User talk:Mkativerata

Note: If you post me a message here, I'll respond here, so please put my talk page on your watchlist if you are expecting a response. I don't leave talkback thingies. Likewise if I leave a note on your talk page, I will watchlist your talk page for any replies.

• /Archive1 (December 2009 to April 2010)
• /Archive2 (April 2010 to May 2010)
• /Archive3 (May 2010 to June 2010)
• /Archive4 (June 2010 to July 2010)
• /Archive5 (July 2010 to September 2010)
• /Archive6 (September 2010 to October 2010)
• /Archive7 (October 2010 to November 2010)
• /Archive8 (December 2010)
• /Archive9 (January 2011)
• /Archive10 (February 2011 to March 2011)
• /Archive11 (April 2011 to May 2011)
• /Archive12 (June 2011 to August 2011)
• /Archive13 (September 2011)
• /Archive14 (October 2011)
• /Archive15 (November 2011)
• /Archive16 (December 2011 to January 2012)
• /Archive17 (January 2012 to July 2014)

Precious again

bold decision
Thank you for a courageous and "impossible" decision, moving a great piece of music, Beethoven's second piano sonata quasi una fantasia, from a biased nickname to a factual name! I wrote on departing With peace and joy I depart, but still hope to see you again, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were an early recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - I like your name to pop up on my watchlist, however rarely! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I trust you, regarding Markus Schirmer, and thank with music "that thoroughly warmed the heart and thrilled the senses" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) It was a rather negative review, however!! --Mkativerata (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Better read is the one I quote. Don't miss the article history, it's quite an amazing collaboration, promoting rare good news from Ukraine, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give her Chopin album a run tomorrow (it's on Spotify). --Mkativerata (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back, Mkativerata. I've noticed your edits at AfD. Take care. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magaye Gueye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Everton. 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, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Back

Glad to see you back. Copyright has been particularly light on people lately, good to see someone who's good in that area around. Wizardman 20:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten how strangely soothing it is to plod through a CCI for half an hour or so! --Mkativerata (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

+++ Super to see you back. Wifione ^Message 08:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, Mkativerata. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. NorthAmerica1000 16:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Polandball

Hiya, in relation to your comments at the DRV, you may wish to see this. The article is clearly notable, and to keep it off Wikipedia only goes to serve the enormous butthurt that numerous people have in having this article in the encyclopaedia. 80.109.48.204 (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your RFA

Jumped on Wikipedia today (which I haven't done for a long time) and went to RFA just to see if there was anyone there I knew. Was happy to see you're back, but shitty that your RFA is at a crat chat stage. Idk how it will end up, but nonetheless I'm glad to see you're back (and maybe I should consider editing again...heheh.) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Steven, great to hear from you. I hope life is treating you well! It'd be great to see you around... --Mkativerata (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• The result of the bureaucrat discussion is that there is no consensus to return the tools to you at this time. It should be noted that many of those standing in opposition remarked that with a longer period of activity following your recent break, and greater insight and contrition regarding the 'contentious topic ban', you may well be welcomed back as an administrator at a future date. Thank you for your contributions to the project, and for your offer to once again serve as administrator. –xeno^talk 13:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't care what the so called community at RFA thinks, I'm glad to have you back around the place... --Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that it didn't work out this time, and my personal opinion is that you deserved better, but I respect the consensus decision. As you know, I have a lot of respect for you, and I, too, encourage you to work on what Xeno just called "a longer period of activity". Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Xeno, Spartaz and Tryptofish. A general comment: I recognise that after 2 and a half years I was asking people to take a bit of a leap of faith. Thanks to those who were willing to take that leap (and those who outright went into bat for me); I fully understand, and don't have any ill will towards, those who weren't. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

yes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, that has made me smile :) now let's see if I can sign a comment from my phone, never tried this before Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy

Articles 1 through 20 on this page Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Vin09. Can you guide me what are all of them which say +3158,+5689 etc.--Vin09 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

+3158 means that in one edit, you added 3,158 bytes of text to an article. What will happen, probably over the next few months, is that someone will go through and click on each of those edits, work out whether a copyright violation was added in the edit, and if so, remove it from the article. I'll do one or two examples over the next day to show you how it will work. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually while creating article I was unaware of Copy-vio rules. Later, a user guided me. As of now, I created Tenali mandal, Duggirala mandal, Mangalagiri mandal etc., where I used the lead section same which are purely of my own words. All those may look similar. Are those related to copy. As I saw a rule Wikipedia:Copy-paste#How_about_copying_and_pasting_from_one_Wikipedia_article_to_another.3F, which states any statement can be copied within wiki. Is that ok with these articles?--Vin09 (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This might help. Sorry I'd give a longer reply but have to log off now! --Mkativerata (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

List of tourist attractions in Visakhapatnam when editing for copy-vio content got some notice and content is invisible. Does that mean I'm not permit to edit it or any other user will clear that?--Vin09 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So this is the first example of the kind of thing that will happen during the process. Because this article was largely full of copied content, it has been blanked and covered by that large notice. It will stay like this for at least 7 days. After that 7 days the article could be deleted entirely if it is not rewritten. If you'd like to have a go at re-writing it, you can try it at Talk:List of tourist attractions in Visakhapatnam/Temp (and let me know if this is what you do). --Mkativerata (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll re-write the article. I'll notify you. If you can help in anymore articles also I'll re-write. Thanks for guidance.--Vin09 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I've re-written if there is any issue please notify.--Vin09 (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There certainly don't appear to be any copyright issues in the re-write, thanks. I've tweaked the wording a bit to improve the English, if that's ok. In a few days time someone will review it. One thought: the article doesn't really look like a list any more, so perhaps it could just be called "Tourism in...". --Mkativerata (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

So after review can we move that page to the correct title? Also, Lord Narasimha Temple, I'm working. If I couldn't login in the coming days, I'll do as soon as possible.--Vin09 (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy page

Just I want to bring to your notice, as you work on copy-paste issues. Please have a glance at this page Mallepalli. A user created this page, which in fact does not exist in real world as a district of Andhra Pradesh. He copied from Kadapa district the whole content. There is no district namely Mallepalli. Any advice?--Vin09 (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No need of reply, as already action taken by @Demiurge1000:.--Vin09 (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. This might not be the right solution, but I have tagged that page for speedy deletion as a hoax, with a brief explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mallepalli#This_is_a_hoax_because... (the explanation will disappear if the article is deleted).

Is it possible the author was trying to create an article about a district of a different state, but never finished changing the details to be correct? (Even if so, their way of doing it would still be wrong, since they should attribute the material they copied, in an edit summary at least.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

After re-reading, it's not a blatant hoax, just a confusing mis-categorisation and unattributed copying and things. Since all human settlements are notable, I've blanked the article and replaced it with a single sentence saying it's a village. I guess this makes it a settlement stub, which one day someone might expand. There's some unattributed material in the article history, but I'm not going to worry about that for now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Honorifics

Lord Narasimha temple, Mangalagiri, does this fall under WP:HONORIFIC.--Vin09 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about WP:HONORIFIC for the name of a temple as opposed to the article title of a person. If it's most common name is the Lord Narasimha temple, then that's the name that should be used. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Its actually Hindu deity, which in local language is referred as Narasimha Swamy Temple. Here, I wrote Swamy(telugu)=Lord (for english).--Vin09 (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Narasimha Swamy Temple may well be the better name; we don't necessary translate article titles fully into English, especially for quite localised matters. I don't know much about the subject area so I'm not well qualified to comment about what the best name would be. Perhaps once the copyright issue on the article is cleared you could ask at WT:INDIA or open a requested move. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

My daily irony supplement

FYI, in light of your demonstrated knowledge in AfD and notability matters (with which I became familiar during your recent RfA), I had intended to invite Masem and you to participate in the Chalmers Tschappat AfD discussion, but I was distracted by other matters and never cut-and-pasted the invitation on your talk page. Small world, eh? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I find these sports ones to be the most contentious of all, sometimes! I really thought the Russia/Ukraine one would be the one to explode DRV today... I noticed that on the current RfA someone asked a question about this issue; I felt very sorry for the candidate (but he dealt with it expertly). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I hope you were not discouraged by your recent RfA. My take on your RfA was there were 15-20 votes dead set against you because of the TBAN, and another 15-20 who were uncomfortable with your relatively short time of renewed active editing. I think most of the second group shift to "support" in six months time, and you pass with 80+%.

My selfish thought was this: while he's serving his six-month sentence at AfD, we could use this guy as a regular participant in sports AfD discussions as an outsider and a fresh set of eyes on these topics. A handful of committed sports editors treat any delete !vote by someone who is not a regular sports editor as some sort of anti-sports vandetta. Yes, there are few of those types around, but they usually don't do their BEFORE homework and usually bring a relatively shallow understanding of the applicable guidelines and policies to the discussion, so they really aren't that big of a problem. As for Masem, he and I don't always agree in every case, but I respect his opinion even if I will argue a particular case to our last breaths. He brings a wealth of knowledge, understanding and institutional history to notability discussions. Hopefully, you might be willing to similarly weigh in on some of our sports discussions, too. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely, I'll keep an eye on things. I probably wouldn't line up on the same side as Masem either, all the time, but as you say, outside input in and of itself is a good thing. And no, I'm not discouraged about the RfA at all, thanks! I knew it was an unorthodox thing to do so wasn't stressed out when it went south. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Good. I foresee a very RfA different outcome in six months. As for AfD, I would love to have your input in any discussion in which I'm a participant. We don't have to agree, but you do have to bring a sound knowledge of the notability guidelines and a sense of basic fairness in AfD procedures!

FYI, in my own failed RfA 18 months ago, someone accused me of some sort of hidden canvassing message in using the phrase "if it all goes south" in discussing my RfA on a supporter's user talk page. I was so dumbfounded, I didn't know how to respond -- didn't know whether to laugh or cry.  : ) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I missed your RfA on my long wikibreak... Wow, that must have been a tough week. Anyway, I'll offer you an invite in response to yours - it'd be good to see you around DRV more often. From one lawyer to another, I've often thought of AfD as the trial court - justice dispensed roughly, rudely, quickly, and often wrongly (but it has gotten much much better over the years), and DRV as the cerebral appellate court. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's just say my RfA was an, uh, "educational experience."

As for AfD, I expect a fair number of shallow, drive-by comments because of IDLT voting, and pack-voting by some WikiProjects. I can deal with that. What drives me nuts are long-time administrators who make ex cathedra pronouncements that are just wrong on the merits. And we have a few of those, too. Fortunately, most AfD decisions are so obvious that it's tough to get them wrong. And strangely enough, the "wisdom of crowds" really does seem to exist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: CCI

Dear Mkativerata. I understand completely, and would be happy to help out as much as possible (I'm not online most of the time due to work and travel considerations). I read the CCI diagnosis, and I can corroborate it. I have a lot of the books and sources used (for one thing, I always added sources) in offline versions, if you'd like me to send anything over for further examination. And I am available for any clarification you might need. I'd like to say that I am concerned with preserving the articles themselves (as I believe they are important despite any mistakes I have made in starting them) but since I can not commit much time, I understand if you find you must delete some of them (I'll check regularly and see if I can help save some of them). Terribly sorry for such a mammoth inconvenience. Best, Yazan (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yazan. I appreciate your note. I don't think we'll need any copies of offline sources -- in Periods 1 and 2 we'll largely be presuming that articles are copied without even needing to see the sources (I know that might sound a bit extreme but that's really the only efficient way of doing it, and your corroboration of the diagnosis supports acting on that presumption). If you're interested in preserving the articles before they're deleted, one possibility that wouldn't take much time would be to stubbify them, to be rebuilt later. If they're stubbified, they won't be deleted; only the page history will. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mkativerata. Can I stubbify the pages that are already blanked by the CCI, or should I just wait until you guys decide on them? Yazan (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes - you can definitely do them now. I'd suggest once you've stubbified an article, put a note to that effect next to the article's listing here. That way, the admin who deals with it (in 6+ days time) will know not to delete the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

...I'm sorry for the flak you took back then for implementing the decision, and I'm sorry to see your RfA failed. I've not been very active lately (until a few days ago). Had I seen it, I would have supported. Sanity is a grossly under-valued quality at RfA, which itself is mainly populated by people who have no idea what life is like for admins 'in the trenches'. Anyway, glad to see you're back, and if you need a friendly neighbourhood admin, just ask. See you around, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Harry. It's great to hear from you and I hope you're well. Really... I'm not bothered about the RfA at all. After two and a half years away the stress levels seem to moderate quite easily! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear Power in North Korea

You recently deleted a huge portion of this article, because it was copied directly from the sources. Of course, Wikipedia shouldn't rely on extended direct quotes, but wouldn't it have been better to paraphrase/summarize rather than delete relevant sourced content? NPguy (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Summarising the content deleted would be fine; paraphrasing it is likely to be dangerous as it runs the risk of close-paraphrasing. Just to explain why I didn't do it myself: (a) the removal of content is part of a very large clean-up exercise (see here), and in that exercise we just don't have the time to rewrite substantial tracts of text, and (b) I don't know enough about the subject matter. The most important thing is to get rid of the copyright violations, sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

wiki to wiki copy

In Mandals of Andhra Pradesh I started adding some mandals but that is not copy purely, but a list adding from specified district. will it lead to copy-vio.--Vin09 (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did the list come from? Another Wikipedia page?

If you're copying within Wikipedia it is always best to follow WP:CWW these instructions, even if you're just copying a list. I'd recommend doing two things for copying within Wikipedia: (a) make an edit summary when doing the copying that links to the page being copied from, and (b) putting Template:Copied on the talk page of both articles. The template can be a bit fiddly so let me know if you need any help using it. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not actually copy, for example Guntur_district#Divisions, there are 57 mandals, so in Mandals of Andhra Pradesh page I provided the list normally but it may resemble that it is copied as there is nothing different I can do in terms of adding lists. If still I've to follow your above instruction, then there are 23 districts, so my doubt is we need to add 23 templates of Template:Copied? waiting for reply. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're doing. There's no need for the template in these kinds of cases where all you are doing is replicating a very simple list. --Mkativerata (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Vin09 (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi, I've notices that on Wikipedia:Copyright Problems, you've been making a lot of claims, but keep saying things like "Have no idea where it comes from except that it is not Russian Wikipedia and it is well written enough to suspect it is lifted from somewhere." Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we need proof of a copyright violation before marking it as such? Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Proof isn't always required. All of my posts to WP:CP at the moment come from a contributor copyright investigation (CCI). A CCI is a mechanism to clean articles that have been touched by serial copyright violators. Once a CCI is opened, our copyright policy says: 'If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately'.

Now, I don't follow the 'remove indiscriminately' permission to its full extent. I try to work out from where material has been copied, in case it is from a public domain source or, say, from another Wikipedia article. But in some cases, if I can't find the original source, the only safe thing to do is to assume that the material has been copied from an offline source or from a source that is no longer online and that it is a copyright violation. This is particularly the case when it is very clear that the editor concerned can't have written the material themselves: for example, the material is very well-written, in professional prose, but the editor concerned has very limited English skills.

So essentially, in cases where there is a contributor copyright investigation, it is pretty much a case of presuming that material added by the subject of the investigation to any article is a copyright violation, unless proven otherwise. Usually that assumption is quite safe, and experience shows that it is quite necessary to approach it in that way. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Help

I created pages like Nizampatnam mandal, Kollur mandal and started correcting existing pages which are stub like Bhimavaram mandal, bobbili mandal where I have added demographics and references as in the above pages but updated the only stats and not sentences. Will it lead to copy-vio. As there is nothing to be changed. Everything was created by me and all the sentences are written by me.--Vin09 (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. There is no problem with this. Copying your own text (or modifying your own boilerplate text) from one article to another doesn't require any attribution. Thanks for checking. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

CCI Update

Wizardman 00:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Azmin Ali page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 27 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sohae Satellite Launching Station page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Roman888 page

Hi, M! I saw the Roman888 sub-page. Where are you seeing the accounts you listed? I can't get any of them to come up on a search. He usually turns up under an IP, then hops all around Sydney (see the Kitchen Nightmares talk page for his latest antics.) He's about due to pop up again -- I'll give you a heads up if he does. --Drmargi (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! None of them have userpages; you just have to feed the usernames into a contribs search. Sorry, I just didn't want to link the usernames or contribs in case that set off a ping - I have no idea how this pinging facility works! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mkativerata, see WP:PING to know how pinging works. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 12:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Matulidi Jusoh

added a link pointing to Paka

Nasharudin Mat Isa

added a link pointing to Gaza

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Penamaluru mandal

I've not copied the Penamaluru mandal from this site. Infact, I've created a page named Vijayawada (rural) mandal, the site itself copied the content from wiki article Vijayawada (rural) mandal. Now, I got notice on Penamaluru mandal page, that I've copied it from external site by CorenSearchBot. Could you help. You can see this request User_talk:Coren#Penamaluru mandal.--Vin09 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, as you say, this is clearly a false hit from the bot. The bot's not broken, it just does this sometimes. Really all you can do is remove the tag from the article (which you've done) and, if you like, the notice from your user talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad

Hi Mkativerata. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad. Cunard (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets of Boris Malagurski

Hello, Mkativerata. Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20140915, will you be investigating the other two accounts soon? I ask because the CCI is nearly complete. (There are only 15 diffs left to process, and all of these are presumptive copyvios from the Croatian National Tourist Board. I will probably do these next time I have about half an hour free.) —Psychonaut (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me - I'll do it today. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Shortcut hatnotes

Hi. I see that you reverted my deletion of shortcut hatnote at WP:Red link. This is getting a bit comical. When I saw the reason I just had to laugh, so thanks for that. Anyway, recently I've been on a bit of a campaign to banish these annoying shortcut hatnotes from Help pages. For example, see here, here, and here. But it's turning out to be not nearly as simple as I thought.

So the official path to the Rugby project is via a hatnote on WP:Red link? That seems like kind of a heavy burden on the servers, asking them to display a page with 14KB of content and 36 transcluded templates just because you want to see the hatnote. To go somewhere else. Could I suggest a few alternatives?

1. Go the talk page at WT:Red link, point out that WP:RL originally belonged to the Rugby project, and that most links to WP:RL have to do with rugby, and ask if you could have it back. It's not listed in the WP:Red link shortcut box, so perhaps they wouldn't mind giving it up.
2. Make WP:RUGBY or WP:RUG the official shortcut of the Rugby project. That seems like a much more straightforward route. It would be via a disamb page named Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby. It would be essentially the same thing -- 1 shortcut + 1 mouse click. Plus being a far lighter burden on the servers and less of an annoyance to readers of WT:Red link.
3. Convert WP:RUGBY or WP:RUG or both to point directly to the Rugby project. Or create a new official shortcut to the project. Currently it seems that WP:RGL and WP:RBL are both available. That would be the easiest of all -- 1 shortcut + 0 mouse clicks.

These all seem like things that should be possible for veteran editors who are used to motoring around the Wikipedia namespace via shortcuts. I'm more concerned about cleaning up the Help pages for new editors, like the one who told me the other day that she didn't want to read any more Help pages because she didn't understand them. Is it possible that we could reach some kind of compromise here? Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I think you're missing one important point: that someone looking for our rugby league wikiproject -- not just me -- might logically search for it using WP:RL. It's the logical shortcut to use. Without that hatnote, they'll miss it. Your option 1 solves the problem, but creates a reverse problem -- that people looking for the red link page using WP:RL won't find it. I'm rather surprised this is contentious -- lets not yet it become yet another example of agonising over inconsequential project-space issues. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and repointed RL to the Rugby project. Personally I don't know the difference between Rugby Union and Rugby League, and don't really care. Nor do I care amount namespace disputes. I do think it was arrogant to take the project's only shortcut and it point to a page that already had a dozen others. So I fixed that.

What I do care about is usability and user friendliness and for that hatnotes are a problem. They are intrusive, distracting, and users hate them because it's just one more thing getting between them and the information they're looking for. If you read the guideline at WP:HATNOTE, it is very clear about this. Hatnotes should be added only when articles are related in very specific ways, namely by their content and by the words in their titles. People are always trying to add hatnotes that they think might be helpful or useful to someone, but the policy is, don' t do that.

To me this seems so obvious that I've been surprised by the resistance I'm encountering. It's coming from advanced users like yourself and Redrose64. About discovering articles via shortcuts, I think I answered that argument in one of the posts cited above. This is a method that would occur only to people who have learned the magic words and are used to motoring around Wikipedia via shortcuts. Of all people, they are the ones who least need our help in finding the articles they want. If they try a 2-letter shortcut and it fails, they can easily do what everyone else does and type "wp:red link" into the search box.

I grant that hatnotes and all of the other arcane stuff you find on Help pages is dear to the geeky hearts of the people who help Wikipedia running. But enough is enough. The editor I mentioned above wants to start a group to add articles on art jewelry. I think that's great. She just needs to know how to write a simple footnote. When she goes to Help:Footnotes, she shouldn't have to read about bugzilla and URI schemes. Or about the Fringe theories noticeboard, which is mentioned in a hatnote. Because of a shortcut. Stuff like that just makes her think "Wikipedia isn't for people like me." Which is a shame. IMO Wikipedia already has enough geeky content about railroads and battleships. I'm tired of seeing battleships on the front page.

So that's what it's about. Now that the Rugby project's problem is solved, I hope it's OK if I go ahead and re-delete those hatnotes from the Red link article. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks to be a good move, to me. I'm definitely on the same page as you about not distracting readers -- at least in the article space. I once tried to nominate Template:Lead too short for deletion for pretty much the same reasons. BTW: in case you're interested, rugby union was created by a young toff who decided, in the middle of a game of soccer, to pick up the ball for no reason and kick it out on the full. It never really progressed very far after that. Rugby league was then created out of rugby union, by honest working men looking for a decent wage, a sport more amenable to the general public, and material for a video shoot for a Tina Turner anthem. That's the condensed version. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, and thanks for the explanation. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin

Perhaps it's time for you to have another try as well. Deb (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Deb -- to be honest. I've found the last 3-4 months of editing to be the most enjoyable of my seven years here. I'm thinking that not being an admin might be one of the key reasons for that, and that the opposers and the crats from RfA 2 might have done me a favour... Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I know the feeling... Deb (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Najib Razak. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
reported other party to edit warning noticeboard Avono (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Roman 888

This looks a lot like our old pal Roman888. "serial vandaliser" is a favorite expression of his. --Drmargi (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's definitely him. It's just easier to roll back each edit than go through the tedious report-block-new sock-report-block cycle, right? Best to keep him on one account too. Protecting the page wasn't the right move either. I've been slowly improving that article for weeks and now I can't... --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The admin poo-poo'd my comment on the edit warring message board, too. This is ban evasion so the warning above is inappropriate; you might want to note that in your edit summary so you aren't blocked when you shouldn't be. I'm watching the page now, too. How do you want to handle this? If I'm reading this right, you're good to leave him alone on this one account for now. I'm happy to do what you prefer. --Drmargi (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just about to write another reply to you, having now seen the AN3 thread. "Open an SPI"? I mean, really... As if you don't have better things to do. From memory filing an SPI takes forever. The account should have been blocked on your request, the case being so clear. Although I reckon the best way to respond to this case, when neither blocking nor protection is going to be an appropriate medium-to-long-term solution (as we both know he's been socking for four years and won't go away) is to have multiple people watching the target articles, and roll back every single edit of the sock on sight. This article is of a sitting Prime Minister, so there should be (but aren't) multiple watchers anyway. Perhaps Avono and Bbb23 might volunteer? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

fine, will put it in my watchlist Avono (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. I'm watching him, and the PM's page. I also left a note on Bbb23's page suggesting minimal due diligence might be in order next time. This one ain't rocket science. But in truth, I can see the merit of keeping the one account active so we can keep Roman corralled. I haven't left a message outing him (my usual practice) on his talk page for just that reason. --Drmargi (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I just left a message for Moonriddengirl. Hopefully she can take out the trash. --Drmargi (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

UMNO Islamist ideology?

Discussion should be made and getting input from other wiki members, before any changes. Again you define in which ever you want because wikipedia is not your POV for editing war.