User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!

Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

YGM

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

Happy new year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I was just thinking of it when I got your email. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

Does it mean you now agree I have not violated the topic ban? Would you have any advice whether I can or cannot create a DYK I was planning on Polish armored trains (an uncontroversial topic, but EE-milhist related)? Good luck in the Cup to you too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

NYB has foreshadowed clarifying the topic ban. I'd definitely suggest waiting until he does so before touching anything within the words of your current topic ban. But on the face of it, "Polish armored trains" seems to be about military materiel not a dispute. But it's your call. AE admins are in an impossible situation until the topic ban is clarified. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. For now I will indeed steer away from anything that may be stretched to the topic ban wording, there are still a number of subjects I can edit without any worry. I guess the trains will have to wait a few more timeunits till I can get around to writing about them. On a parting note, here's a mini-essay I wrote that you may find interesting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you answered my first question? Also, shouldn't this log be updated? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me - I've updated the log now. Your question isn't relevant, is it? I think you broke your topic ban as drafted. But Arbcom considers the topic ban as drafted does not reflect the ban they intended to impose, so it will hopefully be amended. Nothing more to say. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

The article Mass killings under Communist regimes appears to be attracting new edit-warring between new and old editors. TFD (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have one eye on it, especially those new accounts. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Geller page protection

Hey,

re your comment

You say you'd protected the "non-controversial" version. I have to disagree with your characterization of it being "non-controversial". There is what I think is a fairly blatant attempt by a group of editors characterize Geller's somewhat radical activities as mainstream.

You'll note that relatively strong consensus developed here for the version you undid. I respectfully suggest that you have protected that wrong version.

As a sidenote; I think the "anti-Islamic" probably does need to be revised for WP:BLP vio & WP:V reasons, but I'm a little worried you protected a version that has more serious WP:NPOV issues. NickCT (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if that wasn't clear, by "non-controversial" I meant the version that is not contended to contain a BLP violation. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Expand

Yay. It's finally deleted. Goodbye, {{expand}}, and good riddance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think DRVs can be DRV'd although I've never seen it. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything that says a DRV can be DRV'd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRV says it applies to "disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". I'd argue that a DRV decision is a decision made in a deletion-related discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it once. It's TfD, not AfD, by the way. T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, another fix coming up. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this DRV is going to be DRV'd, so I'm being bold and trading out/removing {{expand}}. So far I've found a few that can be replaced by {{expand-section}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

going forward

1. Anything at all can be appealed. The relevant principles are NOTBURO and IAR; it could be at DRV, it could be via an RfC, which can basically do anything. Given that a key element in the reasoning for the close was that some of the argument " can't be said to have anything like consensus support. ", I would have though you as the closer would have realised that nothing about this really had consensus support. This does not necessarily mean I am in favor of devoting much additional time to the discussion. I continue to wonder whether I should have kept quiet at the TfD and simply closed it my preferred way--I could have rewritten all your arguments with a very slight change in emphasis to come to the opposite conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
2. I remain puzzled why anyone would want to delete a clean up template like this except to replace it with something better. (Doing that might be a good argument, if it were done.) Therefore. regardless of the merits of a further DRV, it might be a good idea to find replacements for all of them, rather than delete any. It would be a very poor idea to lose the indication that the article was at one point considered to need work. ( if there are not adequate templates available, make them. I'll help you if necessary). I would very strongly advise you, TPH, that this is not a time to be Bold. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• On review of DRV closes, this has happened a few times, and been discussed as a theoretical possibility several times (most recently here). A user wishing to challenge a DRV close has several possible avenues. The first is to take it to the DRV closer's talk page, but for the sake of argument let's assume this approach fails.

  Previous custom and practice has been that either DRV reviews DRVs, or else the challenger takes it to AN/I and screams "admin abuse" before getting shut down. (If there really was admin abuse at a DRV close, that would be a matter for Arbcom.) RFC is another possible option in general, but probably not in this case, because there had already been a RFC on the template.

  DGG's essentially right when he says he could have closed it his way and penned a plausible-sounding assessment. I'm confident he would have got away with that. Rightly or wrongly, the nature of Wikipedia when something's been discussed to death and there really isn't a consensus, is that the closer makes the law. The fact that I agree with this particular close doesn't mean there isn't a real issue there, and I do just wonder if the more controversial discussions shouldn't be closed by a triumvirate rather than an individual.—S Marshall T/C 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I like the trimvurate idea. A bit like crat chat. It would certainly increase confidence in the closes of highly contentious XfDs. Maybe I'll be bold and find two other admins to trial it with a suitable candidate. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• @DGG: I'm not sure which close you are referring to when you say you could have closed it another way. The TfD, the DRV, or both? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Triumvirate

Here's an informal proposal that I'm minded to take to WT:Deletion process for approval to proceed on a trial basis.

Proposal: An administrator closing a highly contentious XfD may choose to refer the closure to a panel of three administrators. Highly contentious XfDs usually mean XfDs with an exceptionally high number of contributors, where it appears to the closing administrator that different administrators could reasonably close the debate with different outcomes.

The closing administrator is to refer the closure to a panel by posting at WP:AN to solicit the input of two other uninvolved administrators. The three administrators will then discuss at the talk page of the XfD how the debate should be closed. The administrator who referred the close to the panel shall act as the informal chair of the panel. After a reasonable period for comment (preferably within 24 hours), the chair shall close the XfD on the basis of the discussion and give reasons for the close that reflect the discussion. If the administrators on the panel disagree on the appropriate outcome and there is a clear 2-1 majority in support of one outcome, the majority view is to prevail.

I think for this proposal or something like it to win community acceptance, it would have to:

• impose as minimal bureaucracy as possible;
• make a convincing case that there is a problem to be fixed; and
• make a convincing case that it will help fix the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Sometimes you get the feeling the difficult cases are left and this will provide a way forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Too far, too fast! I suggest confining it to the most contentious DRVs for the moment, and raise the request on WT:DRV rather than AN. We're looking for a panel of people like Black Kite, IronGargoyle, Courcelles, Aervanath or Xoloz if they were still editing, etc.—highly experienced DRV closers with an impeccable reputation for neutrality. If it works for DRVs we can consider whether there's a case to expand it to the various fora that DRV supervises.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see that there would be very many DRVs where this would be warranted, though. For example, the one I closed, despite the lengthy rationale, couldn't possibly have gone any other way. The TfD, on the other hand, certainly could have. I see the real benefit for this to be at XfDs, because it actually has the chance to cut off DRVs before they happen (eg a 3-0 close will be tough to overturn). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think the DRV you closed could have gone the other way, actually, simply by using the DRV closer's discretion to relist—as DGG would likely have done, from what he posted above, and surely a de facto "overturn to no consensus" after the requisite week-long communications failure between entrenched positions. It would have been a justifiable DRV close because there really wasn't a consensus at the TFD, and Sjakkalle's original close was a specific application of IAR. I think that in the end it went the right way but that's personal prejudice because I think editors who see problems ought to fix them, not just stick a vague tag on there to encourage someone else to do the heavy lifting. Regardless, I don't really agree that your close was the only possible outcome.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• (later) Incidentally, the kind of DRV I had in mind for a "triumvirate" close would be something like this.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd have to disagree with that. In particular, I thought the DRV was much more productive than usual (seven crossed the floor, which is seven more than usual at DRV, and there was a high number of !voters that weren't involved in the TfD). I don't think Sjakkalle was invoking IAR, but rather evaluating arguments to close against the apparent headcount. But that's all tangential. I'm inclined to suggest the proposal on a trial basis: allow it for, say, three or four XfDs or DRVs to test it out before opening an RfC to propose it as a permanent fixture. The trial would help inform the RfC. Are there any specifics of the proposal regarding which you have any views? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, not really; the idea was half-formed when I suggested it, and I hadn't thought it through thoroughly. Let's see what happens when people do! :)—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think I'll sit on it for a while to think about it more. If any TPS's have any views, they would be great (thanks, Eraserhead).--Mkativerata (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the triumvirate proposal sounds very promising. I really think you should propose it at WT:Deletion process, give it a mention there first before doing a more formal RfC at WP:VPR, let others hammer out the details. Personally I think the triumvirate close should include high-participation RfCs as well as DRVs and XfDs. How the triumvirate closers should be selected is another thing that needs to be worked out. -- œ^™ 12:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - the best and least bureaucratic option I can I think of for now is for one admin to post on AN and have two admins agree to join the first admin in doing the close. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DAI Copyright infringement deletions: Sukhumi massacre

Hi! You've written that you presumptively removed a section added by DAI. I've googled for that exact wording and haven't found presumed source. Therefore I think that the deleted paragraph should be restored. Do you have any proof that it's taken from somewhere? Best regards, Alæxis_¿question? 17:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for the note. I do not have any proof that the material is lifted from a non-free source. The reason I've used the word "presumptively" is because I presumed the material to be a copyright violation. The material was added by an editor who has a long history of copyright violations: just about everything he/she ever wrote in an article was a copyright violation. 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". However, now that you have raised it, I've looked at it again and in more detail. I've seen three bad grammatical errors in the text I removed. This suggests it could be a rare case of DAI's own writing rather than copying from a professional. But I'm not sure. Also, the one source cited (for half of the text) is from the US State Department, so even if that source was copied from, it would be less of a concern because it's a free source. That's given me enough reason to think that the risk of this material is quite low. So I have restored and and rephrased the text to (a) fix the grammar, (b) use new sources, and (c) avoid any copyright violation. See here. Obviously please feel free to tinker with the new text. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Alæxis_¿question? 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Some new Good Articles

Hi. You might be interested in hearing that I managed to bring three of my earlier contributions up to the "Good Article" level: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Afroyim v. Rusk, and Vance v. Terrazas. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rich - I'd seen that you had nominated a few - congratulations on the outcome! Three GAs in quick succession! --Mkativerata (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fleet racing

Dravecky (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Amazing what you can find at WP:Requested articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nancy Schaefer

Dravecky (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mrtk1 evasion

Hey there. A few hours ago you blocked Mrtk1 (talk · contribs) for edit warring. A few minutes ago, 178.105.81.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) showed up on the same page and continued warring. Could you take a look at this? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Quack, quack! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's any more I'll protect the page or extend the block. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll let you know if it continues. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I've watchlisted it too and will be online for a while. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I get to bother you again. The dude is back as 178.105.145.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with this edit. Same ISP, different IP. Perhaps it's time for protection? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I extended the blocks rather than protect the page: with some good IP edits ([1]), I'm a bit more reluctant to protect than I am to block. But if he/she does it again, there'll really be no choice.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Chuck McCoy (Canadian radio) DYK

Hi, thanks for reviewing my DYK, I'm glad you caught that before it appeared on the main page. I fixed the year and added this ref. J04n(talk page) 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I've just ticked it off. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Gavin Massey

Hey there. I was wondering if you would be willing to recreate Gavin Massey? Although I personally still have reservations about his notability (and that of people in a similar position, i.e. never having started a game), he meets WP:NSPORTS, and has played enough football that he will almost certainly be created in the near future. Therefore, the article may as well be restored to a version that received some attention at AfD, rather than started from scratch. Regards, —WFC— 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(evidence that the situation has changed somewhat since last AfD: [2] [3]) —WFC— 17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure - how about I restore it to your userspace in case you want to update the article before going back to mainspace (when you move it to the mainspace, explain in the move log that he's played for Watford a few more times). I agree it might not survive an AfD (4 sub appearances is a bit thin) but it would survive being G4'd. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. BTW sorry if you didn't want it userfied - if that's the case we can just move it back and I'll update the stats. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's cool, I've moved it back and updated. Thanks for the help! —WFC— 18:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Could you please add both the date of death and the end of her term to the infobox. The date of death got erased. Also, today is January 8th, not January 11th. Hello32020 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we'll have to revert the death altogether based on the most recent reports. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

With regards the Epeefleche CCI, I would like to help with cleanup but am wary that it would only serve to stir up more conflict and hounding accusations from Epeefleche. To avoid that, would you mind if I posted any violations I find here for you to deal with? _wjemather^bigissue 01:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there - I'd be happy to do that. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Great. Here are 5 for starters. All had the copied material at creation, and still do now:

• Daniel Prenn copied from [4]
• Gary Gubner copied from [5]
• Ben Jeby copied from [6] (no copyright notice on website, which is referenced from Encyclopedia of JEWS in sports)
• Marina Kravchenko copied from [7] (no copyright notice on website, which is referenced from Encyclopedia of JEWS in sports) & [8] (copy of preceding website, but has copyright notice)
• Lew Tendler copied from [9] and [10]

Many thanks, _wjemather^bigissue 08:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Two more:

• Ronald Joseph & Vivian Joseph copied from [11] & [12] (again no copyright notice on website, which is referenced from Encyclopedia of JEWS in sports)

Thanks, _wjemather^bigissue 09:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've just blanked Daniel Prenn. I'll work through these gradually rather than as a bunch because it appears Epeefleche might be intending to rewrite them (so I don't want to move too quickly). But please don't let that stop you from posting them to me. BTW don't be too concerned about whether there's a copyright notice on the article. In most countries (eg the US) a copyright notice doesn't establish copyright, it's just designed as a warning to readers (see here). --MkativerataCCI (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it is assumed that copyright is held in the absense of any notice to the contrary? I've created a subpage in my userspace (here) where I have several more listed. It may be better than to use that as a workspace rather than continually adding to your talkpage. Which would you prefer? _wjemather^bigissue 19:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's right - everything is subject to copyright unless the owner has released it into the public domain, allowed us to use it under license, or unless there's a law exempting it from copyright. I'd be happy to watchlist your page and work through it from there. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the presumption I have always worked to, but good to have it re-affirmed. I'll just update my page then. Articles I find that have no problems I will cross off the CCI list myself, as I'm sure no conflict would arise from that. It may be worth advising others (such as Moonriddengirl and VernoWhitney) so they can deal with them as well? _wjemather^bigissue 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. It wouldn't hurt to let MRG and VW know of the page -- even if only so you can say multiple admins are aware of what you are doing. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

ARS

More power to you if you actually get any takers on your post. I tried bringing up the idea and even tagged some articles for rescue to no avail back in October. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that you'd already raised it. I would have thought that CP is a much better place to find articles for rescue than AfD. But perhaps AfD is considered more interesting. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW I found two GAs today that were copyvios to the core. I figured summary de-listing was appropriate without needing to go through the motions (see here). It's amazing what can sail through GA, although in fairness they were from 2008. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would've thought the same thing, but if their interest is in sourcing rather than (re)writing I can see why they would prefer AfD even if they didn't like the drama-filled discussions.

That's a perfect example of why we can't treat "reviewed" content differently from any other. Copyvio turns up in the durndest places... VernoWhitney (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here I was stressing about getting Delphine LaLaurie to comply with MOS prior to submitting it for GA, and now I discover that all it takes is to replace all the text with a direct quote from another book or website. GA here I come!  :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Now that's another thing that gets my goat - MOS hangups in good article reviews (never happened to any of my noms but I've seen it). Hardly any of the MOS is mandatory for a good article; the criteria explicitly say so. But of course technical compliance with the MOS bible is more important than verifiability, good sourcing, and not stealing other people's work. End rant. Good luck with the GA nom! --Mkativerata (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I got severe MOS changes required in my first GA, which were annoying but did result in a significantly better article when I addressed them. I've just passed a few on in doing a review for someone else. Frankly, I like seeing a few easy MOS changes recommended, as they're normally easy to fix and therefore provide an easy first step on the way to tackling any other problems with the article, which are usually bigger and require more thought about how to proceed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, hey, are you okay, by the way? I hear as of 11.30 am they're evacuating central Brisbane due to the floods? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh yes, I'm fine... Feet just a bit a wet :) No actually I haven't been in Brisbane for a few weeks. F**k a duck it looks bad, doesn't it. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Boned

Seeing this edit in a now-archived RFA, I feel compelled to point out that the numbers of definitions at the Urban Dictionary are not static. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear! --Mkativerata (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

John O'Reily and other things

Hey, thanks for the review. As I say, I've never done a GA before, so I might need a little more handholding than normal. I'm a little busy today, but I should have a few hours free tonight to deal with your suggestions. On an unrelated note, I hope the flooding hasn't affected you too much. The weather's been hot and dry down here, and the pictures on the news look terrifying.  -- Lear's Fool 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries - it might take me a day or so to go through the remaining sections anyway. Don't be disturbed by the length of the review, much of it is nitpicky stuff that goes beyond the GA criteria. Re the floods -- without revealing too much personal information -- it's all ok for me and family, thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK P2

Sorry, but I was in the process of building that queue over the last hour so I had to copy over that hook placement. I do it in one step, as to why the (inuse) tag was placed. Feel free to place it in P3 if you wish, or I could do it for you. Kindly Calmer Waters 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I missed that tag. I've put it in p4 instead. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) I'm not the fastest prep preparer, but I like to do a second review of all the hooks before saving them onto the prep page. Try to catch any last minute issues or errors :) Thanks again. Calmer Waters 19:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2010 ANZAC Test

The article 2010 ANZAC Test has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The concern is that this article about an individual rugby league test match that is not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vanruvan (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 2010 ANZAC Test for deletion

The article 2010 ANZAC Test is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 ANZAC Test until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Vanruvan (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When I created this article I expected it would go to AfD. So the only thing that surprises me is that it took nine months! Thanks for the notification, I might have lost it on my much-too-long watchlist otherwise. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns

I believe I have addressed all your concerns on copyright vio. CTJF83 chat 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I suggest posting the diffs of the cleaning underneath my neutral so others can see. I'll re-assess my position (it's not really a position, "neutral" just seemed the best place to say what I thought needed to be said) over the next few days. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I just mentioned the changes just so you knew I did it, not to have you change your !vote. CTJF83 chat 21:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Chris Swan

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A possibly stupid question

When you ferret out copyright violations in articles – as you seem to be quite good at doing – are there any tools that you use, or is all "by hand", i.e. pulling up each of the referenced sources in the articles and visually comparing the text in separate browser windows? 28bytes (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all by hand, I'm afraid. Over time I've learnt to spotcheck an article to hone in on the text that is most likely to be a violation: usually it will be a long sentence or multiple consecutive sentences sourced to one source. If the sentence has creative wording, it's particularly worth a check. It's also useful to punch a short string of text into google, google news, and google books, to see what comes up because, sad to say, some contributors mask their violations by ripping text from one source but citing another! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. Perhaps one of these days I should write a tool that will scan an article for sources and compare their contents to the article's. In the meantime I think I need to do some digging by hand... 28bytes (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question, BTW. Although the great unknown is the non-creations: most of his contributions are builds on existing articles. I haven't sampled any of them. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think it was fair to ask him to review 30,000 edits, but a spot-check of 32 didn't seem unreasonable. 28bytes (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps I'm asking too much. Although the number of GAs (none of which are creations) troubles me.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't think your concerns were at all unreasonable; quite the opposite. It's great when one fixes errors when they're pointed out, but much, much better to fix them proactively. 28bytes (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I appreciate your balanced comment on the userbox issue. As an educated person who believes in God, I'm taking the community's acceptance with my beliefs being called superstitions, and the "agreement" of editors I've worked closely with, hard. Please don't reply to this post lest you be called "childish", etc as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As a non-Catholic who attended a Catholic high school, I learned some things about how to respect others' beliefs even if you don't agree with them... and what it feels like when others don't respect yours. So I believe I understand your feelings on this very well. 28bytes (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution, sourcing copyedit

I was about to do more extensive edits than what I've already done, but I figured I might as well explain my suggestions here first:

• publishers/locations are only used for periodicals where they are necessary for disambiguation (in which case the ISSN usally does the trick) or in the rare case where they outline a potential conflict of interest regarding the nature of the source. I usually don't use them with "cite news" or "cite journal".
• When citing legal cases, it's accepted practice (as far as I know) to use the standard abbreviations. I would personally cite a reporter in addition to the neutral citation (which are used alone here), but that's just me.

These are changes I'd apply myself. I don't mind doing that sort of copyediting. Circéus (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the copyedit, I really appreciate it. (Especially the embarrassing typo in the header!) I'll go through (probably won't be now, but soon) and remove the publisher and location fields as you've suggested. My preference is to keep neutral citations only for case law, because they're "neutral" and don't clutter up the references. But I'm not fussed about it either way. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The way I understand it (not a lawyer, but I have had some Legal translation classes), a neutral citation should generally be supplemented by reporter cites, because the reporter is still were many lawyers looks, or want to be able to look. In any case I have not heard of a court that uses only neutral where reporters cites are available. Circéus (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

All done. Also added pinpoint cites for quotes from the judgements, at least when possible (the austlii page for Krugger lacks paragraph numbers). You might want to check that I wrote them in the right way. Circéus (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! What I might do is add page refs for the non-neutral pinpoint citations, as that's how non-neutral citations are typically pinpointed. So, for example, footnote 35 would be "[1943] HCA 12 at para. 10, 67 CLR 116 at p. X." Any thoughts? --Mkativerata (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'm more used to Canadian cites, where the pinpoint is almost always by paragraph numbers (which has the advantage of being consistent across reporters). I've noticed Austlii judgements have each justice's judgement numbered separately, you'll want to take that into account in the neutral cite; case citation does not specify the format for Australian neutral pinpoint citations, so I couldn't check. Circéus (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hi, I just saw your comment, and replied, hopefully in a way that clarifies. And no, I definitely did not mean you. Anyway, thank you for calling me a "senior and respected editor". Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I've just replied back. I am genuinely sorry to pick on your comments like this. I'm doing so because I have so much respect from you - so know it's much more likely that you, as opposed to others, will understand where I'm coming from.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I went to see your reply, and found that the RfA has been closed at the candidate's request. Really, this whole thing has just been very sad. To answer the question at the end of your reply (since of course I can't answer it there), no, I don't know. And they don't know about me, because I don't volunteer those things. Maybe the candidate should not have volunteered that information, to that extent, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure -- one day I might regret my own persistence in this RfA. I certainly have been wondering over the last few days whether I've ever taken it a bit too far. Suffice to say I was offended not only by the userbox but by the attitude of a number of members in the community to the good faith objections raised against the candidate on the basis of it. (FWIW I actually disagree with the "multiple userbox" opposes). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be on the safe side

I thought I should ask if the following edits of mine were ok: [13], [14]. I don't see how commenting on a (lack of) promotional tone could be a problem, but I failed at seeing some other issues in the past. So to be safe, I thought I'd ask you if you think my edits there are fine - or should I self-revert? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This could be argued as a breach of your topic ban, but I think it's too much of a stretch. I think it would help if you restored the tag though - there certainly looks to me to be a lot peacockery in the article, much of which is sourced to the University's own website. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I've restored the templates as per your suggestion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

John O'Reily

There are now ticks next to all your comments on the review. There are still a couple of things where I wouldn't mind your input (I've left comments about them on the review page). Sorry for the delay, by the way, I've been trying to take a break from editing this past week.  -- Lear's Fool 16:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just made some minor additional comments, and then it should all be right. I hope you enjoyed your time off editing after your marathon RfA! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It was nice, thanks, although I'm looking forward to getting back into it. I have rather a substantial to-do list, and it's longer now that I'm keen to help with a couple of administrative backlogs. I'll keep plugging along with it, though. The lead has been copy-edited, and I've removed the hyphens from "state-schools".  -- Lear's Fool 03:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll have one last read through sometime in the next day or so, and assuming nothing else crops up, I'll pass it.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mkativerata. You have new messages at User talk:Looie496/Recall.
Message added 20:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Contumelious

I had to look that one up in the dictionary! Always grateful to have my vocabulary expanded. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I should have said "conscious and contumelious" - that's how judges say it and it sounds nice. :) --Mkativerata (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Has a nice alliterative ring to it, like "lewd and lascivious." 28bytes (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about the recall issue

If the admin proposed for recall were to agree that they should not have unblocked against concensus, would that be sufficient for you to withdraw your endorsement of the recall? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't give firm guarantees, but if points (a) and (b) in my statement were satisfactorily addressed, I'd be unlikely to see the need to throw the issue open to the community. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting specific

I don't intend to call out specific editors on the RfA talk page, but I will say that if you pull up the most recently closed RfA, and make a list of all the adjectives and nouns used to describe the person who first opposed due to a certain userbox, you will understand what I mean. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. My only concern is that while you and I see one problem, others will see different things, so I think general gratutious comments about behaviour are unlikely to be helpful. Everyone thinks "what triggered this"? But I really need to stop caring :)--Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, any sufficiently general suggestion that people be nicer is often met with "yeah, those [expletives] I've been arguing with certainly should be nicer." Human nature, I suppose. 28bytes (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Utusan Borneo

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Utusan Borneo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Utusan Borneo and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. USchick (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mkativerata, since you are an administrator, you should know what makes an article notable. Please provide notable information about this newspaper. I added links to the article and removed contact information, which is self promotion. Thank you. USchick (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi USchick. A couple of points:

• Notability is irrelevant to an A7 tag. A7 asks "is there a credible claim to significance or importance?". It doesn't ask "is the subject notable?" Notability is a question for AfD. A7 deliberately sets a lower bar than notability: it's designed only to capture very obvious cases of articles about unimportant subjects. In my view, a newspaper with over 100 journalists and a large regional circulation crosses the A7 bar easily.
• I agree with your removal of the contact information. But once that information has been removed, what makes the article promotional. G11 deletion requires a page to be exclusively promotional.

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you think it's notable, does not make it notable. Does anyone else think it's notable? Please provide the reason and the source. In the meantime, please do not remove the deletion tag. You can use the {hang on} feature and discuss it on the talk page. As an administrator, please set the standard in behavior. Thank you! USchick (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

G'day again - as I've said, notability is irrelevant to the speedy deletion tags on the article. I've never said I think it's notable, I've only said the article "makes a credible claim to significance or importance". If you think the article is not notable, you can nominate it at WP:AFD. Secondly, I didn't create the article so per WP:CSD I'm entitled to decline a speedy deletion nomination for it. You don't even have to be an admin to decline a speedy deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, continually reverting the decline of a speedy deletion is really quite disruptive. To avoid escalation of any conflict, I'm going to let you leave the tag on the article because it will almost certainly be declined by another editor. I hope you are not doing this on other articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

USchick, please see Wikipedia:Deletion_Policy#Speedy_deletion: "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page." The policy does not require them to state (or by implication, have) a good reason to remove the nomination. There has been some discussion on the WP:CSD talk page about some minor limitations to this regarding inexperienced users, sockpuppets, and IP editors, but a declination by an experienced user, especially a sysop like Mkativerata, is final. Don't place yourself in a position to get in trouble when you're just trying to do the right thing; take the article to WP:AFD, instead. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC) PS: Also, the {{hangon}} tag can only properly be placed on an article by its creator, so unless you contend that Mkativerata is an alter ego of Micekch, then Mkativerata cannot place the tag on the article. Also, of the three deletion processes, CSD, PROD, and AFD, only AFD requires, or makes provision for, discussion (and, indeed, "deletion discussions" is the alternate name for AFD). Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you TransporterMan, I tagged it with a new deletion tag. USchick (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mkativerata, I also work in other languages, so I can appreciate the need to include pertinent information from other countries. Perhaps you can recruit other Malay speaking editors here [Category:Malaysian Wikipedians]. I asked for assistance here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia, seven days is plenty of time to find a reason to keep the article. USchick (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving that message. I was thinking of posting to a similar wikiproject (WP:MY) but was worried it could be construed as canvassing for my position. Unfortunately I don't know any active fluent Malay editors. My Malay is not terrible so I can put more of an effort into reviewing the sources myself. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we have reached a peaceful conclusion, I'm signing off for today. Cheers :) USchick (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers :) --Mkativerata (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Suicide of Nicola Raphael

As you contributed to this article, or commented at its first AfD, you may be like to contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Nicola Raphael (2nd nomination). JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hubert Guerin

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Tucson speech

Hmm. I think I withdraw my delete vote -- there's been a lot of expansion since then. Still not sure it deserves this much attention, but the material about the speechwriting process is a lot more interesting than the list of reactions, which was pretty much all there was at the time. Sorry I didn't catch this before you started closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I was just about to hit "save" on my close when I saw the yellow bar. As it turns out, your change is essentially consistent with the close. If you don't mind, I'll strike your delete !vote for the record with a wikilink to your note here? :) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was on the edge of changing my delete !vote too. Good close. PhGustaf (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this was a terrible keep. Did you even bother observing whether the content that has been added was wikipuffery? And what exactly are these developments that occurred after January 17? Truthsort (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Truthsort, if you think any claims in the article are POV or exaggerated, the best thing to do is edit them. The developments after January 17 are a reference to (a) the significant expansion of the article on that date; and (b) that most of the commentary about the speech was added to the article after that date. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. The whole subject of wikipuffery is to exaggerate the notability of the article to avoid deletion of the article. This was clearly used by finding as many reviews as possible to expand the article in misguided good faith. Truthsort (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipuffery is about exaggeration and misuse of sources (including, as you say, doing so in good faith). Finding coverage in reliable sources and adding it to the article is just article rescue. Of course, it can be over-done to the point that the article becomes unbalanced, or places undue weight on the reviews, but again it's a matter for editing. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The user who expanded the article basically did the easiest thing to expand it and that is find as many reactions to it as possible. I would say that about 60-70% of the article is just responses. I also do not agree with you disqualifying the merge votes based on article size, because many of those merge votes also stated that they felt there should not be an article on it anyways. Truthsort (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That was the secondary reason why some merge !votes were given less weight (not disqualified). The principal reason was that, like delete !votes, many of them were superceded by events. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

• Thanks for fixing the Murder of Michaela McAreavey AFD. I knew I screwed it up somehow. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • No worries. By the way, if you have Twinkle, it can automate AfD nominations. It's a painstaking process to do manually. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

DRV

Hi Mkativerata - thanks for commenting at my RfA. Just wanted to note that I know DRV is an area where I need to build up my knowledge. I'm lurking there at the moment, made my first comments recently, and have it as my priority area to learn better over the next few weeks (whatever the RfA's outcome). Hints, tips, injunctions to RTFM all gratefully received. Gonzonoir (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries - best of luck in the RfA. I only really felt compelled to mention it because I also mentioned it when opposing the RfA of another candidate who wanted to specialise in AfDs. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Some guidance please

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to get the advice of a more experienced admin regarding a discussion on my talkpage. Enidblyton11 (talk · contribs) created the page Jarrod Glover, which I have speedily deleted under G10. The subject is probably not notable, and the article itself was substantially negative and very poorly sourced. S/he has requested that I recreate it for them so they can fix it, which I obviously cannot do. I was wondering what your thinking was about providing a deleted copy of the article to them by e-mail? I think no, but I can't find any guidance in the deletion policy. Any talk page stalkers are welcome to chime in!  -- Lear's Fool 02:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I reckon tell the editor to start again. Defamation isn't my area of practice, but your emailing of the content could perhaps constitute "publication" for the purposes of defamation law, at least where we're from. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Userrights

I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of re-instating your pre-adminship rollback, reviewer and autopatrolled permissions. Please let me know if this is a problem.  -- Lear's Fool 11:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! --Mkativerata (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind disclosing your reason for resigning the tools? (And are you considering asking for them back later?) You were always such a rational admin, it's sort of sad if you're done with adminship forever :( /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Fetchcomms. I'm just not enjoying the mixed editor/admin role and I think in my circumstances I can contribute more to the community by solely acting as an editor rather than an admin. And I don't think I've been a particularly good admin. I doubt very much that I'll ask for them back later. I haven't had a great amount of enjoyment out of the project over the last five months, and the little enjoyment I've had has been from non-admin tasks. So, selfish reasons, I guess! --Mkativerata (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Aww :( But you're right, I guess, writing is infinitely more fun than blocking and deleting and stuff. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to echo Fetchcommons. The rationales you gave for your admin actions always struck me as well thought out and reasonable, even when I disagreed with them. But I think I understand your motivations. Anyway, good luck. Volunteer Marek  22:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks VM, I certainly know I've done things you disagreed with! --Mkativerata (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the mopping for a while, and best of luck with whatever you do in future.  Chzz  ►  03:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and a plee for help

First, I must thank you for closing the thread about HJ Mitchell at WP:AN. It took great courage and high integrity to close that thread, and so I thank you very kindly. This thread at the Village pump sent me on a mission to help the users at WP:NPP. So I've been putting up HUGE lists of users to be reviewed for Autopatrol status. If I had not done that, none of this wouldn't have happened so I feel somewhat responsible.

My plee for help is at those lists. You are a valuable Admin and have a lot of experience dealing with problematic users and know many by heart. If you have some spare time, could you skim through the list of users that have not yet been granted rights and add comments (or grab your mop again and mark them {{not done}})? This would eliminate people wasting time on them. Thanks very much and thanks again for closing that thread. I really appreciate that. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 08:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, my first priority, if HJ agrees, is going back through the old ones. But I can also try to help new ones by coming up with a list of "things to watch for" when granting the permission. It's really just a common sense approach of asking "what problems are NPPers tasked to identify?" and then "does this user have a recent history of creating those problems?" and "where should I look to see if those problems exist?". For example: NPPers pick up non-notable articles. So users who create non-notable articles shouldn't get autopatrolled permission. To find non-notable articles, look at deleted contribs. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds good. I think the "things to watch for" bit is a great idea. A lot of stuff like that is learned through experience and when Admins take the time to write it down, it helps others. Maybe have it as a check list kind-of-thing. Thanks again for the help. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 10:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a start: --Mkativerata (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What NPPers look for (in order of seriousness)	Traits that should exclude an editor from the permission	Where to look for those traits
Copyright violations	Any recent history of creating articles with copyright violations	Spot checking recent article creations
Unreferenced or poorly sourced BLPs, or attack pages	Any recent history of creating unreferenced or poorly sourced BLPs, or attack pages	Spot checking recent article creations
Articles that fail inclusion guidelines	Any recent articles that have been deleted via the deletion process	Spot checking deleted contributions and user talk page deletion notices
Articles that promote an entity or product or that overly rely on sources no independent of the product or entity	Any recent history of creating such articles	Spot checking recent article creations
Articles that are substantially below acceptable wikification standards	Any recent history of creating such articles	Spot checking recent article creations to see if they have been tagged by NPPers

Thanks, Mkativerata. This is really important information, IMO. I think this could be very helpful to others, especially new Admins. Would you mind adding it to WP:AUTOREV or somewhere you feel is appropriate? - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've posted it to the autorev talk page. I don't think it necessarily needs to be written into a WP page anywhere, but even if it just gets a discussion going. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added comments there. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 14:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns - George Patterson (advertiser)

Started new article at Talk:George Patterson (advertiser)/Temp and extensively edited to deal with copyright concerns. How does it look ? -Sticks66 22:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers - I'll have a look tomorrow morning our time. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

After a spot check, it looks good. The page will be listed at WP:CP until about 6 January when an admin will deal with it. If the admin's happy with the temp page, it'll get moved over to replace the article. I'll leave a note at WP:CP to make sure the admin doesn't miss the temp page. Thanks very much for this. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Law research challenge - Common Schools Act of 1871

I just remembered that you have legal training. I'm working at the moment on Common Schools Act of 1871, which would be improved immensely by (a) an external link to a full-text copy of the legislation and, (b) ideally a link to its predecessor, the Parish Schools Act 1858. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a Canadian/New Brunswick legislation database that stretches that far back. You don't happen to know of a place that I could find an online copy of either of these pieces of legislation, do you? - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this will be a tough one. This page provides some links to New Brunswick legislation but nothing helpful for this Act. There don't seem to be any free sources anywhere. But LexisNexis might have it: they list "New Brunswick historical legislation" among their resources. If you can't access LexisNexis, I might be able to (but the subscription I can access might not pay for New Brunswick historical legislation!). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm no longer working or studying anywhere with a LexisNexis subscription. It's very frustrating. If you happen to find it, please email me a copy, and I'll transwiki it to WikiSource as a precursor to using it in the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Mkativerata/Autopatrolled

I went through the list and I've left some comments. I removed a few, but there are some I'm inclined to leave. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll keep an eye on one or two of them in case there are ongoing problems. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have any objections, I'll tag the page under U1 and recreate it if I come across any more. It's probably better for the users concerned than courtesy blanking. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the cause for re-assessment given the lazy approach I took on the Patterson article. Thankyou for the consideration. I truly appreciate the privilege and will do better.-Sticks66 21:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyright Investigation Barnstar
		For your continued laudable and inspiring dedication to investigating CCIs and with congratulations on closing another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Freshly invented, just for you. Truly, you are impressive. You may have relinquished your mop, but so far as I can tell, you're still providing primo janitorial work. :) That said, I like the detective metaphor much better. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MRG :) --Mkativerata (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)