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)

Same retired author as al Kateb v Godwin, do you think Robert Garran needs an overhaul? Most sources autobiog and it seems a bit short for a guy who is tagged as being so famous and influential. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just having a look at the moment - some of the autobio sourcing might be ok - it's being used for direct quotes from Garran. But some look problematic and the article does rely quite heavily on the autobio. I wonder if the article can be reworked to rely much more on the Francis book. I'll see if I can access the Francis book myself. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found Francis. About 150 pages, but the word density is sparse and most of it is actually about Garran's poetry hobbies. Only about 20 pg on his political work YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm afraid I don't have ready access to it. I guess the next question is where to from here. I'll have a close look at exactly what statements the article is using the autobio references to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you the parts from Francis if you want. You'll have to email me first though as wikimail doesn't allow attachments YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delvered YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm having a bit of trouble loading the images and I'll need to find somewhere to print it all off - I'll let you know when I've had a look. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to just use whatever the image viewer on your computer is YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't gotten to this yet. I haven't forgotten. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		in recognition of your great work with the De Administrando Imperio CCI Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you've earned one of these several times over for slogging through all those edits! Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick! :) --Mkativerata (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request to get my rollback rights back. Since that incident, I have been using Twinkle, and understand what pure vandalism is and what it isn't. I think I've become much more experienced in the last few months, and think I am ready to have the tool back, and be able to use it properly. ℥^nding·start 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ending-start, I'm not an admin any more so I can't give rollback to you. I've got no problem with you applying at WP:PERM. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was thinking about raising this at the RfA, but I'm wary of posting something that has the potential to detract from what at the moment is a civil and well-reasoned debate on both sides (which is very rare for a close one).

In response to your support !vote at ErikHaugen's RfA (most of which is excellent by the way), I don't understand why using hitcounts to help inform a RM argument should be considered a "compelling, policy based argument", while using edit counts to help inform an RfA argument should be dismissed for using "arbitrary indicators". I could understand being pro or anti-both, but it seems a bit strange to praise a user for the use of one, while in the same post criticising other users for the use of another. While neither are the be-all-and-end-all, surely both are useful tools which can and should carry weight if used to suppliment a well-rounded argument? Regards, —WFC— 19:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)slightly reformatted —WFC— 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different contexts, I guess. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC explicitly says raw hitcounts are a relevant matter to be taken into account in determining a primary topic for the purposes of a requested move. So in that respect, it is in my view a compelling policy-based argument. At RfA, less so. If someone had only, say, 30 AfD contributions, I'd support if they were excellent. But I would oppose, as I've done before, for 1,000 drive-by AfD votes. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view of the phrase "Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors, include:" is that there is an implication that, when used appropriately, other tools can be thought of in a similar way. Although I can definitely see why others would take a different approach to their use. Thanks for explaining. Regards, —WFC— 20:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rami R 2. Whilst we may be on opposite sides of the fence on this RfA, it's always a pleasure to see someone who 1)actually really made the effort to do a good review and opposed with honesty and evidence and 2) is not afraid to challenge the opposers for poor arguments even when they themsleves oppose. That's NPOV in a nutshell. Thank you again. Pedro :  Chat  20:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pedro, that's very kind. I must say I fully expect to come home from work this afternoon, see more "not enough recent activity" opposes, and flip my own !vote... --Mkativerata (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul. I might stay out of this one. I'm not suggesting you're canvassing improperly, but the fact that it comes about eight days after the AfDs opened makes me a bit uneasy as I take a very conservative view about when my own contributions to a discussion can be procured.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have shaped this article to make the subject a hero. To most malaysians, including myself, he destroyed many things: democracy, fairness, independence of jury system, and fair competition. He also caused brain drain. I wonder what is your motive in the reshaping. --Huayi (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your post here obviously betrays your own POV. The article is now well-balanced. You will note the article sets out a number of matters that most readers would be considered adverse (destruction of judicial independence, use of the ISA to detain opponents, white elephant infrastructure projects, etc.). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, just so you're aware and there's no suggestion I'm disguising my intentions, that I'm far from finished. As you'll see, I've only gotten half-way down the article. The next section to be re-vamped will be the foreign policy section. Then I'm planning to merge all the remaining sections into "Retirement and legacy", and rewrite it. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You think it is balanced now? No way. It has been white washed. I believe you have read the book, "Malaysian Maverick" by Barry Wain. That is truth to the fact. Your writing? Far from being balanced. --Huayi (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the content I changed? You'll see that Barry Wain's book is used heavily as a source for the content that I added. It's used more than any other source. You also mentioned judicial independence earlier. But you obviously didn't read the quote in the article from one of Mahathir's other biographies that he "destroyed the independence of Malaysia's judiciary". Then there's a direct quote from Wain, that Mahathir ordered "the biggest crackdown on political dissent Malaysia had ever seen" (Ops Lalang). So do you actually have any tangible evidence of the article being a whitewash? --Mkativerata (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reorganising, You have deleted far too much writings under the economy heading.--Huayi (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the meaningful content is still there, it's now in a sensible chronological order so that readers can actually get a chronological picture of his long premiership, rather than a scattergun list of policies (and in this case, it was a scattergun list of purported policy failures). If you look carefully, the article discusses infrastructure failures like the Bakun Dam and Multimedia Supercorridor, as well as a lack of probity and transparency in privatisation and contracting. Separating an article into headings like "Economy" would make sense in an article like Premiership of Mahathir Mohamad, but not a biography that tries to summarise a very long career. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised a User RFC regarding the conduct of User:Bidgee at Cairns, Queensland. I am advising you because you were involved in the discussion. You are welcome to comment at the RFC, located at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bidgee.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that this article may not have been sourced well enough, I'd like you to reconsider its deletion. A lesser-known style should still deserve the same rights to a full article as a more prevalent one. I've personally studied this style of karate for over a year and am learning under a practitioner of more than 25 years. I would like the ability to go through it again and clean it up so that it can better meet wikipedia standards. A few users declare it an unnotable style and that merits completely removing it a few days later? Seems rather abrupt.

Bcecka (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. As the consensus to delete this was quite clear (here), the best thing to do is to work on a new version of the article in your own userspace. You can use User:Bcecka/Sanchin-ryu. If you do this, you can work on the article without the impending threat of deletion. The most important thing is sourcing. The less reliable sources that you can find for the article, the less likely it is that the article would survive. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Is it possible for me to retrieve the content that existed prior to deletion (forgive my ignorance if it's simple and I'm just not seeing it). Bcecka (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a silly question at all - you're not able to retrieve the history unless an administrator does it for you. As I'm no longer an administrator, I've asked at a noticeboard if an admin will do it for you (see here). I can't guarantee it, though. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed up on the comment you made on the review page. I've removed the last two sentences from the article and believe this is the appropriate action since it was also brought up in peer review. Please let me know if you have any other concerns with the article, and thank you for taking the time to review it. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed up on each of your comments regarding the "First half" section. While your comments may be construed as indicating more systemic problems throughout the article, I don't believe that's the case. Most of the comments were regarding new additions from the past few days at an earlier reviewer's request. Moreover, of all the sections in the article, the "First half" section was the one that saw the most overall churn from this request. If you have the time, please have a look at another section. While I don't expect that any section is perfect, I don't think any will yield as many problems as the "First half" section did. Thank you so much for dedicating some time to such a thorough review. Hopefully you can spare a few more for this. I really appreciate your skilled assistance. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll pick up another section, probably tomorrow. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry if I'm being a pest. I just wanted to remind you about this. The article is near the bottom of the FAC list which means the directors are going to start getting anxious about closing it out one way or the other. I've followed up on all your comments. If you don't have time to review another section as requested, I understand, but could you strike the comments for which you're satisfied in how they've been addressed. Thank you so much for your time and effort reviewing this article. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am getting there! Hopefully tonight! --Mkativerata (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. Thank you so much for taking the time. I've replied to your most recent suggestions. When you can, please review my replies/fixes and strike those that you're satisfied with. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know I made one final comment of appreciation for the review you've done. Thank you so much. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - and best of luck! --Mkativerata (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your question on the DRV for Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124. Slightly unusual circumstances, and I'm not asking for the article to be restored as the result of the DRV. What I'm asking for is for it to be restored and immediately sent to AfD again, for a fresh discussion. Such restoration is solely to make it easier for editors to see the article under discussion, and thus make their comments. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...for the copy edit on Mike Jackson. I'll make a point of familiarising myself with MOS:DASH, the rest was mostly embarrassing stuff that I should have picked up myself, but I'm useless at reviewing my own writing! How do you think Jacko would fare at GAN/MILHIST A class/FAC? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. GAN would seem very much achievable, as we all know it depends on the lottery of the reviewer you pull but I think it has all bases covered as far as the GA criteria go. It's tough going to get a BLP through FAC though -- the fact that you've only really got newspaper sources and a few primary sources, as opposed to weighty print biographies, could be an issue there (not that there's anything you can do to fix it!). --Mkativerata (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, can you warn arachnophobes like me next time you link that? --Perseus8235 16:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, the candidate did it first! --Mkativerata (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Any chance of your revisiting Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1? I'm uneasy about it due to the issues you found and it doesn't appear any further digging has been done. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I take it you're looking for me to do further digging rather than just revisiting my position? If so, I can do that in about 24 hours' time. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very much appreciated if you could dig further. It looked clear from your initial comments that more review is needed. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to wait another day for this sorry - I don't have time today and I've cut a couple of fingers making it a bit slow to use my computer machine. This weekend should be fine. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your helpful review suggestions and feedback in the FAC review of 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final I award you this barnstar. Thank you for taking the time to identify ways the article could be improved which helped get the article promoted. SkotyWATC 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, and congratulations to you. I look forward to seeing the article on the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for having argued with your point of view in Neelix' RfA. Shouldn't have done it; regret doing it. I know it doesn't actually mean much - but you know that feeling; you were the person who turned my RfA around into a success and that remains in my heart always. Bye for now and just ignore this rambling :) Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why did you remove the whole country-by-country list of international response? --Jetstreamer (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because almost every one of the entries I looked at was a copyright violation of the news sources cited. So it has to go. In any case, an article like this should really only have an overview of the most important international reactions, not a tedious line-by-line reaction from every single world leader. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread about automating submissions for autopatrol right at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automating submissions for Autopatrol right. You mentioned a lot of good ideas at Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled#Autopatrolled traits regarding reviewing users. I thought you might like to help define criteria that a bot could use for helping determine which users should be automatically submitted for review. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

Keep up the great work!

A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it. T. Canens (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to go to WP:BN to do that! --Mkativerata (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then at least get rid of it in your AfD closes (hint: use my modified version of Mr.Z-man's script instead of the original ). T. Canens (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've switched to your script. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the "despicable, immoral and inhuman" quote? I couldn't see a problem with that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As they're not in quote marks it implies the wording is WP's wording; but it's not. It's a short phrase but copy-pasted from the source. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing something as "plagiarism" while letting the pother stuff ride is problematic. You have also introduced NPOV concerns.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I make no apologies for removing copyright violations or plagiarism on sight. And there was no question about the plagiar-icious nature of that paragraph. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to apologize. I am asking you to fix your mistake and also to look at the standards related to both adminship (you clearly demonstrated you do not understand those either) and plagiarism.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer an administrator and had publicly recused myself from using the tools in I/P-related matters. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That admin part was my bad then. I am glad to see that you are no longer an admin. But as said, feel free to file an ANI or fix it up yourself instead of making a change and then running away from the problem. Another option would be to seek advice from others more versed in plagiarism. Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I understand that being caught plagiarising is embarrassing. I have no plans at this stage to dig through your contribs history to see whether there's more out there. As long as there's no more of it. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you might undelete this for me, if only for a short period. I was in the process of breaking these second lists into separate articles and there is some information from that page I would like to get back. Thanks. Serendi^podous 18:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - sorry I'm not an admin any more so I don't have the technical ability to undelete the page. If you ask at WP:REFUND you should get a fairly speedy reply. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently started an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LST-766 , in which a number of keep !votes were based on the conventions of WikiProject MILHIST. From watching AfD and DRV, I have gotten the impression that policies and guidelines trump WikiProject conventions. In particular, I can remember an AfD, or perhaps a DRV, in which a number of !keep votes were made in a similar manner. I recall that you rebuked those making these ! votes, saying something along the lines of "All these people are citing MILHIST [somthing or other as if its policy. Its not." I was rather surprised by the number of keep !votes, and so I figured I would ask some more experienced editors for feedback. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the military notability essay is the product of an individual wikiproject. It doesn't have guideline or policy status and has never been put to the community for acceptance. So for me, it has no value at all. Having said that, it is certainly too late to use this AfD as a vehicle to express that point of view (and I'd better not !vote there lest we be accused of canvassing)! I suspect the military-based notability essay arguments tend to stand up in AfDs because MILHIST is an active and well-respected project. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree entirely, but I was surprised at how many people don't. I've come to the same conclusion about the AfD, and I wasn't expecting you to participate for the reasons you gave. Do you think I'd get much of a response at the Village Pump? As an aside, about MILHIST, I get the impression that at least part of the reason those arguments work for them is the culture of hero worship that is applied to the military by some people in the U.S. What do you think? And is that attitude common anywhere else in the world? Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with MILHIST to comment on that. I have never been involved in military-related articles here (doesn't interest me at all!). I do know that there are leading members of the project who aren't from the US and there are also those who publicly identify as "anti-war". As for the Village Pump, I'm not sure anything ever really happens there. I suspect this will end up like high schools: there is no guideline or policy that says high schools are notable, but there are always enough numbers at AfDs to push that view so it'll probably never change! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a fellow cynic. In the case of High schools, I think that many, but not all, have a better chance than most ships to pass GNG, and I think that many of the arguments for presuming notability of high schools seem to rest on their subjective importance. My personal opinion on high schools is that they are run of the mill. Just an essay I know, but I would support elevating it, or something similar, to a guideline. Do you think that's doable? My reason for supporting that logic is that I feel that the inclusion of articles like LST-766, or about every high school in existence, or individual pokemon, give the public the impression that anyone can come onto Wikipedia and create crufty articles on anything, without regard for quality. I draw heavily on the sentiments of Meta:Immediatism in the formation of my opinions on article inclusion, as I feel that concentrating on increasing the immediate value of our articles is the best way to bolster our credibility with the general public. Do you think that view would find much support in the community? (I realize my questions have digressed somewhat from the origin of this thread, but, IMO, there's almost always issues under the surface of a dispute that should be addressed, as they more than likely contributed to that dispute.) Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]