TMC-k recently, either. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

help please

{{help}}

Hi, I'd I started an article Catholic views on Mary but I forgot to use the article wizard, so I need help in creating the Table of Contents. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you know how to add captions to photos, I'd appreciate that, too. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two sections (one which is blank). There's no need for a TOC, which auto-appears if there are 3+ sections present. The Article Wizard makes no difference. If you want to force a TOC, add __TOC__ to make it appear with less than 3 sections, but it's pointless for your page.

Caption code: [[File:FileName.ext|Caption.]] /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was fast. I'm glad to know I didn't do something incorrect and that the ToC will show up on it's own. And thanks for the caption code.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

{{help}}

No, sorry, caption code didn't work for me.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Want it on this picture:

Immacolata Concezione by Luca Signorelli.

So, type [[File:Luca_signorelli,_immacolata_concezione,_cortona.jpg|300px|right|thumb|This is a caption.]]. The thumb param makes it a thumbnail, so the caption appears. Otherwise, it will still be there when you hover your mouse. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, Fetch, that's twice you've beaten me to it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, boys. Very gallant of you. Yes, I did put the caption in like that but it wouldn't show up for me. I must have left off something. After the "thumb" I put |And then: Luca_signorelli,_immacolata_concezione,_cortona, but it wouldn't show up. It had to have been something I did wrong. Wish I knew what so I won't do that again.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|This caption is a very capturing caption]] (obviously replacing as appropriate!) should do the trick unless there's some glitch I'm unaware of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I might have left off one of the ]] at the end. Thanks, HJ. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I suggest that you submit this article to DYK. It's long enough and it's a rather nice one. You could get this to GAN soon :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. That's a good idea. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi, Malke. I see you've started a new article. :) It looks like a good start, but, unfortunately, it has some copyright problems. Content on Wikipedia is not public domain, but is liberally licensed for reuse as long as the conditions are met, and one of those conditions is attribution. When you copy content from one article into another, as you did in Catholic views on Mary, you have to attribute that content to its source in the manner described in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'm afraid, you are violating the copyright of the people who wrote that text. For instance, "she is considered to be the spiritual mother to each member of the Body of Christ" was taken from Catholic Church. The only time you don't have to do this is when you were the sole author of that text at the other page; in this case, the text was present in the article before you registered ([34]). The page is too long for me to easily trace when it entered, but fortunately we don't have to. You just have to attribute the article. Please make sure that you go and attribute now any content you have copied from any other Wikipedia page. If you need help with the process, let me know.

Besides attribution issues, there is another problem with copying content from Wikipedia articles...and it was actually that which alerted me to the copying issue. :) If you look at your references, you'll see that the first two are to "Barry, p. 106." This confused me, since "Barry" is not listed under your Sources. You want to keep an eye out for that and make sure that when you do copy content, in addition to attributing, you carry over everything you need to make the content compliant with WP:V.

Good luck with its future development! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll fix that today. It was late when I started and I had to turn in for the night. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. :) The main problem is not an error in cites, it's that the article violates our copyright policy. You still have not given credit for content you've copied, so I'm afraid it's still a copyright problem. If you need help with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, please let me know. It's a relatively straightforward matter of noting sources in edit summaries and adding templates to talk pages if copying is extensive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you could help it would be great, thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

All right; is Catholic Church the only article from which you copied content? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I looked at Immaculate Conception and Assumption. I was trying to fill out the four dogmas.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So content from all three of those articles was copied? You don't need to attribute if you took information or even sources, only if you took (or closely followed) actual words. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually cut out content and rewrote some of it because it wasn't relevant in the new article.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What I need to know is specifically which articles have content that was pasted into the new article at any point. This is necessary for attribution. If you rewrote content, I don't need to know...unless you followed it closely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually wrote some of the content on Immaculate Conception and I've used that. The bits about not confusing Immaculate Conception with the Incarnation of Christ, etc. So I used that.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm being clear here. :) I need a list of articles from which you have copied if I'm going to help you fix the copyright problem. I'm not sure if you are telling me that you have copied content from Catholic Church, Immaculate Conception and Assumption or not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Let me add, in case you're confused on this point, that there's nothing wrong with using content from other articles; we just have to give proper credit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

(ec)Yes, I did . If it would be easier, I can rewrite it. Also, just so you know, a lot of the Catholic articles might also have copied content; not from me, but I've just noticed a lot of duplication. That's why I didn't think it was a problem. :/ Malke 2010 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem; it's just a rampant problem. :) Rewriting it won't help, because it's in the history, so what we need to do is just attribute. Were all three of these sources used for your foundational edit? If so, that'll be easiest for me, but if not I can still manage. I just need to figure out in which version of the article which content was used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

All righty. :) I'll go get that taken care of, and then you'll see how it's done for future use. It'll be easier then, though, because you can attribute in the edit where you incorporate the content. BRB. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yay!Malke 2010 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just checking: by Assumption do you actually mean Assumption of Mary? I don't want to make a mistake with this. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, yes, she's the only one to have done it.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not according Jewish apocrypha...but that's beside the point. Assumption is more by way of a disambig, and I have to be sure to credit the right article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

XD, she was the first/only woman!Malke 2010 (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, beside the point. When noting a source, we have to be specific. :) In any event, I have completed attribution. You can see what I've done in the edit summary of your new article and at the talk pages of all three articles. This should be done whenever you copy content from one article to another, unless you are the sole source of that content. That done, attribution is satisfied, and you may copy content as appropriate. If you forget how in the future, feel free to drop by my talk page when you want to copy, and I'll walk you through it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do, thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT issues

It seems to me, as stated in Talk:Catholic views on Mary that there is a breach of WP:POINT based on the discussions in Talk:Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Merge_proposal. Please repect WP:POINT and consider this a WP:POINT warning. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please clarify why you regard the creation of this article as disruption? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tag removal

1. Revert #1
2. Revert #2
3. Revert #3

You should not be edit warring over the removal of this tag. You know the 3RR rule, and you know that while it's a "bright line", it is not the only line. You should also not be the person to remove the tag in any event. It is an article you created, and you have an obvious interest in its outcome. I've reverted you pending review by an uninvolved administrator as to the appropriateness of the merge discussion. This isn't an emergency; you do not have to take action yourself. This isn't going on your mentorship subpage because it is in lieue of a 3RR warning. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood perfectly. Also, I saw your comments on the AfD, page, and I've commented on your talk page. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

|}

e-mail

I've sent you an e-mail that was long overdue ;) TMCk (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, danke. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Copied content

Hi, Malke. :) As long as the copied content is in the history of the articles, the tags should remain. That way, should older versions of the article be restored (as does sometimes happen), the attribution is still there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

How can this be resolved so that the content is not being advertised as something it's not? Other editors might be put off on such a thing, etc. and not want to edit. The content that is there now is not at all what was used to establish the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It really can't. If it were a copyright violation, we would selectively delete it, and then the new article would not contain the content, so there would be no risk of inadvertent restoration. In this case, it isn't a copyright violation, so there's no rationale for deletion. But there's no reason the copied tag should cause anybody any issues over editing the article; there's nothing wrong with copying content from one article to another on Wikipedia. Our content is created to be copied and modified. There are literally thousands of articles that have that template on their talk pages. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that articles are copied on Wikipedia, but I wanted to make sure that editors coming to the article to help rescue it understand it's no longer copied. Also, I misunderstood. I thought that once it was no longer in the article it didn't need to be on the talk page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hallo!

Just introducing myself. As you are aware, Moonriddengirl has asked me to co-mentor and I have accepted - and I understand that you are agreeable to my acting in that capacity (and thank you for your consideration). As I understand it, M will continue to be your first point of contact and I shall have a sort of review capacity as well as being available if you need a quick response and M is unavailable (I am on UK time, which is likely closer to yours than MRG). If there are any queries or comments about me you may have, please ask. Regards, Mark / LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, Sprechen Sie Deutsch? I'm on Southern California time. It's late there in the U.K. Yes, I'm happy you're here. I often have questions so I might just post them on your talk page or the mentor page whichever you prefer. Is that all right? Thanks again.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't speak the language but I can usually understand written conversational German - I had friends in Germany and thus also German friends, but they practiced their English with me, and it was very long ago! Questions about me is best on my talkpage, questions about my mentoring role on your mentorship page (so MSG can see and comment if necessary), questions within the mentorship on the mentorship page - but if you need an quick response and MSG is not available but I am just drop the {{tb}} template on my talkpage (I see you have that already setup between you and MSG - nice system). I trust that covers most eventualities. Hmmm... it is late. Work in the morning, so I shall soon be off to bed. Guten Nacht. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

vielen Dank.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Snottywong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at User:Malke 2010/Mentorship.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

how to search for pictures

There's a couple of ways you could go about it. The self-help way: [35], reverse image search. I ran it through, and it takes me to this page, which identifies it as Luca Signorelli, L’Immaculée de la promesse et des prophéties, 1521-1523, huile sur bois, 217 cm x 210 cm, Museo Diocesano, Cortone (Italie). And says they got it from us. :) Sure enough, we already have it on Commons as File:Luca signorelli, immacolata concezione, cortona.jpg. If that way had not worked, I would have recommended asking at WP:MCQ or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, where somebody could probably have identified it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

• Side note/input: I agree. Please let him respond to me as since that's what I expect. I've never had any contact with this user (History 2007) and it seems even that we agree up to a certain point. At the AFD page for example I agreed with him initially (w/o posting) to delete and later, after the article changed quite a bit, he started today) to agree with me and changed his "vote" to keep. Besides that, there are other instances where w/o his knowledge I agreed with him so let's AGF and let him respond to me like Mrg said.
  I know I shouldn't post here as this is an on-wiki "one on one" conversation so please feel free to remove or collapse this post after reading. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  Add on. I didn't add more details about the e-mail since they are private and nobody's business.TMCk (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and that right there is proof his claim is false. I think he's just desperate to stop this article as it seems he thinks his Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) will be merged into it. And some day it probably will be.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, since I have no business on this page anyways and don't want to extent this rather small issue to your talkpage, just one last word: Never forget about wp:AGF no matter how hard it might seem to be at times. Best, TMCk (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ja, Ja, XD. Btw, his translation is hilarious.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, he doesn't know why we use the small font. Bestens, Malke 2010 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it came from Google or other online/software translation but somehow I doubt they would be that bad and add on a random word or two. Still, I hope for a positive response from him and put it to rest. About the "small font", I use it a lot and am not the only one. It's very common when adding a less important comment. I guess most editors know that but no editor knows all.TMCk (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
But please let me sort it out with him and let's not go further into it here or at the AFD page. Ok? Thanks, TMCk (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
IMO, that would do more harm than good.TMCk (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It'll blow over You showed me how to use the small font and I told you what XD meant.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you did XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD "smile".TMCk (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is this legit use of the mentoring page, or can this discussion take place on a user talkpage? I don't know how MRG feels about strict compliance with the notice at page top, so I will leave it to you to decide. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It must be Halloween

==Reverts and article ownership== You've been making a lot of reverts in the past couple of days.[36][37][38][39][40] I see that you have made twice as many edits to Tea Party movement than the next two most prolific contributors combined.[41] These two facts raise the issue of article ownership. Please read the policy.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I'm only seeing one or two reverts. Do you have more diffs? Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC) It's always possible that I miscalculated - there's a reason I don't patrol 3RRs. My edit [42] Revert [43] My edit [44] Revert [45] My edit [46] Revert [47] My edit [48] Revert [49] My edit [50] Revert [51] Those all seem like reverts.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC) To clarify - I'm not making a 3RR complaint. This is a warning that the combination of reverts, general dominance of the article, and, also, dismissive talk page comments give an impression of ownership. There is a formal policy prohibiting ownership, and editors have been sanctioned by the ArbCom for it. I'm requesting that Malke 2010 familiarize herself with the content of WP:OWN and edit with full consideration of it. That's all.   Will Beback  talk  09:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Ok, thanks, I see what you mean. However, these are not straight reverts but fairly complex, and spread out over several days in many cases. Because Malke2010 is already involved in a mentorship, she needs to be really careful. I agree that the diffs show an ownership problem. If Malke isn't already on 1RR, she probably should be, for her own protection. I don't want to see her blocked again, and this doesn't look good. If I were Malke, I would take these types of articles off my watchlist completely and concentrate on creating and writing articles instead. Viriditas (talk)` I'm a regular editor to Tea Party movement and will continue to be. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC) That's fine, but keep in mind, if you continue editing like this, you will probably end up indefinitely blocked. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Please don't pile on. The mentorship is not a stick to be used in Willbeback's content dispute. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Pile on? I came here to defend you. Once I saw the evidence, and looked at it without prejudice, I offered my opinion. If you don't take the problematic articles off your watchlist, you can be quite sure that the community will make the decision for you. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC) What exactly do you believe the problem to be? Can you show with diffs?Malke 2010 (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Will Beback believes there is a problem. I responded, asking for evidence. He responded with good evidence showing reverts, dismissive use of the talk page, and ownership issues. The diffs for some of these issues are above. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC) You can make any accusation of a long time editor on any page, especially when that editor has called your edits into question. I'd say you should not take things out of context. Also, you might consider what his agenda might be, and to that end you might consider examining his edits over there and note that he's been systemically reverting stable edits and adding in inflammatory edits, etc. As for your comments, you might consider AGF first. It seems rather presumptious of you to decide on your own that I'm guilty of something, and then to suggest the probable punishment. My pattern of editing there does not in any way suggest an ownership problem, nor have I gone past 3RR, etc. In fact, I have been a mediator over there on several disputes. Perhaps you should look further back into the talk page history, as well as the edit history. Just yesterday, I went out of my way to get an admin to take a look at the edits being made on the page. Perhaps that is the real issue here, as the admin found all sorts of problems with Willbeback's edit. As I said, the mentorship is not a button marked "Resolved" when there is a content dispute. If there were issues as Willbeback claims, he could avail himself of the appropriate noticeboard. You might also take a look at the Know Nothing Party talk page, as he attempted to insert the Tea Party movement into that article but was rebuffed by the editors there. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC) :Regarding Will Beback's accusation of dismissive talk page comments, it appears to be supported in this thread. As for your comments above, it is generally not a good idea to address what you think is an agenda or what an editor is doing on another page until the problem under discussion has been solved. Many editors will look at this type of discourse as a distraction. Also, you said you contacted an admin who found problems with Will Beback's edits, but I looked at that discussion, and the admin actually agreed with Will Beback. There appears to be a disconnect here, Malke. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC) ::Actually, the admin, Balloonman, didn't agree with many points in Willbeback's edit, as he outlined in his meticulous assessement. You might also note that Balloonman looked over the discussion and took the time to note that it had been civil and appropriate. He took note of one comment I made in exasperation, and I addressed it. ::Your concerns in this matter seem to be out of proportion to the matter, and especially as you don't edit Tea Party movement. Also, you don't seem to have taken my suggestion to review the archives and the edit history which would show I've been an excellent contributor to that page. ::So I'm at a loss to understand why you're here right now. This is a content dispute Willbeback is upset about. He can't make a 3RR complaint, because none exists. Believe, there are 59 people following me around. Moonriddengirl looks at every single edit, and if she's not been the one to come here, nor LessHeard VanU, then that seems to suggest there's not a problem. That could be the disconnect you're talking about. ::Now, please I think it's best to end this discussion, as I don't know what's upset you, or why you seem to have an unusual interest in me, but it seems to me that further engagement here won't solve whatever it is. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC) :::I would comment that Viriditas is an experienced and well regarded editor, and it is the Wikipedia editing model that third parties may involve themselves in matters of their choosing in an effort to improve the encyclopedia. You have responded to V's view of the matter, and you may agree to differ or to continue the discussion, and that is fine. There is no basis by which any editor can determine that another editor may not involve themselves in any issue within WP outside of formal restrictions or other sanctions. Per AGF, Viriditas is trying to help. It is best to respond in a likewise manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC) ::::Thanks for taking a look at this. I am aware of the Wikipedia editing model. I've not suggested V not involve himself, only that I believe, and looking over it again, I'm certain, that it's becoming out of proportion.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC) :::::I haven't a clue what you are talking about, Malke, but I've taken this page off of my watchlist for good. Bye. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)}}

Misreading sources on Tea Party movement

I find myself in a number of threads with you in which you appear not be reading the same things I am. At this point, I find it difficult to continue those conversations, so I'm politely explaining myself here. 02:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dylan, thanks for moving and refactoring your comments. I appreciate that. Sorry if we're not connecting. I'm reading the New Yorker article where the Koch brothers are denying funding the tea party movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at User:Malke 2010/Mentorship.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

help please

{{help}}

Hello, is there a template I can use to organize my User page? It's a mess. Feel free to make edits there to clean things up if you're at all creative. Appreciate it. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I put everything into tables - feel free to have a look. You can use {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}} to group the user boxes. I'll leave the help me open, someone esle may have another suggestion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks! You can delete stuff too, I'm not attached to anything really. I do like the picture of the Chicago train station, and the user boxes.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to speak to the user Ronhjones (talk · contribs) directly on their talk page; however I don't see how improving your user page will help improve Wikipedia, so I'm cancelling the helpme (per WP:NOTMYSPACE).  Chzz  ►  21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Podstar
		Original Podstar, created by RexxS, awarded to Malke! Nice guy with cookies and puffing-up compliments! bishapod splash! 19:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC). [Discreetly helps himself to several cookies.]

Hey, thanks for that! I shall cherish it always. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement and "grass-roots"

Malke, as I'm sure you've noticed, the TPM article is very difficult to edit. It's controversial, and random people who are not part of any discussion tend to just swoop in with bad changes. You are not one of those people, of course, but your recent "bold" attempts to insert "grass-roots" into the lead without first gaining a consensus concern me. I'm asking you personally to avoid doing this. There's already enough churn that there's little point in making a change that doesn't have the support of the editors. It's much more effective to make your case first. Would you do that for us? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dylan, thanks for your comments. As you can see, I had already opened a thread on the talk page when I re-added the edit, and I just noted that you reverted that again and another editor has since reverted you. Adding 'grassroots' is not really a bold edit over on TPM. The edit is well sourced per policy and has been in the lede/lead many times before. It usually gets reverted by IP's. The grassroots nature of the TPM is already well documented in the body of the article, and as the lede/lead is meant to be a summary of the article, it is appropriate that it mention the grassroots nature of the beginnings of the movement. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fun with Wikipedia

This is actually an article on Wikipedia: [52]. And also notice that, with few exceptions, each item has its own article.

How do you get medals? Also, where in Ireland are you from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.205.8 (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Malke 2010, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

How do you get medals? Also, where in Ireland are you from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.205.8 (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot you were here after I moved things around. 1) don't know what medals you speak of, and 2) the best part of Ireland, Kilkenny. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Tag" section at TPM. Request for Expertise

Hi. I'm requesting your opinion and perhaps assistance with something on the TPM talk page because you're already a participant and because I like the way you've disagreed with me in the past. You're professional and knowledgeable about policy.

I'm concerned about this section, not because because it violates policy (I'd go to an Admin) but because it's disruptive to the mission of the page. Creating a section for the debate of certain tags invites the discussions about the tags' objects to migrate away from their own distinct sections and into that one. I'm also distressed because the tags should remain in the article for as long as their objects are contested and there isn't consensus. A section in which the participants decide to remove a certain tag from the article can subvert the consensus processes in which other editors are engaged in the corresponding discussion sections.

If you have time I'd appreciate if you would take a peek at it and let me know what you think. At this time I'm convinced it's bad business and prepared to stand against it, but there are already two editors holding trials over tags in the section. If you don't think it's that egregious then I won't spend all that energy against it. However, if you think it stinks and if you have the time, it'd be nice to have another voice there. I might ask one other editor for input also. Let me know. -Digiphi (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching the page and I thought opening a separate section to discuss all the tags was not at all helpful. There seems to be a problem with ownership right now. And the talk page discussions are being turned into circular arguments. It's time the other editors came together to discuss what needs to be done to restore neutrality to the article so that the tags can be removed and the article improved. Consensus can help to alleviate the stresses one or two editors can cause.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholly. That's a very good assessment of what's going on. I'm in the same conversation on my talk page and somewhat on the TPM discussion. The first order of business ought to be stopping the "Tags" section and its subsections. It drags the rest of the page into it. The problem is—and I'm guilty of this myself—being unable to resist jumping into the discussion now happening in that section, even though its dangerous to the page. There has to be a way out, or back, whatever. That section is bad business. -Digiphi (Talk) 18:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page post

Malke, I'm going to give you the opportunity to remove your false accusation of 3RR violation without further comment. I will not object if you delete the entire section. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in the fight over Malke deleting that post, but I can't help noticing this discussion going on. I'll submit that

1.) Dylan, perhaps you should address the accusations on the talk page where they appear, in the fashion of "this is not 3RR because..." and "my actions are acceptable because..." Know what I mean? Refute the accusations.

2.)Malke, perhaps Dylan's talk page is a better place to make that post. I think the way you posted it is usually seen either on user's talk pages or when editors bring the complaint to the noticeboards. I haven't seen an entire section made on a talk page about an editor's behavior very often. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, if you're going to get involved, it would be better if you first got up to speed. By the time I made the request above, I had already refuted the 3RR accusation. And, to be frank, I didn't actually have to do that. If he'd reported the alleged violation, any admin would have shot him down. I was doing him a courtesy by saving him the embarrassment and loss of credibility. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it Malke, you seem to have missed that some of the edits are in a block and so count only as one edit as far as 3RR goes. So there is left nothing close to a violation. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, nice to see you. I haven't made any false accusations. Another editor mentioned in an edit summary that Dylan Flaherty had violated 3RR, so I posted the edits. I know the block edits count as one. Dylan then refactored my talk page comments and he's here now claiming an accusation has been made. There's been no accusation made. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You repeated a false accusation made by Rubin, without bothering to see if it was true. You created a section labeled "3RR", listing supposed evidence of a 3RR violation. When I tried to rename it to, you edit-warred.

If you admit that there was no 3RR violation, then please remove the section so we can move on. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone here going to teach Malke how not to launch false 3RR accusations? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, Malke has never filed a 3RR report. The purpose of the mentorship is not to teach Malke how to do things on Wikipedia, but how to handle conflicts with others. At this point, I would prefer to see Malke respond to the notes above. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, he did not file a report, but instead made a false accusation on the article talk page. He has handled this conflict chiefly by edit-warring to keep a defamatory topic heading in place. Not good. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi MRG, Dylan Flaherty is continuing to revert/refactor my talk page edit. He seems to be edit warring over this.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object to a topic that claims there's a 3RR violation, when I've already demonstrated that no such violation occurred. However, what I'm editing is not your talk page, but the article discussion page.

The right move at this point is not to edit war over the topic but to retract the false accusation by removing the entire section. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Dylan, can you point us to this accusation that you are describing?....I can't even find it. Or, alternatively, we could just move on. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(added later) That just goes to the top of the article's talk page, and the text in the link points to a non-existent section.North8000 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that didn't work for you, but try looking at the section that the following edit is in: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement&action=historysubmit&diff=395412205&oldid=395411984 Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I figured it out. Malke edit-warred to change the topic, which broke the link. Sorry about that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are the one refactoring the diffs into accusations. I've not made any accusations. You're the one who is making something out of it. As I said, I posted it in response to Arthur Rubin's edit summary. There's no accusation. And continuing to refactor my comments is edit warring. You seem to believe that you enjoy some special privilege that frees you from respecting the comments of others. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The only refactoring I did was to sign it for you and then to add numbers so that I could address them line by line. Naturally, you've edit-warred to revert both. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep refactoring the section heading, you signed my name to it, to you've been numbering the diffs as if I'd done that to show a 3RR violation. You do not enjoy special privileges on Wikipedia. I don't know what you mean by "naturally you've edit-warred to revert both." I'm not edit warring when I restore my own comments that you've refactored into something that was never intended. Editors are not allowed to alter another editor's comments. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely did sign your name to your edit. Is that a problem? If I hadn't done it, a bot would have done it for me.

I also added numbers so that I could address your accusation, and I clearly took credit for that addition in the body of the text. Again, entirely reasonable.

I objected, and still object, to my edit links being placed under a "3RR" heading, and have tried repeatedly to qualify it, yet you have edit-warred over all of my changes.

This is not reasonable behavior on your part. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the refactoring to which Malke is referring. I agree. Changing the heading under which Malke impartially posted links to the edit history relevant to Arthur Rubin's 3RR claim from simply "3RR" to "Demonstrably False 3RR Accusation" is inappropriate. It would have been better to request its complete removal (which Dylan did in turn), address Arthur's accusations and the relevant edit history there on the page, or move the entire affair to his talk page. I still believe that it shouldn't be hashed out within the article discussion page, regardless of the merit of the accusations. -Digiphi (Talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did all of those. I requested its removal after I addressed the accusation, and then I took the conversation to his talk page. There is no merit to the accusation, but I'm glad you admit it was an accusation, not merely "impartially posted links". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't admit anything. I did clearly state that Malke added "impartially posted links" to the edit history relevant to Arthur Rubin's accusation. Those are the events that took place earlier today. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line

Malke, are you going to remove that "3RR" section? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

About what happened today

I was just thinking about what you went through today and I feel bad about it, for you, because I asked you to become involved in that discussion. That you ended up on the noticeboards is ridiculous, and it's important to me that you know (if you didn't) that it had nothing to do with your behavior, and everything to do with other editors. I noticed that throughout the affair—in the discussion section and during the noticeboard process—that you never fumbled civility, even when baited. What's more, your patience and cheerfulness were epic, where my posts would have been terse and livid. Your handling of the discussion and the scandal is an example for others to study and I'm very impressed. Therefore you deserve this PUA. -Digiphi (Talk) 04:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		In recognition of remarkable patience, civility and indomitable good cheer in a sad situation. Congratuations, You rock! -Digiphi Nov. 2010

Wow, Digiphi, that's very kind and most thoughtful of you. That just makes my day now.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, don't feel bad in any way. I'd been watching the talk page discussions and I was also concerned about the tags being made an issue instead of the edits they were meant to address. Thanks again for the barnstar. That was so thoughtful and sweet. :D Malke 2010 (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement

Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Hamtechperson 00:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no accusation, there never was an accusation. It's just a posting of diffs. Suggest you drop it. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that a no? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also Dylan, you're not allowed to sign for another editor. That's what the bot is for.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I take that, and your edit-warring, as a no. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. You're the one who has created this crisis. Please stop removing my talk page posts. You've done it before, with no explanation, and then a denial when called on it. You're the one creating the accusation against yourself. My posting of the diffs was meant to show the opposite. Arthur Rubin thought you'd violated 3RR. I posted the diffs to show otherwise. I don't know why you've become so exercised over it and refactored the post to make it appear as an accusation, and then edit warred each time I've attempted to restore my original post. You even signed my name to it after you refactored it.

I don't think you'll find any admins sympathetic to your behavior. As I said on the talk page, I will hat the discussion, but I won't allow you to refactor or remove my posts. You have to learn to respect others. If you'd come to my page and said it bothered you, and been open to discussion, that would be one thing. But your posts here are offensive. I'm not edit warring, yet you don't seem to miss a chance to claim that in every reply you make to editors here. The other editors don't see a problem.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's move on and have some fun turning this mess-of-an-article into a good one. North8000 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Let's. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

not helpful

I think this has gone too far already. If this was just one, two, or even three occurrences I could understand overlooking this behavior, but this is a continued pattern. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chhe (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Just wanted to state that I posted regarding this stuff at 3RR/edit warring page. I must have used the wrong template.Chhe (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC) [53].Malke 2010 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hamtechperson 18:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan: Please disengage

In order to put an end to the endless noticeboard reports and reinforce the advice that LHvU just gave you: please do disengage completely from Dylan, and do so right now. What this means is:

• If you talk to him,
• If you talk about him,
• If you ascribe motives to him,
• If you allude to him,
• If you respond to an argument he made with so much as beginning to qualify his edits,
• In short, if you do anything beyond merely discussing the substance of an argument, anything that can be construed by even the flimsiest reading as a comment about the person, you will be blocked for harassment.

The same warning will be posted to Dylan, and in the interest of putting an end to the waste of time your mutual disagreement has already imposed upon the community, I suggest you act, as of now, as if Dylan didn't exist at all. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, MLauba. You're the only one, other than Willbeback and Daedulus, who has attempted to do anything about this. I appreciate it and as I've never sought to engage, I have no problem with a policy of never engaging. It means I can enjoy editing again.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

While I'm uncomfortable to have to comment on a note you left on your mentorship page in relation to the above (here), as my attention has been drawn to this edit, I am obliged to point out that technically, the sentence near the end of the second paragraph beginning with "I am very grateful for the relief" can be seen in violation of the above instructions.

The whole thing is stale at present, and the other party has itself been granted the removal of one edit subsequent to the establishing of the mutual disengagement rules above. Nonetheless, the way you phrased that comment can be seen as an allusion to that other party, and I would appreciate if you could take yet another extra step to depersonalize such statements in the future, but also reformulate this specific one.

That being said, you need to be able to continue communicating about your own feelings and reactions with your mentors freely. Far from me from wanting to do some cheap bar-level psychology, but from a cursory reading, I'm under the impression that your mentorship is centered around your relation to conflictual situations on Wikipedia any way.

So perhaps that additional burden placed on you can also be a net positive in this context. If you state you are being harassed, you implicitly shift at least part of the problem to another party, and your mentors cannot intervene. If you do however express your feelings in reaction to a situation - eg. "It makes me feel as if I were being harassed", it is a statement centred on yourself - how you live the events you are describing. And in that specific space, your mentors can help you. You have little control on other people, but the one person you can control is yourself.

As long as you believe someone is harassing you, the only relief you can get is through external intervention. You can however work on a feeling of being harassed and your reaction to it, and gain control over that situation. And that concludes my 5-cents pysch minute for the day. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello M.Lauba, I apologize for not picking up sooner that you were asking me to reformulate something on the mentor page, I just saw the words 'in the future.' I've complied and hope that what is there now is all right with you. If not, please let me know. I do appreciate your taking the time to come here and comment and please don't feel uncomfortable in any way that you're making a comment about the mentor page. I understand your reasoning and have no problems with that. Thanks again. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Slave breeding in the United States

Hi Malke,

Thank you for volunteering to work on the article. I'm afraid I don't know very much about the subject; I mostly revert vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. As it turns out, I'd just finished reading Ira Berlin's, "Many Thousands Gone," and I happened to check to see what articles Wikipedia had. I found Slavery in the United States and on the article talk page I saw your note. Having read this book, I know where to find the sources to fix that article. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. I happened upon this article after reverting some nasty vandalism, and more eyes watching it can only be a good thing. That a pair of those eyes can help improve it is just that much better. Thanks. AniMate 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I did see in the history there'd been that vandalism. Glad you indef blocked that fellow. Thanks for doing that. I'm already working on an outline. I hope it'll be okay if I rewrite it. I was also checking online for some African American artwork that can be included in the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has remained largely unchanged since it was started in 2009. I think a rewrite is definitely in order. Thanks again. AniMate 20:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Late

It's been a working weekend. Sorry. I'm arranging my remarks at this time. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. RL takes precedence. Say Hi to the cat for me. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Hamtechperson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again... Hamtechperson 14:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

help please

{{help}} Could someone please transfer this barnstar [54] to my user page? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. Let's see what I can do. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. That's actually fairly easy to do. You edit the page and just copy the code beginning {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" to where it says Nov. 2010|} --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I tranferred it over and it had ++++ signs all over it. Also, I tried reverting the bot archive which I loathe but I keep, because I love you. If you can wave the magic wikiwand and make that all better as well, I'd appreciate it. Also, I'm guessing you've seen the mentor page. And did you see my comments to M.Lauba? They were here somewhere. And, these are for you: [55] ☺ 16:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Let's see what's up with the bot archive. I haven't reviewed much lately; I've got a busy work week and I've been tightly focused, but I'll make sure to check everything out. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is with the bot. :) It doesn't seem to have messed up. Are you just not wanting autoarchive anymore? If you would prefer to archive manually, that's fine, too, though archival is preferred to outright deletion. By the way, I notice that point 7 is a bit messed up on your welcome notice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot is fine, but I tried to revert the bot so I could retrieve the barnstar when I couldn't figure out what to do with the +++++++ all over it. So I maybe reverted a few things and now stuff is gone to the ether. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I couldn't quite figure out what the problem was with the bot. :) Hmm. Looking at the archive, you seem to have had a {{hat}} sitting around. Since {{hat}}s are the top part of code, if you don't put a {{hab}} under them, they just swallow all subsequent content. I presumed that it was meant to be a {{hab}} and changed it, but it looks like it was never closing off anything in particular. Now it's just a piece of stray code sitting on your page, but it isn't swallowing the rest of it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's not it. M.Lauba posted all that above and I said, "Yeah, okay thanks." And then later, I read it more carefully, and noticed he was asking for me to delete something from the mentor page. So I wrote him about that. I don't know where it went. It doesn't matter anymore. I'm really busy working on something at real life work, where when you make an edit it stays. XD Malke 2010 (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Found it and put it back.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and please keep up the outstanding work!! CTJF83 chat 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a lovely surprise. How nice of you! Much appreciated. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your mail

Got it, need to mull it over, but too busy these days. Mind if I discuss it with MRG? MLauba ^(Talk) 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. It would be most helpful all round. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Catholic views on Mary

Did a copyedit and enhanced the lead section. Please have a look :) –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 01:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. Make any corrections you can. I'm actually getting ready to add more content. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Please stop editing against consensus on Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and please follow WP:BRD guidelines. Once you have 3 other editors that oppose your views and say there is no WP:OR, and in the face of WP:BRD you should NOT have reverted me. Please undo your edit and please follow Wikipedia policies to avoid getting blocked for good. History2007 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC) There are not 3 editors opposing the edit I made that you immediately reverted without discussion. The original text was not supported by sources and had a synthetic blend that does not at all reflect actual Catholic practice. See the article talk page. I do want to assume good faith here, but coming to my talk page immediately with a "warning," as well as the tone and content of your talk page comments, suggests a claim of ownership, and that you are not at all open to improving the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Malke, please do not edit war. If you perform any further reverts against the consensus I will block you. If you feel that there is not enough reasoned discussion on the article talkpage, open a RfC or other method of dispute resolution. Now, I am just going to have a little word with History2007. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC) There is no consensus against the edit. The other editors were against my opinion that there is no such thing as 'consecration to Mary.' History2007 is using that discussion to claim "consensus" against the edit. The edit clarifies what the Vatican website and other sources are saying about the topic. The edit doesn't eliminate the section or the topic. It clarifies it. There is not article talk page consensus to remove the edit. It's a good edit, accurate and with reliable sources. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) You see?[56]. Scroll down to 'text corrected,' and you'll see only History2007 is complaining. There's nothing wrong with the edit, it clarified and simplified the section. Notice that History2007 didn't go to the article talk page to discuss the edit, he came here straight away to draw your attention.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Consensus, existing text has consensus - this consensus changes either when it is changed and those changes are accepted, or when consensus to change is found. Per WP:BRD, as noted by History2007, once a bold change is reverted then discussion must follow to establish where consensus lays - it is not permissible to say the existing consensus is correct, it needs to be shown to be correct and the proposed changes are not (as) policy compliant. If initial discussions are unable to resolve which text has consensus, then further types of dispute resolution should be attempted - and edit warring is not one of them. If you are convinced that your version is better supported, or as fully supported, than the previous text then you should have no qualms in putting forward the case. Nobody alerted me; as your co-mentor I have this page watchlisted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, exactly why he came here instead of the article talk page. And I did put forward my case under "Corrected text." And I do appreciate this: [57] being commented on: [58] 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Malke 2010 (talk) I have a very simple strategy in these instances, I warn and block any and everybody who is in violation of policy; I am an equal opportunities banhammer kind of sysop. You are aware, via the efforts of MRG, that edit warring is not an appropriate method of dispute resolution and History2007 is now aware of the required tone to be used in such discussions. I have no particular viewpoint or editor that I favour, since I am confident that use of the correct WP processes will result in a consensus on what is the best text for the article - and I will simply act to ensure that WP process is followed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC) That's exactly what I'm counting on. And if I had a million euros I'd give them to you. Talk page discussion already taking place. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I think "policy" suggests a revert of Malke per WP:BRD. That is clear. In order not to edit war, I will not revert it myself, but I think one of you guys should do that to follow policy. History2007 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I have undone Malke's last edit to the article. A policy compliant discussion upon where consensus lays can now proceed uninterrupted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks. It might be a good idea for him to follow your advice and refactor for those personal attacks. It would go a long way towards keeping the talk page civil.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

help

I nominated several articles for deletion and it seems someone was not happy with that and they have blanked an article I started, Catholic views on Mary and redirected it to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). Can you tell me how to undirect the article and restore the content? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you solved the problem yourself, so I am "Answering" to remove you from the list of people needing help. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I found the "who" and reverted them. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Hey, thank you very much for the barnstar! I really appreciate it! Let me know if you need help with anything... CTJF83 chat 02:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome, my friend. I'll be sure and call you if needed. In the meantime, may you have a Happy Thanksgiving. :)Malke 2010 (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You too, thank you! CTJF83 chat 02:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Malke and thank you very much for the barnstar. I have only made fleeting visits to Wikipedia in the last couple of weeks, owing to the pressures of real-life commitments, but it is always a pleasure to hear from you and particularly to work with you. A barnstar for "teamwork" is especially precious to me as this is so much at the heart of the project's ideals and is something that can easily be lost sight of when the going gets tough. Thanks again. Bluewave (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. My pleasure.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

help wanted

{{admin help}}

Hi there, I need help with a page move. I created the article Catholic views on Mary and added a redirect Catholic views on the Virgin Mary because that is the more common name for Catholics. In the meantime, somebody came along and blanked the page and redirected it to another page. I reverted that. But now the redirect has more than one line in the history so I can't move to it. It says, "The page already exits," etc. Can you help me with that? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like an uncontested move to me, so I would encourage you to post this request to WP:RM and notify the other editor who had redirected the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is uncontested. It was a bot not a user. I'll fix it. AniMate 07:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Done and the article has been moved as well. Next time you encounter something like that check the edit history as most bot edits are labeled as such. AniMate 07:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know it was a bot. Also, Animate, when you get time take a look at Slave breeding in the United States. I've been working on it.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on it. It looks much better, though it could definitely use some more inline citations. Still, the work you've done there is fantastic. AniMate 07:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't put citations in the lede because I didn't think it was supposed to have them there, but I can go back and fix that. I'm adding several sections. I've been looking over Slavery in the colonial United States and that needs a rewrite too.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)