User talk:Mkdw/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

I see you protected his bio. You might want to protect some other related pages as well. For example, Fast & Furious 7 is being vandalized repeatedly by ip's... - ^theWOLFchild 04:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done but only for 3 hours since it wasn't very severe. Mkdw^talk 05:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please reprotect F&F7, it's just a constant source of people making stuff up. "It's his last film" even though he has others in post production, "he will appear in a small role because he died" when we have no idea where or what is happening with filming. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mkdw^talk 17:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello mkdw, how can i make money on wikipedia..please do reply me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.80.227 (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You do not and please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Thank you. Mkdw^talk 17:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, the page was nominated for WP:CSD#A7. The primary author improperly removed the template shortly before I was going to remove it and replace it with AFD (it barely passes A7, and the primary author had already contested the PROD). I told him he shouldn't have done that (see his talk page) and sent the page to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Newcomers are always tricky especially when they're unfamiliar with the rules and policies of Wikipedia. All in all it seems like the system is working albeit a longer process than it might not have needed to be. It seems like that it will be speedily deleted under snow soon. Mkdw^talk 00:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This page still had the "AFD", I removed it, and removed the copyvio tag, as it was blocking whole page for weeks now. Have a look here too Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 December 16, it was only a BBC link, I replaced with other. Thanks, Bladesmulti (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed Cyberbot 1 had a false positive and restored the tag despite it being removed after the close. I reported it to Cyberpower678 as it appears to be a recurring problem today. Mkdw^talk 04:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, silly me! GiantSnowman 21:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally I'm done fighting for this article about a really unimportant figure in the greater universe of things. Years of subtle vandalism, POV editing, and dodgy AfD nominations actually make me cringe that there might be a cabal of sorts.

Yet, I shall register my disappointment about your close of the AfD. Nominated without considering WP:BEFORE, actually even dismissing it, of the 6 delete !votes 2 entirely unapplicable, 1 explicitly against policy, and 3 are mere handwaving of 'no notability' where the two keep !voters have demonstrated otherwise.--Pgallert (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you for your participation in the discussion and I am sorry you are disappointed in the outcome. As the closer, I had no "horse in the race" and followed WP:CONSENSUS in which I determined there was no outcome other than delete. I did note that several delete !votes were not specific but ultimately they are not disqualified from participating and some did bring up points such as the lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources and that contributing to a reliable source than being the subject of a reliable source was not appropriate to use in establishing notability. Saying someone fails a notability test is in fact saying they've failed to find any substantial information to support any policies for inclusion for a stand alone article. I would also like to point out that the keep rationales also verged on arguments to avoid as they were "per [this] and per [that]" (see WP:VAGUEWAVE). It was certainly a difficult close but ultimately even if some of the delete !votes were dismissed, the keep camp's rationale was not in the best practices of applying WP:GNG as no supporting evidence or reasoning was provided or that addressed the concerns of the legitimate delete rationales. If you feel the consensus was anything other than delete then you may take it to WP:DRV but I firmly believe my closure was correct. I would be curious to know from you how you would have closed the discussion as an uninvolved editor and your rationale of how you weighed rough consensus at DELGUIDE and did not supervote the closure. I am always curious to see how others would approach it as based upon your explanation above I would largely think it would go to DRV and be overturned. Mkdw^talk 19:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw, thanks for your detailed response. Having tried to keep this article encyclopedic for a few years I would certainly have not closed this AfD, but hypothetically, an 'ideal closer' would from my point of view have spotted the gross discrepancy between AfD4 and 5. Notability is not temporary, and Verifiability does not change too often, unless libraries burn down. I do indeed remember that the coverage was substantial in 2011, and I do think that this is a valid point of view, even if one of the participants mocks me for it. I also think that, as the article has not significantly changed since 2011 (IIRC one paragraph of questionable value has disappeared during that time), arguments from AfD4 have to be considered, completely and in good faith, even if they, too, now have dead links.

That the links in article and AfD4 are no longer active does not mean that it is no longer verifiable. It does mean, though, that it is a lot more difficult for the 'keep' side to make their point. I simply cannot remember anymore which of the refs bought me over to go 'keep'. But I do remember that I normally argue on the deletionist side, and that I would not have been satisfied by an agglutination of passing mentions in 2011.

I would thus have expected, as mentioned in my !vote, that something fishy from AfD4 is discovered---simply renominating it and hoping for another outcome, helped by the inevitable link rot, makes this AfD nomination sit on the edge of several regulations, and unusual circumstances require very good reasons. 'My ideal closer' would have pointed this out and relisted the discussion. Again, thanks for answering my complaint with a lot more reasoning than a simple 'take it to DRV'. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paul,

Know first I am french, so my english is not very good, I apologize. Otherwise, my email adress is : [email protected]. And I will ask you to answer me, If you please, directly at this mail address, because I don't know exactly how to use your talk pages.

So. Have you never "read by yourself" any book of Michael Newton, and notably "A journey of souls" ? I think no, and I could understand why.

Michael Newton work on a "referential universe", the world of the "true human soul" which is absolutely not your own one, the "cartesian one" of Wikipedia (I am french, so I know many many about this cartesian world). And you probably prefere (in any case recognyze more easely) a "religious referential" which is well established since many centuries, as the christian, muslim, yewish or hindouist ones.

But know that, for my own (I am sixty), I worked, historcally an pratically, since about thirty years on this questions, and notably on the issue the question of "Inquisition" in France (against the "Cathares"), which has "blocked" free thinking on the question of the human soul and spirit for over 700 years. And I can tell you one thing: Besides some authors that you do not very well know in Anglo-Saxon countries (as notably "René and Isha Schwaller de Lubisch"), Michael Newton, through his seminal work of hypnotherapy with hundreds of patients "completely renewed", at the "world level", the question of the relation of the man to the world of his soul (to speak simply)

So maybe this issues do not interest you, it is your right, but erasing such an article, you prevent thousands of people to "think freely", out of the conformity of a spiritual thought which led the Inquisition and religious wars on our planet for hundreds of years. And even "today", with all the religious wars that we know around the Middle East, Africa, etc..

And somehow, you participate yourself in this process of Inquisition, who did so much harm to mankind for centuries.

If you want to know more about what I want to tell, do not hesitate to ask me any questions you want.

Cordially,

Richard Loiret — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.158.198 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Richard. Firstly you should know that my name is not Paul. I assume you saw the first message left on my talk page about the famous and recently deceased actor Paul Walker with whom you've so named me. I believe you have mistaken my closure and subsequent deletion of Michael Newton (hypnotist) to be personal and because I am simply unfamiliar with his work. Whether I have read his books or not is irrelevant. I believe it would be helpful for you to understand the exact purpose of Wikipedia. The inclusion criteria is not based upon "interest" or "helpfulness". An article about how to fold a shirt would undoubtedly be a universally applicable subject for every person on the planet but it would not be a suitable article on Wikipedia. Furthermore, while Michael Newton may be a respectable author who writes about important things, that also does not mean Wikipedia should have an article about him. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have written books on any number of important subjects who do not have their own article here on Wikipedia. The point being that Wikipedia has a notability guideline for authors and people which can be found at WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. In this case the participants determined that WP:NOTABILITY had not been met. It should also be noted that Wikipedia is not to be used as a promotional tool to spread the writings of an author. Many people assume that because this encyclopedia is free that everyone should have their own article. Secondly, my purpose as the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Newton (hypnotist) was to weight the arguments presented and determine if a rough consensus had been reached based upon the standards, principals and practices of the English Wikipedia. The community consensus was delete through their arguments presented in relation to our policies and guidelines. Lastly, I would like to address your comment about my "inquisition" and "harm to mankind for centuries". I personally find that a rather offensive comment and a ludicrous accusation. This is a collaborative project and if you wish to appeal and work together with other editors you will need to read more about what is a suitable article, the rules and guidelines relating to inclusion criteria for articles, and perhaps read more about the process for WP:AFD. I would have hoped that (despite your age in which you purposely mentioned above) that you would show more maturity -- and you would have found that there are plenty of editors that would have been willing to help you understand how things work and without the need for insults. Mkdw^talk 17:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Most likes on you tube page: the decision was wrong. The people who voted "delete" made incorrect comments. This fact was ignored.Eameece (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No incorrect comments or facts were ignored. I suggest you read WP:OR and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT before starting an article was all of the policies people pointed out. While they should have linked those policies for you, they were referring to them. Mkdw^talk 04:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect, and quite unfair. I answered completely all of the comments. They were all incorrect, completely. Take a look at them if you still can. They charged that I copied another list, but there is no such list of likes on you tube anywhere, certainly not easily accessible with a google search. Nothing comes up. This subject is quite notable, certainly as notable as the other fine list of most viewed videos. I pointed out that likes are as valuable as views in determining the most popular videos. This could end up being a list of interest to lots of folks. Please reconsider. Also, another poster did a lot of work to update and format the list. It is quite unfair to delete a page for no reason, after people have done a lot of work on them. It is unfair to ignore my responses to the incorrect comments that were made. Do you routinely delete pages for no reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eameece (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you genuinely feel I am incorrect you can appeal the closure at WP:DRV. That being said I won't be reversing my decision. The article clearly did not meet WP:RS or WP:N and despite your arguments they were invalidated against those key points that others brought up. Once again, I strongly urge you to read the policies I linked to you as it is apparent you do not fully understand them. I would also encourage you to be civil and to not take things personally here. I had no investment in that article and deleted along the deletion guidelines. If you are unhappy with them you may participate in the on-going discussion on how best to prove them. Regards, Mkdw^talk 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ryu Seung-Woo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Neojesus (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Occupy movement is not a Libertarian movement. This is categorized incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.223.88 (talk)

I would recommend you take it up at Talk:Libertarianism before removing large sections of the article with out explaining your actions. Mkdw^talk 04:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your recent comment at a page I won't mention due to canvassing concerns: Sure, it could. I wonder, out of curiosity: how often do you look at the recent contribs of your talk page posters? And let's say you were to look at mine. What do you see? PS. If you reply here, please WP:ECHO me. Cheers. PS. Since you asked for a clear statement: no, I didn't consider that any significant number of users who got that message would look at my contribs, see the link to that discussion, and be drawn to it. If anything, at that time they would primarily see a proliferation of wikithanks in my contributions. When I was leaving those talk page messages, and others on that day (or today, or will tomorrow), I don't expect that any of such edits would draw someone's attention to any particular discussion, particularly one that (as of now, for example) isn't even appearing in my top 50 latest edits. I invite you to look at my contribs and consider how often I posted at that page, and how likely it would be that someone would notice (ironically, the only block of edits I have is when I was replying there to this very issue...). Still, I acknowledge that anything I do can be seen as canvassing, and I have no way to prove that what I am saying is true. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus:, to answer your first question, I look at the contributions of editors who contact me all the time. Especially friends whom I haven't talked to in awhile. I would also pick out edits, even amongst many, that overlap with my interests. I am a regular at RfA and AfD so any edits in those areas I would likely check out. When I look at your contributions I have to look back a few pages, probably more than I would with anyone except someone I was closely examining to find your RfA edits. I would also agree that my habits are probably unusual and that many of the people you contacted would not have checked your recent contributions. It would even be less likely that they'd pick out your RfA edits unless they looked back quite far. I would like to say at this point that I never brought up criticisms about the mechanics of how anyone would construe canvassing being achieved through your recent edits; I'm a little confused why this specific point is being brought with me. Your recent contributions would not have been my starting place either as I'm generally in agreement with your assessment directly regarding recent contributions. For example, I would have started with the fact that you have the current RfA box on your talk page and that anyone who came to reply to you would have seen your RfA at the top of your page. In any regard, these details aside, I was more focused on the choice to mass message people (regardless of the outcomes) during your RfA and that you took a battlefield stance to the discussion when it was brought up. Even your comment here such as "anything I do can be seen as canvassing" are a sidestep to delegitimize the opinions of those who are concerned about it. I recognize that canvassing may have been your last intention and I gave you the benefit of the doubt by going to neutral instead of oppose. Anyone who clearly was canvassing their RfA would have been given a strong oppose from me. I really do wish you all the best but I must sit on the wall on this one. I hope you understand and respect my decision. Mkdw^talk 02:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edit? I was reading Dan Ryan's page and I thought people should know that he wasn't just some kid that plays halo all the time. He was actually a really good soccer player as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshRasberry (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add a reference as per WP:BLP for personal material about living people. Mkdw^talk 04:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw, hope you enjoyed your Wikicake! I have never really clarified this even as a long-time anti-vandal, but 98.122.109.101 has just removed the user block template. Are blocked users allowed free-edit of his user space? Optakeover^(Talk) 05:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The community consensus is vague but currently as it stands in written policy they can. Basically only unblock requests and speedy deletion tags cannot. It's outlined in WP:REMOVED. PS Yes, thank you for the Wikicake! Mkdw^talk 05:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Optakeover^(Talk) 05:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Should talk page access by revoked too? Just look at today's activity on his own talk page and some articles he touched last week. HkCaGu (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I recommend deleting/disbarring this previous obscene edit by Seth McDougal--Mr Fink (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done That was definitely obscene and offensive. Mkdw^talk 06:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but the vandal is still at it [1]: I also gave him a level 4 warning, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mkdw again. Very sorry for troubling you, although I must say this to someone, because I'm still troubled over this every time I edit Wikipedia.

I like to think of myself as someone who works within the rules of Wikipedia, but in one occasion, I myself became involved in an edit war between other editors. This person was displaying pointy behaviour at Lusitanic by repeatedly adding content against consensus; the consensus was that his addition of his information was not properly sourced, especially that he tried to broadly draw the conclusion that the the word "Lusitanic" was never used as a word at all, as it never appeared in the dictionaries of various languages; essentially, his edits were original research. Well, in the end, he was blocked for personal attacks, and finally indef for making legal threats and sockpuppetry, so we were indeed dealing with someone who refused to be familiar with Wikipedia policies.

However, I did make three reverts on that article. I felt personally as the page was protected due to edit warring, and I felt that I might have been guilty of that.

Although I was never named as an involved party, I am afraid that this might affect my chances for adminship if I do intend to apply for it in future, though I have absolutely no intentions yet. I hope that you could give me some words of advice regarding this. Thanks.. Optakeover^(Talk) 06:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Optakeover:, there is a considerable amount of text in regards to the WP:3RR. I would actually suggest you go over and read the policy again thoroughly. As far as I can tell, your edits between June 3 and 7 are not in violation of that policy. For starters, the 3RR is based around a 24 hour rule of thumb (the line is sometimes pushed longer if the pattern is continuous and it's clear that those involved are "gaming" the system). I didn't spend time closely looking at the history nor did I read any of the associated discussion but it's clear that it was a messy situation and plenty of other editors reverted more times than you and breached the 3RR. In regards to your candidacy for adminship, everyone has experienced a heated moment. Many of us more than once. What editors assessing RfA's are most concerned with is your ability to recognize those situations, and if you feel you handled yourself less than ideally, what you took away and how you learned from the experience. They will want to know how that situation helped you to ensure that you don't find yourself in that position again -- and if you do, how will you react differently. As long as you can inwardly identify and answer that question then bringing it up at your RfA may have a positive effect. Mkdw^talk 06:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you once again, for your advice and clarification. I really appreciate it. Optakeover^(Talk) 06:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, you should probably opt in for edit count; instructions here. This is not mandatory but I would say the vast majority of successful candidates are asked and opt in. The other piece of advice would be for you to start participating and spending time at WP:RfA. I think you'll learn a lot and concerns you may have such as how your edit history will affect your RfA will become apparent as you watch others go through the process. Mkdw^talk 06:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow that's interesting. Thanks for the heads-up, though I don't think I'm suitable to be an admin yet as my main experience is patrolling, rather than content-contributing, and that I do find it hard to contribute to Wikipedia sometimes. But definitely, your advice will be useful should I choose to embark on this path. Thank you very very much for your help! Optakeover^(Talk) 06:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw, thank you for the info about contacting people on their talk page as opposed to their user pages. I really appreciate it! This was my first venture into Wiki Pages land, so thank you for your gentle guidance. :) --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@JMatthews (WMF): Welcome! If you have any questions do not hesitate to ask. Mkdw^talk 06:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. What doesn't kill me... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I notice you have labelled a vandalism report I logged today about User talk:Hotcarlsteamer69 as a "Stale report" as the user has not edited in 21 hours. Is 21 hours for a registered user who has made five vandalising edits in one day regarded as stale? That seems maybe a bit harsh to me. I'm not 'having a go' at you, just trying to expand my Wikipedia knowledge. I would appreciate your comments if you get a chance. Thanks. Melbourne3163 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Melbourne3163, I absolutely do not mind answering your question. I believe sysops should be required to explain their actions if questioned for the sake of accountability. The reason I labelled it as stale has to do with the blocking policy. Blocks are preventative and not punitive. This is a fairly important decision as a block and a ban are separate measures. If the editor resumes vandalizing pages then a block would certainly be considered but for now it's considered "stale" -- granted that's not really a great word for it. I hope this helps clarify and if you have any further questions let me know. Mkdw^talk 23:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply, it is appreciated. Melbourne3163 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my rewrite of Barbara Milberg. The "like a résumé" tag is still there, and I will leave further discussion to unbiased reviewers. You did not say whether my rewrite addressed the "unclear citation style" problem. Is there a standard way to request a review of such problems after a revision?

Benjifisher (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I only need help in adding the title Black Shuck to wikipedia i was only using website as prove the title has been released etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.236.75 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Re a recent vandalism report I submitted [2], the user in question has received numerous complaints, including from bots, and has resumed the same independent activity after being blocked a couple weeks ago. The user is rarely using authoritative references but apparently only what turns up first on Google. I'd feel differently if the vandal were responding at all to any complaints or if the user weren't making dozens of similar edits each day. I've learned my lesson from you and I won't complain about this user again, and I certainly won't report any others that regularly trash WP with similar types of rumors and fake references, so I don't expect a reply from you, but I think you are making a serious mistake by not treating this as vandalism and immediately imposing restraints. —Danorton (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Danorton: WP:AIV is only for obvious reports of vandalism as stated at the top. I recommended that you file your report at WP:ANI which is an appropriate place to report sophisticated vandalism. You may have misunderstood my declining of your report to mean that I was disagreeing with your assessment of situation and that vandalism or inappropriate editing was not taking place when it may have. I would suggest you re-read my response as I was simply informing you that you were reporting it at the wrong place and that WP:ANI would be more suitable and a preventative block might and still could be the result. Lastly, I can tell you're frustrated as you've indicated that you're giving up on reporting vandals, but really that will not do any good as all that happened was you reported it at a place that isn't designed to investigate complex vandalism. I sincerely hope you take a deep breath and reconsider as the project could use all the help it can get countering vandalism. Mkdw^talk 03:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We disagree on what constitutes "obvious vandalism." The barrier you require is not proportionate to the volume of damage and could not possibly respond to vandalism that is on such a scale. For a low-volume vandal, that might be appropriate, but for high-volume vandals, that process cannot possibly keep pace. —Danorton (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:GAIV. It clearly states that WP:AIV is not the correct place to report any vandalism that requires discussion which we are doing right now. For example, you mention that the sources provided are misleading which would not be obvious without looking into it further. Let's look at this edit where the IP changed the seating capacity, provided a source, and the source supports the change. That falls extremely short of "obvious vandalism" to me. I did notice that reliability of many of the sources were questioned but that then even further strengthens the criteria about discussions in what constitutes an inappropriate AIV report. The fact that numerous edits by this IP were similar suggests complex vandalism -- if any. I would also like to point out that volume and scale of damage are not criteria for what constitutes a valid report at WP:AIV. You've also mistaken AIV as the only rapid venue for response when that is not the case. I respect your right to file any report you deem valid at AIV as you should equally respect my discretion to decline a report if it does not align with my perception of the policy. Where we find common ground is not certain but in the time spent so far you could have filed a report and received feedback at the numerous other administrative noticeboards. Mkdw^talk 19:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at the conversation (or, rather, the reply) on my Talk Page. This is exactly what I knew would happen. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

While not the most pleasant reply back, I can understand why he feels belittled. Please try and directly have a conversation and make an attempt at a civil one at that. From what I can tell it's purely as aesthetic choice so you could always ask the editors of the article for a vote on the matter or try to gather some community consensus by posting your straw poll at WP:RFC. Mkdw^talk 03:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please explain to me why he understandably feels belittled. My post was factual and, actually, quite sanitized and clinical. He is new to Wikipedia and clearly doesn't understand the way things work. He is taking this personally and he took offense to statements that were mere facts (e.g., that his being a new editor renders his User Page as a red link, etc.). The comments he posted speak for themselves. If you recall, my original post requested admin help. My understanding was that you were offering your help. Please advise. And, again, please explain to me why he understandably feels belittled. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You've essentially answered the question yourself. He's a new editor and does not fully understand all the nuances when it comes to editing and interacting here on Wikipedia. Now that the other editor is aware that you've sought a third opinion, they're likely to view it as you gaining support for your cause when they in fact have no one "backing him" from their point of view. Further, you're a very experienced editor, so they may feel like they've been backed into a corner. While this may not be true it would certainly explain much of their hostile response which is my experience has been a common overreaction of newcomers. Lastly, when you post an adminhelp request, it does not mean we will necessarily intervene or side with your argument. My response to your request was to inform you that your next appropriate step is to talk it out directly on a talk page which had not happened yet. Not only is this deemed an essential first step, but it is actually a requirement before you take it to pursue any dispute resolution. In pinging an admin it does not mean that certain steps will be by default surpassed. Mkdw^talk 16:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the response. However, you are both missing – and making – my point, at the same time. He is a new user who might be offended and defensive when he is questioned about his activity; he might take it personally, as he is unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia. Clearly, that is evidenced just by reading his very first reply to me. Thus, he might feel as if I am "picking on him". Yes, concededly, those things may – and do – happen with new editors. In anticipation of that, I knew – and expected – that his reply to me would be exactly what it was. For the very reasons stated above. He sees me as an adversary and an enemy of sorts. Thus, knowing and anticipating that, I asked for the intervention of an outsider: a neutral and non-biased individual (e.g., an administrator), one who had no interest, involvement, or investment in the previous discussions of the edit conflict. The thought process being ... he sees me as an uncooperative adversary and enemy, and is thus defensive and closed-minded about any discussions with me. Thus, said discussions will prove to be quite unfruitful (as already evidenced in the very first reply from him). Not only unfruitful, but also likely to escalate. Therefore, he might (and probabilistically, he would) be more open-minded to some other third-party, neutral observer (i.e., an administrator). It would hardly be likely that he would see this new, neutral, unbiased individual also as an enemy and adversary (in an conflict in which he has no interest or investment). Hence, he might be more open-minded (i.e., less closed-minded) than he might be in interacting with me. Me – who is, already in his mind – proven and evidenced to be his enemy and to be "against him". Hence, my request for outside, neutral intervention. I am not quite sure why – especially, at this point – you think that he would be open-minded in talking with me. And – it having already been proven that that is not the case – why you still think it would not be better for an unbiased neutral observer to intervene. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

While, however unlikely a positive net result, I have always believed that dialogue is an important due process. I agree with your assessment of the situation but it does not mean that outright foregoing any sort of direct conversation is pointless. At WP:3O you will note it as a requirements that an effort must be made to talk it out. That requirement is there for a reason and not to elongate the process. It does not always work, but as someone I feel very little motivation to become voluntarily involved if the parties already are not willing to even engage in discussion in the first place. It not only suggests my time could be wasted but that you're unwilling to put in the effort in the hopes another party will solve all your problems for you. I say this generally because you have spent a lot of time discussing it with me, but I cannot fight your battles for you, only moderate the discussion. If you're willing to engage the other editor I will watch the discussion and step in if required. I think that is more than fair in terms of asking for third party involvement when nothing more than reverting at close to the 3RR has occurred. Mkdw^talk 05:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Given what you wrote above (i.e., that you would be taking a laissez-faire approach), I was somewhat surprised that you affirmatively posted at the Talk Page of that Execution article. I have issued a post there, as well. For what it's worth, I think that the articles (plural) should all be reverted back to their original format, while this discussion is ongoing. I don't think it is appropriate to maintain the "improper" format while the topic is being discussed. In other words, that final revert should not stand; it should be reverted, while this plays out (so that the article is in its original format). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have left a reply at that Talk Page (Talk:List of offenders executed in the United States in 2013). Thanks for your willingness to help; and thanks for your help. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You could express your opinion about this page?
I am a beginner and would like to learn how to do everything correctly. SlavaBest (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@SlavaBest: I will have to recuse myself from participating because of canvassing but I do have some links that would be very useful for you. The first is the WP:TEAHOUSE which is a place for newcomers to ask questions. The second would be to read the page WP:FIRST which is about creating your first article and offers some helpful tips. I realize that these pages are perhaps a bit daunting to digest, but in terms of training someone to write for an encyclopedia, they're pretty good. Also, many people also submit their articles through the articles for creation process in which they receive feedback from experienced editors before it is moved to the main space. Others have pointed out some links such as WP:PROMO as the tone of the article uses some language that would not be deemed as neutral as they are there solely for the purposes of promoting the company. Sentences like "working with a vast team of experienced designers" and "helped us get up on their feet" are from the perspective of the company and not an independent source writing a factual article on the company. Looking at those pages and taking some of the feedback you've received thus far will help you out a lot on Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 20:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks wery much, I keep reading and thinking. To be honest - to much you need to know befor do somthing here, but i understedd why)) Thahks again. SlavaBest (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw, Thank again for the unblock. Stanleytux (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@Stanleytux: I hope my trust has not been misplaced. I am happy to see you are treading lightly and that you are starting to see positive results. I would like you to consider the WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:ADOPT if you are looking for further guidance. Mkdw^talk 05:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mkdw, did you make sure to check with the blocking (or another) Checkuser before granting the unblock request? I just want to make sure as it was a checkuser block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a very considerable mistake on my part. Follow up at User talk:DoRD#CU unblock request. Thank you for bringing that to my attention; I sincerely regret my missteps. Mkdw^talk 23:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an easy thing to miss in the block log. Thanks for reversing the block until it can be vetted more thoroughly! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi MKDW; I just received your message from a couple weeks ago. It's great to hear from you, and yes I remember you! Especially since I just re-read my old talk page archives when I came back. Right as you sent that message though, I became extremely busy and had to stop editing again (mainly I was defending my dissertation proposal and then celebrating afterwards). But now I do believe I will be back longterm. A lot has changed since the mid/late 2000s when I was most active, but it's great that you and a few of the more experienced editors are still around. I'll still work on NP and RC patrol, and editing articles about politics. I haven't looked at AIV yet. Let's keep in touch. Academic Challenger (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The translation from the Polish text to the English, with reference to the Latin original, is correct. There was no need to delete all of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.108 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your participation at my recent RfA, even if I couldn't sway you to support me. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you for your thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

RfA's are really such a gauntlet and sometimes even the smallest and seemingly insignificant things can tip them the wrong way. I was terribly nervous for my RfA even though I kept telling myself over and over that it was no big deal. It's only human to take it personally and I think in your case the outcome next time around will be much better. You're clearly on the right track. Mkdw^talk 22:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I appreciated your thoughtful and compassionate participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keith, while I stayed neutral in your RfA, I can see that there is some good advice in there that I hope you will consider. Based upon the actual reservations I'd say your next attempt, save for something very dramatic occur in the next 6 to 12 months, that you'll have a much easier time. Mkdw^talk 22:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You mean "adjective", not "adverb". As an aside, my personal favourites are "Amelia", "Candida" and "Melina". Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for catching that. On a side note, I wonder if parents who name their children Melina ever bother to look up it's meaning or are they like, "to heck with it, my child will have a poop name". Quite the interesting RfA !vote there. Mkdw^talk 15:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheng nu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sheng nu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Check out the [3] and try to figure out how two distinct users can alternate edits in a very small window of time on the same article <g>. The excuse that he "manually" greeted several people is a problem -- but I doubt one "manually" greeted six editors in under a minute. What I find more concerning is the "Minerva from the head of Zeus" appearance of editors, and the possibility that earlier accounts difficult to match by CU (each version of IE is "different") also exist or have existed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I noticed this when reading the reply to me further down the page, and believe I have the answer to the question, since the setup they would need is the same as the one I use (I only use one account though...). Using more than one user name simultaneously would AFAIK require more than one computer, as in my house where I have three computers, one desktop and two laptops, connected to the 'Net through a 100Mb LAN-connection to a fiber net (which is a common setup where I live). If I want an extra firewall, as I usually do, all three computers exit to the 'Net through a NAT router, and get the same IP, the IP of the router, but I can also bypass the router by connecting all three computers to a switch, which will give each computer a separate IP. If someone with that setup places all three computers on the same desk/table next to each other, they can instantly switch from one user account to another (with the possibility of having a different version of IE on each computer, or IE on one, Chrome on one and Firefox on the third one). Thomas.W ^talk 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC) (I use that setup 'cos I'm lazy, I don't want to carry a computer with me when I move from one part of the house to another...)

Which might make sense but for the fact the person admitted it was a single computer involved, but that he had no idea his friend was editing in an interleaving manner as soon as he left the room <g>. HHGTTG would make this a space drive suitable for Zaphod Beeblebrox. Collect (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Theoretically it would be possible to do it with a single computer running for example Linux, with three virtual machines emulating Windows and running IE, and switching between the VMs (which could be as easy as switching between windows). But only a tiny fraction of one percent of the users here would be able to set it up, and there would be no way a friend would be able to switch places with him without him noticing it. Unless the user has a split personality, and switches from one persona/identity to another every two minutes... Thomas.W ^talk 20:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

89.243.19.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who you blocked yesterday, has returned as 80.44.143.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Both IPs geolocate to Bradford, UK, and the new IP's first edit was a direct continuation of the previous IP's blanking on City of Bradford. Thomas.W ^talk 18:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So it would appear. Same pattern of removing referenced content. Blocked under evasion as WP:DUCK. Mkdw^talk 19:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Sheng nu you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sheng nu for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 16:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Sheng nu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sheng nu for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mkdw, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheGeneralUser: I'm glad you're back to fight another day. I know you had a rough time with your RFA and the aftermath. I'm sorry it didn't go as you expected and I'm sure you've received a lot of good advice both during and after. If you ever need any advice regarding your RFA, I'd be more than happy to assist and to point out some challenges that may face. Best of luck, Mkdw^talk 20:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please shade some light on the fact Trevor Moran fails the Criteria at WP:MUSIC? User:Andise1 doesn't seem to understand that. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Miss X-Factor: Have you tried directly contacting this user on their talk page? Specifically if you're seeking my opinion, I tend to agree that this contestant does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:MUSICBIO. While there is some mainstream coverage on this contestant, it's mostly centered around the fact that they were a contestant on X-Factor, which calls into question whether they were the direct subject of the publication. For example if other contestants were mentioned then it's likely an article about the show and who is on it than the person as a musician. Lastly, it does not appear this artist has release an album or single that has reach a notable position on a national chart, certified gold and above, signed a multiple album deal with a major record label, won a significant award, etc. etc. If the problem persists I'd seek consensus on the talk page and if the editor does not comply with that consensus then there is recourse for other options. Mkdw^talk 19:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mkdw: if see in the history of the page, you can see that I've had tried to reason with the user but the user believes he is notable based on media coverage. Miss X-Factor (talk)

In my experience, edit summaries are very limited to what they can accomplish in terms of discussion. For starters, a reply cannot be made without changing something to the article. Additionally, it does not allow others to weight in on the conversation. A talk page has other advantages such as being easily referenced as opposed to looking at an edit history with many of other interactions from other editors to the article in between your relative edits. To be honest, if you want someone else to become involved in a problem you're having, they're going to want to see you make some sort of effort and in the very least a discussion attempt, before you ask them to step in. Edit summary discussions are almost always a requirement before any third opinion or administrative intervention. I'm going to invite Andise1 to this discussion to talk over it with you. Mkdw^talk 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

He is notable, there have been news articles which clearly discuss the individual. He has released a few singles, which have landed on the Billboard charts. I still stand by my opinion that he is notable. Andise1 (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a precursory search and found no evidence that any of his songs have charted on a national chart. Additionally, very few of the sources are directly about Moran outside of his involvement of the show. Mkdw^talk 01:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

He has charted. Also, there are quite a few news articles that are mainly about him and his music, which I have used as references in the article about him. Lastly, he's not even mentioned in the article the user above keeps redirecting Trevor's article to. Andise1 (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I removed the text: "Flash Mob (Anton Schwartz album)" redirects here. For the Vitalic album, see Flashmob (album)." from the top of Flash Mob (Anton Schwartz album) and you undid the removal. I did it for two reasons:

First, it was incorrect - there was no such redirection taking place. I see that you replaced the REDIRECT with an ABOUT which corrects the inaccuracy.

Secondly, it seemed to me extraneous. There already exists the page Flash mob (disambiguation) for disambiguation, and there seemed to me no possibility that anyone would Flash Mob (Anton Schwartz album) for a Vitalic album because "Anton Schwartz Album" is part of the title of the page. On the other hand, "Vitalic" is not part of the title of the Flashmob (album) page, which might suggest the need to clarify that it is not the Anton Schwartz album. Would you suggest that I edit the Flashmob (album) page to put an ABOUT box clarifying that one can find the Anton Schwartz album elsewhere? My feeling is that neither ABOUT is necessary, and that if one is necessary it would be the one on the Vitalic album page (which is not named as such) rather than the Anton Schwartz album page (which is).

Happy to hear your thoughts.

PS Thank you for pointing out that the links on Flash Mob (Anton Schwartz album) to web content didn't meet up to standards. I replaced them with standard magazine citations. Unfortunately that change means there's no way to read the sources by clicking a link - oh, well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeTheMusic (talk • contribs)

@BeTheMusic:, I have gone ahead and added {{About}} to the article Flashmob (album) for consistency. They should be kept because there are two albums that share (fundamentally) the same name. Here is why it's important to include these types of templates and why they're a common practice on Wikipedia.

No one arriving at the page Flash Mob (Anton Schwartz album) for the first time will be typing in the Wikipedia article name letter by letter for an exact match. They will be clicking on links in an article or in a search engine (third party or the Wikipedia search).

Flash Mob (Anton Schwartz album) has its name because of a Wikipedia naming convention where Flashmob and Flashmob (album) already exist. In the article about Anton Schwartz, the album should not be cited as "Flash Mob (Anton Schwartz album)" but rather by the actual name of the album "Flash Mob". "Flash Mob (Anton Schwartz album)" is not the name of the album. The brackets are there solely for technical reasons. For those clicking through article links that are properly formatted and have average readership experience on Wikipedia, they will not know the difference until they arrive. There are plenty of other reasons such as people that are familiar with both artists and may not be aware that each artist released their own album of the same name as opposed to assuming it was the same album and each artist had involvement.

Now you also said in the reverse that you didn't think it was necessary. Here's why it's even more important the other way around. Let's now say I'm an Anton Schwartz fan and I know he has an album called Flash Mob. I've also never heard of the band Vitalic, so I naturally click Flashmob (album) in the Wikipedia search. It's clear I'm looking for a music album so sending me to a disambiguation page is an extra step when it's extremely likely I need to only be redirected to the other album's name. In other articles this is far more important but to remain consistent with the rest of the Wikipedia, it should be practiced in the same way. Mkdw^talk 19:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This wiki-kitten is here to express my thanks for getting the article on Sheng nu to GA status. It's always a pleasure to see topics that deal with systemic bias improved!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I am notifying everyone who participated in the Solar Roadways DRN that there is an open RfC at Talk:Solar_Roadways#RfC:_Should_the_cost_to_cover_the_entire_USA_be_included.3F. Thanks. -- GreenC 20:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, please take a look at the flash mob talk page. Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rcbutcher, I noticed you have been notified about unnecessary disambiguation pages and moving pages in the past. Additionally, a number of editors have also reverted moves you have made. I have spent the last little while restoring a few pages that seem to have fallen under the jurisdiction of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or would have been deemed unique enough that WP:COMMONNAME would have been the preference. This is not to say the moves are inappropriate but care should be taken to ensure that community consensus is reached before proceeding -- especially when dealing with major landmarks. I would also like to mention that WP:DAB and WP:TITLE have several guidelines where if the name is not shared, even if the place's name is seemingly "generic", it does not mean the title should be moved to be more descriptive. If the article title is also the name of the place, it prevails unless there is a valid disambiguation reason. I noticed in a few cases there were no conflicts to the name of the park and they were simply moved because the name of the park was non-descriptive I would like to state for the open record that Skookum1 did not contact me in regards to this matter and that I was alerted to the matter because I had the article Vancouver watchlisted. My regards, Mkdw^talk 21:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Understood. No more renaming without consensus.Rcbutcher (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that the user who keeps disrupting Infiniti has created another account. (User:‎Infiniticar) Thanks! Corkythehornetfan^Talk 23:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that. Peter James reported him and he was blocked. Mkdw^talk 23:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Corkythehornetfan^Talk 23:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Now Special:Contributions/Inficarniti - maybe the link should be added to the blacklist. Peter James (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if a good old fashioned page protection will do the trick. If the link becomes problematic across a number of articles then that would be a good time for that option. Mkdw^talk 23:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed in the active members list of WikiProject Quebec.

I have made a number of drastic changes to the project in an effort to bring some more life to it. I would appreciate hearing your feedback on these changes here. Thanks! - Sweet Nightmares 19:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, did you actually read the bloody oppose I addressed? Seriously? If you did you got a completely different parse than I did. Either way, thanks for the collegial "fuck off Pedro". Appreciated. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pedro: Firstly, I am deeply sorry you took my reply as offensive as you did. It was in no way my intention to upset or insult you. I do not think my reply to your comment was any less valid than your reply to the initial oppose. You politely disagreed with their rationale and expressed it - I didn't tell you to go "fuck off". I disagreed with your rationale and also expressed it as part of the debate. If you think people should not or cannot reply but you can reply to other people then that doesn't really seem like a debate. As far as I could tell it was friendly so I'm a little taken back by why you're directing your anger towards me (others replied to you) and in such a strong way. I actually agreed with the sentiment that the initial oppose was problematic in their expectation of the candidate. Anyway, I do mean it that I was not my intent at all to upset you. Mkdw^talk 22:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I think. I certainly do not think (to paraphrase) "people should not or cannot reply but [I] can reply to other people". How singularly insulting, and I suggest you tool up the diffs where I've said that. You don't like me, that's fine, got it from way back. I've removed my comments, left my support and suggested the rest of the sub-thread be moved to the RFA talk page. I hope that ends that matter. If it helps, please do consider that you've "won". Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pedro: I just looked at the interaction tool and we've never had a conversation before today. We've participated in a handful of common RFA's but nothing more than you or I putting ourselves down as support or oppose. What is this all about? Mkdw^talk 22:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Diff at 21:38 [4] - I clearly state "I'm not advocating we hand the tools to editors with three edits on the basis they "haven't screwed up so far"
• Diff at 21:48 [5] - You clearly state "An editor with only one edit may then meet your criteria of no "evidence they'll do badly"."

Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I understand that part; those are diffs from today. We've never had a conversation before an hour ago, so why would you say I have a long standing hatred of you? Mkdw^talk 22:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In that, then, I'm badly mistaken and will remove that comment with apologies.Pedro :  Chat  22:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have realized my mistake; I'm very sorry and thank you for your courtesy. Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel really bad about this whole situation because I think it was a misunderstanding. I started writing my reply to you and hadn't seen [6]. I'm a slow writer and when I do hastily write, my grammar goes completely out the window. You may have seen this in my subsequent replies to you. I added the {{ec}} in front of my comment and posted it after Ad Orientem's reply. I certainly wouldn't have said what I had if I had seen your second reply. The comment you left above made me upset and so my reply was rushed and I wasn't trying to tell you what to think. I just wanted to point out that I didn't call your reply to Ad Orientem "umbrage, grief and red frigging boxes" so I didn't feel my reply deserved that particular label. I really am sorry about how it all went down and I hope we're "good" and this is all behind us. Mkdw^talk 23:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I also hope we're all good and once again apologise for my intemperate language. Pedro :  Chat  07:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean to remove some unanswered reports in this edit? I'm just curious, since I saw at least one not reported so I just wanted to make sure before I re-added it. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that report of yours must not have shown up in the admin dashboard when I looked at it. Usually a purge issue. I'll personally take a look at your report now. Mkdw^talk 23:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I found User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret searching for Moret on Google, which shouldn't have happened. Did you forget to add userspace and noindex templates? I've done that now. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I hadn't. Thanks for catching that. I noticed the template wasn't properly input and corrected it as well. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 20:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Zodiac Seats UK, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. (straight from my edit summary) unencyclopedicly written, but not advertising, there is an indication of notability (albeit a florid one - supplying BA) and appears to be independently referenced so does not qualify - use AfD/prod (non-admin removal) Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! Launchballer 17:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Launchballer I disagree but I may take this to AFD. For example, the "cited" sentence:

In December 2000, the new seating business launched at a new facility in Cwmbran, South Wales under the banner Britax Aircraft Seating. They also invested in a new short-run facility at the Camberley HQ. This enabled the development of the fore-aft seat for British Airways business class in the same year, and in 2004 the development of the premium mini-suite for both Emirates and Air France.

Additionally, I would like to provide you with the advice to not template the regulars. Templates are specifically designed to educate new users who are unfamiliar with the processes and practices here at the English Wikipedia. When you leave a template message to an established editor to inform them to "please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion" it may be construed as both inappropriate and insulting, especially in this case, where I am very familiar with the guidelines, spend a considerable amount of time in deletion, and have simply taken a different interpretation on the matter than you. Mkdw^talk 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I thought I had put down a different template, there's one that reads "Hello, I am letting you know that I declined your CSD tag" that is far briefer. Please read my message as that.

In any event, I do apologise profusely because I didn't realise you was an administrator until the user below asked you to perform an administrative task.--Launchballer 21:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You blocked Bellevue Education (talk · contribs) for username violation. They had already requested renaming of the account, in accordance with the suggestion in the Username COI notice which I had placed on their talk page. The account has been renamed by another admin. I feel that in the circumstances it would be appropriate for you to unblock - they are now Nikki at Blvue (talk · contribs). DuncanHill (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, I unarchived the thread at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Obvious_COI_editor. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Obvious_COI_editor. I wasn't aware the name change had been requested and therefore should not undergo a block. Regards, Mkdw^talk 21:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion, you might be interested in, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Inclusion_of_Amazon.2C_Spotify.2C_iTunes.2C_Beatport_under_digital_charts Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Lindsey's supposed relationship with Devin has been beat to death and been used to vandalized the article so many times that no mention of it should made unless the BLP subject specifically asks that it be discussed. As an admin, you should be familiar with the presumption of privacy in the WP:BLP. Nyth83 (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The content in BLPs is not dictated by the subject in question nor should information be only added after the subject specifically requests it. I am very familiar with the WP:BLP policy (it's not a guideline). Lastly, personal information about celebrities including past relationships are commonly included and usually deemed relevant to the subject. You have simply made an editorial decision, not one based on policy. Mkdw^talk 18:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My first edit on the Lindsey Stirling article was on 9 June 2013. It feels like most of my edits since then were vandalism reverts. Articles that I write don't seem to attract vandals. Maybe they are too boring. Here is my latest Bio: Julilly House Kohler Nyth83 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for cutting through the crap and reminding us of what really matters. Not everybody is enlightened enough to see through these things – I for one agree with you but that point would not have occurred to me. It is heartening to see people like you on Wikipedia. BethNaught (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BethNaught. I realize I could have said it more delicately, as well as my reply, but it's so shocking that something like that would be suggested and purported as being for gender equality. I am beginning to think it was actually done to get a rise and there were not honest intentions behind the proposal. It's so far out of line of the thinking of most real advocates of feminism, women's rights, and gender equality. Mkdw^talk 04:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both you and BethNaught. Beth for giving you the award, and you for your excellent reply to the suggestion. I can think of few better ways to discredit our woman editors. Best, Mary Gandydancer (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa talk page section 22. It looks to me that Stanleytux may also be user TomClement, as I suggest in that section. If I am not correct, sorry for the bother. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser, but one of the conditions of Stanleytux's unblock was to agree to be subject to periodic checks. You may want to contact User:DoRD who is a CU and familiar with his/her case and whom could do a check. I don't really see a strong correlation between the activity of the two accounts but I've only briefly looked at it. Mkdw^talk 19:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This topic is clearly notable in all terms. Getting article in 3 Best Newpapers itself gets an article into Wikipedia without any questions on its notability.

I am finding issues in citing as the same Times of India article serves as Reference to various points in the article.

Please pro editors of Wikipedia, help me out for it as i believe the article is notable and deserves an unquestioned entry to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoy64 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sanjoy64:, thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. Unfortunately I will not be able to assist you. I have been travelling for the last couple of months and expect to not be back and regularly editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I did have a chance to quickly look at your draft article and based upon my early assessment, it does not seem like the subject meets our criteria for WP:BIO. As also indicated, other editors have responded for your requests for help. Mkdw^talk 00:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

	Thank You
	Thank you for participating in my topic ban. This really is a genuine thank you, no sarcasm is intended. I was in the wrong and I accept that. Rotten regard 23:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mkdw. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "neutral". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again (which I am not planning to do anytime soon, but might consider in the future). For a better sense of my work and activities around the project, I invite you to consider reviewing my userpage, my talk page archives (which are not redacted), to watchlist my talk page, or use edit analysis tools like Wikichecker, content.paragr, dewkin, xtools-pages or xtools-ec (which in theory should work as of late 2014...). I understand your concerns about canvassing, and I hope I understand that policy better now - I would be more than happy to chat about it if you'd like to query me on it now. Thank you for your time, (PS. If you reply here, I'd appreciate a WP:ECHO or {{talkback}} ping). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)