User talk:Mkdw/Archive 3

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

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for noticing and fixing my mistake Moxy (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mkdw,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ^{☎ call me!}

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What actions do I need to take to facilitate mediation? In particular, I want to make sure that the mediator(s) will be directed to the "in popular culture" chapter on the talk page. Hermitage (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Flash mob. Mkdw^talk 05:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Request for mediation concerning Flash mob, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your contributions to Wikipedia. It is very much appreciated. I would like your help resolving an issue on the Flash mob article. Please see Talk:Flash_mob#In_Popular_Culture.3F. - 64.40.62.120 (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the service awards displayed on my user talk page. I display these awards to protest against them. I follow the adage found on the page itself: From Wikipedia:Service awards: "These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty..." In short, I think that these awards are damaging to the spirit of Wikipedia and am hoping that people display the wrong awards so as to make them less relevant. Hope you understand.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't trying to be penalizing. I thought perhaps since the whole thing had been undergoing changes such as the medal of honor now redirecting there etc it had been a legacy transclusion. Mkdw^talk 18:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't edit other people's userpages. Seriously, its not nice and its very annoying that there are so many people out there that think that its ok to just randomly mess with other people's userpages. Bryan.Wade (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A wiki page may be edited by anyone freely. That is the fundamental principal behind a wiki page, and it explicitly states in the Wikipedia policy regarding user pages that no one user owns them nor has the authority to disallow others from doing so. However, despite your exceptionally hostile message, I do respect your right to keep your 'corresponding' user wiki page as you would like to see fit and simply changed the award to match your achievement. If you cannot be polite, Wikipedia does have a policy about hostility, especially in regards to grounds where you have no jurisdiction to tell me what I can and cannot do. Mkdw^talk 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, you seem to be a reasonable person. You have no idea though how many times people have messed with my userpages. Its just starting to get really annoying, and unless I respond, people tend to keep messing with them. Bryan.Wade (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I award you the Diplomacy Barnstar for peacefully resolving a misunderstanding of a natural act of well intent that escalated quickly, but that was short lived. Mkdwtalk 04:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As you just edited at the discussion page, note that the voting page for the Pending Changes trial is here. CycloneGU (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(Weird template after my sig. there...)

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I understand your point but from what has been talked about in the WP:MMA discussion page (See Archive 2) and the WP:MOS it has been stated that this area is just for the name the person is generally known as. Huerta is not known as "Tha Matador" more so than his real name. It is different for someone like Rampage Jackson who is known as Rampage as well as his Real name. Just thought I'd try and explain this. Hope this helps. (MgTurtle (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

Hi Mkdw. I would like to re open the discussion of having a montage for the infobox. It looks like in the past few days no one has answered except one user who I think made an account today. Could you maybe find any other people who would like to contribute to the discussion? I would really like your and other editors input on this. Thanks. By the way, please respond on my talk page. Nations United (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter (October 2010)

The WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter! Issue 1 - July, 2010 Hello and welcome to this, the first ever edition of the WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter! If you haven't been over to the WikiProject page lately then you're missing out - the whole thing has undergone a complete makeover - see below for more info! On top of this, we have brand spanking new templates (such as this one) and a completely revamped Collaboration of the Month - again, see below for more info on all of this. Finally, a warning - the new-look WikiProject is still having the finishing touches put on it. If you find something that doesn't work, you don't agree with or is just plain missing, please don't hesitate to let us know on the WikiProject's talk page. We'll try our very best to fix ASAP! New Look As mentioned above, the WikiProject has recently undergone a spring-clean and we're excited about it! If you don't mind - we'd like to take this opportunity to explain some of the features and generally show off about it a little. Colour scheme All pages on the WikiProject now use two consistent shades of blue as part of the new streamlined interface (Those techies amongst us may wish to know that the precise names of the colours we use are: "lightblue" for headings and "#c0e0e0" for backgrounds). Navigation Menu Every page on the WikiProject now has the official WikiProject navigation menu so you can easily flick between pages and get back to the main project page. Say goodbye to clicking the back button several times! To Do list/Open Tasks If you're stuck on what to do to help us then a list of the most important tasks is now available on the main page. At the moment, the list is looking a little short so if you have found something that you think ought to be added, then feel free to edit the list and let us know. Please refrain from linking to a specific article that generally needs an overall update. Single articles like this should be nominated for a future Collaboration of The Month - see below. Templates All of the project's templates are now arranged in one handy page. Whilst we were going through we also noticed one was missing. We have now added the new template in the form of: {{WPStagecraftWelcome}} - a welcome tag to be placed on the talk page of a new user. {{WPStagecraft Newsletter}} - the template containing the latest edition of the WikiProject Newsletter (you're looking at it now!) Collaboration of the Month Ok, so this isn't exactly a new feature. It's always been there but has never really been updated on a, ahem, monthly basis. The Collaboration of the Month (COTM) is now in template form to enable it to be streamlined across the Project, without having to be manually updated on each page. Don't worry if we've lost you at this point - the point is, it works! You can now nominate an article for COTM on the COTM page. The more sharp-eyed amongst you may well have noticed that the COTM at the moment is still that old fella, Stage lighting. That's because no-one has nominated a COTM for this month (being a new feature an' all...) so we've decided to leave it as it is for this month until a new one has been democratically voted for. And finally... Thanks very much for reading down this far - hopefully future newsletters won't be this long! Please, if you can, invite new members and drop us a line over at the talk page to let us know what you think of the new look/newsletter and any suggestions you may have. You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Participants on the WikiProject page. If (like most of the old WikiProject) this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the Participants list and also click here to stop receiving the newsletter. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. To view previous editions of the newsletter, click here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Stagecraft at 13:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Please see talk page for discussion.Brodey (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

There's only so many sites on the web I get my reviews from: IGN, GameInformer, GameZone, etc., and obviously the sites like IGN and Game Informer have their reception stuff up there usually, so I just like to post GameZone as their reviews aren't influenced with publishers paying them.--SteinlageT (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I came across your userbox and I thought I would suggest a slightly different wording, which would sort of have a pun in it as well. How about: "This user is polite and expects others to act in kind."? Just a suggestion. : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! You are invited to participate in the Theatre Project's Collaboration of the Month. This time it's the Theatre article. In the last 30 days, this article received 52,500 hits, or roughly 2,000 every day. Hope you can help! Nominate an article that could be greatly improved.

How i did i vandalize "transgender-related topics"? I'm Trans and i'm pretty sure whatever edit i made was not nonconstructive206.196.48.49 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, you had multiple cases of blatant vandalism such as adding Black Swan to the filmography of stunt personality Steve-O from MTV series Jackass. You incidentally linked to the bird and not the film of which he was not involved in any way, shape, or form. Secondly, among you other numerous incidents of vandalism you added a name to a list of transgendered people, whom I highly doubt was transgendered, and even if they were, completely fail Wikipedia's nobility guidelines. Allowing every edit that added an non-notable names to articles would create a worthless encyclopedia. So yes, every edit you have made to this website has been a waste of our time. Mkdw^talk 21:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you are a participant of the WikiProject Quebec.

The Outline of Quebec was created a few days ago and is under vigorous development. It fills a gap in Wikipedia's set of outlines. It is the 3rd outline to date about a Canadian province/territory.

• Wikipedia Contents
  • Outlines
    • Outline of geography
      • Outline of North America
        • Outline of Canada
          • Outline of Ontario
          • Outline of Quebec
          • Outline of Nova Scotia
          • Outline of New Brunswick
          • Outline of Manitoba
          • Outline of British Columbia
          • Outline of Prince Edward Island
          • Outline of Saskatchewan
          • Outline of Alberta
          • Outline of Newfoundland and Labrador
          • Outline of the Northwest Territories
          • Outline of Yukon
          • Outline of Nunavut

Outlines form one of the subsystems of Wikipedia's contents navigation system. For more information on outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines.

The goals for the Outline of Quebec is to complete it to as high a standard of quality as possible, and to make it even better than the Outline of Saskatchewan and the Outline of British Columbia.

Once the Outline of Quebec is completed, it will provide an important example to others creating outlines for the remaining provinces and territories of Canada.

Please take a look at the outline to see if you can notice (and fill in) any missing topics. Pictures would also be nice (the rarer and the more interesting, the better).

Thank you.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for your own edification, IMDb is frowned upon as a source for BLP info per WP:RS/IMDB. Dismas|^(talk) 03:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

<Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Where the Streets Have No Name.>

Respectfully, I am not introducing incorrect information.

The U2 Streets page currently has plenty of incorrect and unreferenced information. Thats why I spent some time clarifying. If there is something you feel is incorrect in my edit, I would be happy to help clarify further. Please let me know what you think is incorrect. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.193.153 (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mkdw. Olive branch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.193.153 (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to say that you were right or wrong in your assertion about that edit, but I'm not sure what you saw in my edit that was deemed as being on a soapbox and advertising (or whatever you left on my talk page). I honestly did not see what was wrong with it. I thought the At&T commercial was legitimizing the idea of flash mobs, and there are too many MJ flash mobs for them to not get a mention in some way. I could try to find some resources to cite the stuff if you want, but I'm not sure what was soapboxy about it.

That and you mentioned I was warned about that before. Please be aware that the issue with the previous "warning" concerns someone who could have a hidden agenda about removing such material (as that situation dealt with material that was clearly sourced by a legit site that the person STILL deemed invalid to use, and that deals with a hot button issue about that particular company in a particular genre that many have very strong opinions about the incident, and which the particular company has a rep for trying to spin the incident and keep certain details out of public eye [think EA and Fox News]). Hopefully that clears up, in a way, that issue. AFAIK, that's still ongoing.

But if some additional info about what was in violation with the Flash Mob edit other that the lack of citations as to how it was being on a soapbox, that would be helpful. Darkpower (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is an exert from the lead section of flash mob.

Literally hundreds of flash mobs take place each year. What made the MJ flash mob unique among the thousands. It was large and was related to the dead of a very famous pop icon. Does that qualify itself beyond WP:EVENTS and WP:NOTNEWS? Absolutely not. This is an encyclopedia. Examples are extremely rare to include in the article and event such historic flash mobs such as the largest one ever recorded and the first one to break thousands is continuously debated on whether it should be kept or not. So if the world record, and first largest flash mob might be removed, we wouldn't even consider the MJ flash mob since it lacks no where near the notability. Mkdw^talk 18:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Wikipedian British Columbians are planning a meetup at the Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch, on Sunday, October 16th, as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! InverseHypercube 03:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Mkdw/Archive 3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Hi. I don't want to get into an edit war, so let's work this out. You twice reverted my verifiable statement that Vancouver has an upcoming election. The statement was made in the "Government" section of the article and is, I believe, entirely notable in that section. I enclosed a reliable source as reference for it. Your revert comment reads: "Talking about a future election is highly unconventional and unencyclopedic". Do you have a basis for this belief? Wikipedia has always maintained content on future elections. In fact, the Wikipedia:Articles on elections page demonstrates that there is communal consensus to maintaining content on upcoming elections. Maintaining content before and election is specifically discussed. Thoughts? --Ds13 (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Mkdw, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just checking where are we on the disputed article - Sreelakshmi Suresh. Was expecting your reply/comments. And no comments from other users as well. Added more info onthis article's entry on the 'Articles for deletion page'.

--LVerina (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is my apology for calling your edits vandalism, I did not know your intention but was curious to see edits with the little girl (may be i was wrong ) but do not take me wrong i do not have any wrong intentions of blaming people , i never called you a vandal or sort ,but may be had misstaken one of your edit as vandalism and nothing more. I do understand you has a senior editor , but please divide me with my edits as both are different , and any way again apologise Shrikanthv (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you. Could you perhaps have a quick look at the Rachana Shah article as an uninvolved editor, and at recent events at the Afd? The nominator did a hatchet job on the article, then withdrew the Afd as having had "sufficient review". Thanks a lot. Esowteric+Talk 08:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Much appreciated. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please check again Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachana_Shah_(2nd_nomination) and contribute if you think it is necessary Shrikanthv (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.voiceonline.com/surrey-projected-to-be-bigger-than-vancouver-in-ten-years/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by70.26.134.100 (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Weirdest comment yet... Mkdw^talk 03:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I see the article getting edited a lot recently. And not any constructive edits. Anyway, I see you added the lines "Suresh is the only under-age member of the Association of American Webmasters and was inducted by AAW CEO Donna Snyder. [3] She has received over 30 national and international awards and recognitions for her work." I fear this will lead to the article in the old form which we trimmed down later and made it neat. As explained already, the 'Association of American Webmasters' is a bogus one and no physical presence/details are available for it - unless you/other members provide the links and reference. And second, the "30 national and international awards" - are we back to square one? We discussed this many times and none of the 'web badges' are international awards. If you find any of the awards worth mentioning, please provide the links and details so that others can decide based on it. Just because a newspaper mentioned she got 'International Award', so we need to copy the same? The main point I would like to make related to this is - she never won even a single international award! Please let me know if you think otherwise, with links of course.

As I promised you before, I didn't make any edits on a prejudiced manner. And I didn't make any edits recently at all. But I have a strong urge to remove the above two lines. Thought I will ask you before doing. Please comment on - either here or in the article's discussion page. Will wait for your reply before I make any edits on the article. --LVerina (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the awards, we could change it to "recognitions". The sources very directly word it national and international. To change the source or remove it would be a POV change based in opinion and not off third party sources. I strongly believe in not altering the base information from citations because of personal beliefs even if you feel they are founded in facts. Regarding the AAW, it's not hurting anyone and moreover most of the news articles chose to include that information because it gives background to her involvement outside of her immediate locale. Removing it again would simply be a personal preference and not an encyclopaedic choice. The reason I added this is because its very apparent one or more single purpose editors using IPs and one off accounts have been slowly removing key information. More attention is being given to this article than it should considering its topic. I find it likely that a few editors who's arguments were not sided with in the AfD's are continuing their vendetta. I already know of two who have said they retired directly over this article. Mkdw^talk 23:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick and detailed reply. Though I still don't understand why you prefer to keep the reference to the web badges in the article. Sounds strange to me. Sorry, but a web badge is never an award not a recognition. It is quite similar to an e-greetings card we create in websites. Type in your name and details and you get the e-card with your name in a fancy way. Where is award or recognition in this? Really sorry, but I failed to understand the point. Now, if we allow the lines there as per the newspaper source, there are difference in number of these web badges. Some reports claim it to be 15, some 17, some 30 and some even more. Unless we know the exact number from any reliable source and get the name of the awards (we will not get it as she NEVER received any!) and its importance, I do not think it will be a good idea to mention that.

Regarding the second point. We do not have any reliable source/link or even a third party source regarding the AAW or its credibility/physical existence. The girl may be a member in numerous societies/associations. But why should we, the wikipedians mention associations which are not worth mentioning? Again, I failed to find the logic here. Apart from the fact that AAW is just a web badge dispensing website, we do not have any information on them. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regarding your comment on the single purpose editors and vandalism, I am not going to comment on as I am not one of them. I was strongly against this article but after my first AFD discussion I understood how Wikipedia system work and the 'Notability' part. I am not going to vandalize or make un-necessary edits in the article. I can always assure you that. At the same time, I see there is chance that people will edit challenging the new additions you made. As you remember, the article was pretty much tied up and crystal clear after the last AFD discussion. Nobody could challenge or question those lines as everything was written at a neutral point of view. I was quite ok with that too. Removing all unnecessary lines and details. But looking at the way you adding back many of the lines which have least importance/reference to bogus institutions/associations, I will not get surprised if some other user put this article for AFD soon.

I will be adding a new section under the discussion page for that article, and will see others response on the two points I mentioned. Just wanted to check whether it is something wrong at my end or not, as I am not too familiar with the Wikipedia editing. Thanks again. --LVerina (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this edit of mine just can't be vandalism. I was just renaming the section so it looks like the similar sections of other cities' articles. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 13:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It was an accident. You can see I reverted one more step back after. Sorry about that. Mkdw^talk 06:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no offense taken, anyway. Cheers, Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 09:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your message. Nightscream (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mkdw: I added the more recent serial killer Michael Longo beneath a 1950's serial killer listed under Newport Oregon. When I first did this, it came out pointing to a Wiki entry to some musician. That was not the Michael Longo I was referencing, so I redid the page without a redirect entry - ie. just the plain name.

This more recent serial killer is in fact a very famous killer. He moved his wife and three children to Newport Oregon, went to work at Starbucks (in the Fred Meyers in Newport), and then quit because it was too much work. The day after he quit he killed his wife and three children and fled to Mexico. The wife and two older (like 4 and 7) children were found in the slough at Waldport and he threw the baby into a suitcase and dumped it into the water by the dock in front of his apartment in Newport.

For a short while Mr. Longo was at the top of the FBI most wanted list. He was caught in Cancun after a German tourist he had spent the night with saw his face headlined in a paper there and turned him in. He is currently on death row in Oregon.

Hope you let this change stay. Longo really is a current, interesting, Newport serial killer. — Preceding unsigned comment added byOcoastperson (talk • contribs) 02:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick media and google search even for the 'michael longo' you referenced showed no results and did not substantiate the edits you introduced. They were reverted initially and then subsequently as vandalism. If you think I made a mistake you may provide a source. Also, did you happen to mean Christian Michael Longo? The FBI does mention him in 2002. Mkdw^talk 22:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi,I would like to tell you that I had bought a book (Samuel Morris, The Apostle of Simple Faith) and those which I wrote were from the book.But it was erased but I will forgive you ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobelisha (talk • contribs) 08:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Jobelisha

As stated on your talk page, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources before making any significant unsourced changes to articles. Mkdw^talk 08:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you saw my changed article of Samuel Morris,are you a Christian

Jobelisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobelisha (talk • contribs) 08:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I came across your edits in Special:RecentChanges. Many editors on Wikipedia patrol new edits checking for edits that need direction or for helping spot vandalism. Mkdw^talk 08:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Be careful while closing AfD. You didn't add the bottom template while closing this AfD and the entire day's log was messed up. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks for catching that. Mkdw^talk 22:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if you close a discussion as Speedy Keep then you are doing it under WP:SK point 1, so it is really a speedy keep closure. However it doesn't really matter if you close it as "withdrawn" instead of "speedy keep", as there's no real difference. I would certainly advise using the oldafd on article talk pages, even in the cases of withdrawn nominations. Possibly not all non-admins closing deletion discussions are aware of its existence. Hut 8.5 07:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice. I wanted to check in and make sure I was doing it right before continuing further. I am interested in becoming more involved with AfD's. Would you be willing to mentor me if you have the time? Mkdw^talk 08:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd be better off asking someone else to be honest - I don't have a great deal of time and I don't do much AfD work these days anyway. Hut 8.515:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Weird - it was in page curation and obviously it is a live article. Seems that it got put back in prod by a descendant of the blocked original user. Not sure how to handle this as AfD will recreate the same discussion.---MJH (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Re the 20 some runner-up models, sorry to have caused you all the AfD closure work. I appreciate you cleaning up my mess. --Nixie9 (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It was no trouble. I did notice that several of the articles appeared quite extensive and had multiple AfD's in the past so it was the right decision to separate them. Mkdw^talk 02:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made a procedural closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of Mary Magdalene due to the nominators disruption to Wikipedia. The nominator was engaged in a conflict with another editor of whom both are currently indefinitely banned. I see that the article Legend of Mary Magdalene is an in progress sub-article to Mary Magdalene in which almost every section has a sub-article. If you feel the there is a strong case the article should be deleted, please open up another AfD with the specified reasons for deletion. Mkdw^talk 03:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The was an AfD discussion on the article Legend of Mary Magdalene which you closed as a speedy keep. There is a main article Mary Magdalene where section 4.1 specifically mentions The Legend of Mary Magdalene. Considering the amount of material in the new article, merging it into Mary_Magdalene#Legend_of_Mary_Magdalene is worthy of condiseration. What was your rational for closing off discussion after just 2 hours? Blue Riband► 03:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I closed it under WP:SK 2b as cited in my NAC statement. The nomination was a bad faith nomination with no reason for deletion except for disruption and edit warring. Both the page creator and the nominator were almost immediately banned after posting the nominations. Under 2b, an AfD cannot stand if the nomination did not have merits under XfD. You can properly nominate the page for a new AfD if you think it should be deleted. Simply asking for a page to be deleted because of another user's state is not a valid nomination. Mkdw^talk 03:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For all of the wonderful things you do on Wikipedia.

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks Sue! Mkdw^talk 04:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nightscream (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello, Mkdw. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Interior (Talk) 19:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the wonderful barnstar! You rock. I just wanted to say thanks more personally than spewing the usual blurb underneath your nice gesture. I really appreciate it. Sometimes I feel like I am all by myself fighting everyone on Wikipedia and attempting to be as polite as humanly possible at the same time. (I am sure you are no stranger to this feeling yourself) so it gives me a lot of moral support when someone notices. Thank you again. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure Sue. You've certainly shown much growth lately since I first left you that tid-bit of advice awhile back. I often find myself passing over AfD's that you've already expressed your opinion because you've already stated the same argument I would have. Mkdw^talk 11:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mkdw. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 09:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 09:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mkdw!

I read your notice on Yunshui's Talkpage. I noticed your interest in becoming an admin. I wanted to let you know you have my full support, and good luck! Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 14:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, yes I think I'm still a ways away from such but I appreciate your support in advance. For now I'm looking forward to getting back to some article writing and refreshing my understanding of some Wikipedia policies that I haven't referenced since the last time I worked on an FA article -- possibly in 2007 or '08. Yikes! Mkdw^talk 22:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw! Thanks again for helping out with the third opinion request for SHSH blob. The second editor and I have discussed aspects of the article further, and it'd be great to get another opinion again. If you're a bit busy or not interested, just let me know and I'll list a new request for a different third opinion. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dreamy. Sorry, I haven't checked on that discussion in awhile. I checked back and it looked like it had moved onto a discussion about finding reliable sources. Was there anything in particular you wanted me to comment on? Mkdw^talk 23:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the discussion would benefit from another opinion on the usefulness of the iH8sn0w source, the suitability of the primary sources warning tag, my suggestion for fixing the COI problem, and the dubious tag for the software developer blogs. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mkdw. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 12:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 12:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw. Thank you so much for your encouraging review of my new Wikipedia page about David Chater: "Article off to a great start"! I'll try to add a little more to it when I have time. All the best to you - Zhu Haifeng (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Multi Chevrolet is a dealership in New Jersey based upon a WP:SET and should not be a redirect. Mkdw^talk 09:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, that it's an individual dealership means it probably should be a redirect. It doesn't seem likely to merit an article (and in any event, certainly not a copy-paste of the base chevy article). WilyD 09:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah okay, I took it as spam WP:R#DELETE #4. No problem. Mkdw^talk 09:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Left a note on the bot page but will leave this here for the operator to see. Polish was added by the article creator and not me; seems like a glitch. 11:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not intending to attacking the subject in any way. I did not appreciate what you did to the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmrafting (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The page clearly contained fictional and untrue facts about an individual. Whether it was your intention or not, it was highly inappropriate. This sentiment was seconded by the deleting admin. Mkdw^talk 00:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What can we do about this Greg Bollom character? There's no talk page so can we just block the account? His edits are getting rather tiresome. Headhitter (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave him a message and we'll see what happens. Mkdw^talk 09:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you now have done: thanks.Headhitter (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See this, which suggests either sockpuppetry or at the very least a concerted effort by the company to canvass links, hence the strong warnings issued to all offending parties. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That certainly is a very concerning find. I understand based upon your findings. Mkdw^talk 21:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting vandalism done to MattyBraps wikipedia page. BTO98 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks BT098, that's very kind. Mkdw^talk 21:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a mistake in removing the part where CM Punk told The Rock that his arms are too short to box with God. That was a reference during their promo on Raw this past Monday night and I was there when he said it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.117.43 (talk)

Hi. If you think it's relevant to the article you may reintroduce it at anytime. I recommend that if you have a source that supports your statement, that you add it next time. I would also be leery of content that may appear promotional in nature in case someone else mistakes it as spam. Mkdw^talk 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi i'm a noob in wiki, i wanna know why the band in my article "does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline when it comes to bands."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommisiswono (talk • contribs)

I recommend you read WP:BAND. It includes information and criteria regarding notability. Mkdw^talk 07:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mkdw. Just wanted to alert you I've left a 3RR message at User talk:71.100.117.43, who continues reverting to the same WP:INDISCRIMINATE pro-wrestling trivia that two editors, you and myself, have removed from Your Arms Too Short to Box with God. I would also note, re his posting above, that "I was there when he said it" is an original research claim unsupported by outside citation. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, googled too quickly and misinterpreted what I saw. I've restored your speedy tag. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That's alright. Nice photo of BC too! Mkdw^talk 04:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not my photo, unfortunately, but I'll take it as a compliment to my taste :P –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed that you have helped the James Gwyn page a lot since its inception, so thank you for that, I, along with Mweberh and a few others, did a research project on James and as a final step to the project began the Wikipedia page. We happen to have two Google Docs with our biography of James (with citations), as well as a large amount of primary sources. I'd love to be able to share all of the information to help improve the article. Problem is, I don't know where I should put the links to the Docs...on this talk page, or on the talk page for the James Gwyn article? I would handle the implementation myself, but it would probably be better if someone with experience like you or others in the Wiki community handled it. thanks again! Marioscout (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm glad we have a chance to talk. I came across the newly created page via someone on the IRC. They originally inquired about deleting it but I thought it could be salvaged. As you may know, Wikipedia has some fairly important policies and guidelines articles must adhere to so I helped in that regard. I did some trimming to make it more encyclopedic and adding some contents. You will be happy to know I've completed the B rank assessment and have applied for Good Article. Also, I've nominated a sentence from it for DYK that could be displayed on the main page if successful!

I would love to get my hands on those references. As a measure of GA, all information must be accurately referenced by reliable sources so I had to remove some content that likely had a source but where I could not find one. I inquired about documents to an admin and they recommended WikiSource to upload documents. I contacted Woodlands Cemetery and they provided me with the original grave card for James Gwyn so I thought about uploading those there. If you upload them, let me know and I'll take a look. We can look at how the information can be used according to WP:PRIMARY. Mkdw^talk 06:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I've reverted the speedy nomination at Sean Bockla, since it says he heads an organization which has visited schools nationally, been on an HBO series, etc. Notability is low though, so you might want to take it to AFD. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I re-added the CSD. Could not find a show called the 'true life of child actors' or any close variation. Also, if you look at the twitter account it has three tweets and does not provide any information that would suggest that it travels all across the United States to schools. Furthermore, a search with his name and AntiBully (the name of his organization) comes up with no hits. Mkdw^talk 08:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I perform WP:BEFORE on all CSD tagging. I restored the CSD and left my comments at Talk:Sean Bockla. I think unless a source can be found that supports whether or not there actually is an HBO series called 'true life of child actors' (I could not find any), or that Sean is associated with @AntiBully, or even that it tours schools nationally (the twitter account has 3 tweets from 2009; no links) then I would like an admin to review the CSD. It seems very likely this is a hoax and under BLP the information should be untrue if a verification check has been performed and netted no results. Google books, news, and scholar reveal no hits and a general search only show social media hits. His claims as a television actor do not even lead to IMDB as a bare-bare-minimum even though its user submitted content.Mkdw^talk 08:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are all excellent reasons for deletion, but not for WP:CSD, either on A7 or as a hoax. But I'll leave it to the reviewing admin. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I read what you wrote on the talk page, but I think it was a straight WP:CSD#A7, no credible claim of importance or significance. The only claims of significance were the TV appearances and the forthcoming play, and I don't find them credible. I think the key sentence was "Sean began opening every kind of Social network he could think of... ", and I have explained on his talk page that Wikipedia isn't another social-network and pointed him to WP:NAY and WP:YOUNG. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Valenciano (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards 2011, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rango (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks DPL bot! Fixed. Mkdw^talk 19:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

She came back again, avoiding the salting by using lower-case. I have salted that one, too. After consideration, I removed from her talk page your suggestion of submitting via AfC, because I don't think we should encourage so young a child to post information about herself. I provided another explanation for her of why WP is not for writing about oneself, with links to WP:NAY and WP:YOUNG. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. AfC would likely have led her to WP:REQUEST anyway if she noted it was about herself. WP:YOUNG was a good point to bring up. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 23:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sprucing up the intro, and thanks a lot for the DYK nom. I feel appreciated, which is always nice. See you around and thanks again.  Mr.choppers | ✎  08:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. You did an excellent job getting the article started. Also, I noticed you made the article in your sandbox so I have petitioned an administrator to split the edit history so all your old edits before November 25, 2012 are not included in the article history. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 08:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

On 21 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Gwyn, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that James Gwyn was awarded the rank of Brèvet Major-General by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Gwyn. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

KTC (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mkdw -- I sent you am email. FYI! User: Katie Krumsieg Katie Krumsieg (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good day, Mkdw. You've declined the article about BattleCards, on the reason that such already exists. But the point is that these are to completely different games with the same name. The project I described has little in common with the already existing article. What should I do, aren't there a possibility in the wiki to add two articles with the same name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey Shuklin (talk • contribs) 17:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sergey. Thanks for submitting your article for review. The answer is yes. Usually when two articles share a name the second article will use brackets for example, BattleCards (video game). The article still has quite a bit of work to go and would have been declined on the grounds that it still needs reliable and independent sources for much of the material. The article also reads like an advertisement. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here. Mkdw^talk 23:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mkdw,

My apologies. Somehow I got confused in my first time use of the "sandbox." Certainly the Myers' article was not ready for a formal posting onto Wikipedia. I was just concerned to make sure I saved the starting work I was doing to develop a proper page. Your rejection of what I had done so far was perfectly correct. A while back I had created a page for Jerome Myers, but not using the sandbox tool. I just kept trying different formatting ideas most of which I learned from going to other pages for other artists and clicking on their "edit" buttons where I could then look "under the hood" to see how they accomplished their attractive formatting. I would then copy one piece of code and text (switch the page back to "read" that I have visited), then go back to my edit page and paste it in. Then I would play with it, changing the text to my text and adjusting other elements to see what would happen when I looked at the results in "preview." This sort of trial-and-error approach seemed an ideal way to experiment and learn, and by doing so I got a much better hang of how things are done in the magical world of Wikipedia. If you take a look, I think you'll find the results of my Jerome Myers page turned out quite well. I have been told by a number of experts in the art world that it has been very helpful to them in looking back at certain aspects of American art at the turn of the century.

I have been a delighted user of Wikipedia and greatly admire what it has been doing in creating this enormously useful research resource. I do think there may be even better ways to introduce and involve newcomers in how to go about creating their own pages. There is much information about creating pages offered in Wikipedia, but some of it is a little daunting to find. More real life examples of actual pages and how they are put together and evolve might be a definite help. Also possibly an assortment of actual forms filled out that were used to upload photographs, etc. I had tried searching for the term "inherit" in Wikipedia to see if I could find an example of someone who had inherited pictures, or other graphics that they wanted to upload to the Commons, or using the Upload Wizard as a sample of what I might want to do.

Didn't mean to be so long-winded. Congratulations on what you're doing and the help you're giving others. BEDownes (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Nick Nanton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Director and Agent

Automotive industry in Thailand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tata

Embassy of Mali, Ottawa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CIDA

Tawfiiq (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Somali

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mkdw^talk 01:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That was not my Question. I want another help, which was listed above. I want a jpeg of Priyanka Chopra from 58th Filmfare Awards.Prashant  Conversation  08:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You could try using {{Image requested}} on the talk page but your request is very esoteric so I think there is a very small chance someone will have a photo specifically from the 58th Filmfare Awards. I would not advise using {{help}} for such a unique request. The people who respond to those templates are usually people who give advice about Wikipolicy and editing tips -- and not so much a resource for sourcing photographs or taking photos of celebrities. Mkdw^talk 08:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No....No.....I don't need that image for 58th filmfare awards but I want it for Priyanka Chopra awards list article as I want to use that picture in the infobox. Please, upload one if you can find from Bollywood Hungama.Prashant  Conversation  08:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we're having a language barrier problem. I didn't mean put {{Image requested}} to find an image for the article 58th filmfare awards. Your initial request was for an image of Priyanka Chopra from 58th Filmfare Awards which means a photo of Priyanka Chopra taken at the 58th Filmfare Awards to be used on whichever article. The article List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra already has a photo of her and the article Bollywood Hungama does not have an image of her to use. I don't have a photo of Priyanka Chopra, in general or at the Bollywood Hungama, nor will many Wikipedians, so I advise you use the template I suggested to see if other editors have the photo you're looking for. If you want an image from a website you need to make sure its a fair use or free use image, or obtain the copyright to use it on Wikipedia. Does this answer your question? Let me know, Mkdw^talk 08:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Prashant  Conversation  08:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear mkdw, The Matchmove page is a new page, and very different from the previous deleted page, I didn't use any ad words or sensitive content. And our company is the latest Red Herring global 100 winner (2012). I appreciate if you can review the page again. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrynfs (talk • contribs) 10:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Terry. Welcome to Wikipedia. As I pointed out on your talk page, there seems to be a very strong conflict of interest regarding this company. While the wording may have changed, it is clear that you are largely here on Wikipedia to both promote the Matchmove company and their products. I highly recommend you use WP:REQUEST to have the article created if indeed the subject is notable. Furthermore, despite the assertion of notability via the Red Herring award, the article requires a wide variety of independent and reliable sources. If you have any questions, I know Wikipedia can be hard to navigate, but you can ask questions at WP:HD. On a side note, based upon a preliminary look at the product articles and company articles, even with the award, it does not seem the company meets the criteria set in WP:CORP. The award is impressive, but again, if they have not attracted widespread coverage from multiple reliable and independent publications where the company is the direct subject then you may have to wait until a time when if should the company gain more notability, an article could then be created. Mkdw^talk 10:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no intentions other than contributing to WP with an objective approach and a positive attitude. You can ask me -in my talk page- anything about each and every one of my contributions in WP. Maybe with the exception of some silly newcomer edits in my very first days I can explain -I hope- everything else. Note: This open check is only for you. (You reminded me the grand jury in that film where everybody but one was ready to hang the suspect and return to their petty affairs ASAP. I watched the film several times but I cannot remember the name now. If I can, I will tell you.) Congratulations for being the way you are and thanks for being there. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem E4024. Admittedly I am not familiar with the controversies occurring outside the AfD but I thought I would step in to comment on the process that an article can and should be nominated for XfD regardless of any declined CSD on the grounds of notability concerns -- and that it is not a bad faith nomination to do so. Regardless of what happens, hopefully the others will stick to other points besides that if they feel the nomination is invalid such as our notability policies and guidelines. Mkdw^talk 20:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(stalking)On several occasions I have undone a CSD due to weak but available sourcing, only to go on and vote "delete" at the subsequent AfD. There's nothing wrong with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your close, this was completely inappropriate for a NAC. GiantSnowman 09:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Giant. Would you please be able to specify how this was an inappropriate NAC closure? There was a 5 keep and 2 delete discussion where the delete camp argued the effectiveness of WP:NFOOTBALL and the keep camp citing WP:NFOOTBALL as met by him playing on an A-League listed at WP:NFOOTBALL. A delete result seemed clearcut to not be a likely result and thus under the NAC appropriate closures criteria. Mkdw^talk 09:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a clear a keep outcome, there was debate over whether he actually met NFOOTBALL or not. He's never played in the A-League so unsure where you're getting that from... GiantSnowman 09:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I received that information from line one of the article, "Andrew Higgins is an Australian footballer who currently plays for A-League club Perth Glory as a midfielder". Unless the wording is incorrect and should be, Andrew Higgins is an Australian footballer who currently does not play for the A-League club Perth Glory as a midfielder, or belongs to the A-League club. The very verb of 'plays' inherently describes having played. WP:NFOOTBALL states "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." From both camp arguments at the AfD, he has in-fact played in a league cup game imbalanced the delete arguments making it a clear-cut keep outcome. I'll differ to an admin closure but do not see it as "completely inappropriate". Mkdw^talk 09:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does WP:NFOOTBALL mention cup games? This player may meet the spirit of NFOOTBALL, but not the letter. You have completely failed to understand the policy you are trying to implement, and I have even less faith than before in your NAC here. GiantSnowman 09:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to be incivil Giant. I'm simply discussing the interpretation. The fact that it does not say 'cup' and simply says 'any game' is technically inclusive of cup games. Mkdw^talk 09:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not being uncivil, I'm trying to help you understand why your NAC was wrong, and why your interpretation of NFOOTBALL is wrong. It talks of playing in fully-professional leagues only, not cups. This is where the AfD debate has arisen, and hence why you should not have closed as a NAC. GiantSnowman 09:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity. You can understand when I took it as such with wording like "completely inappropriate" and "completely failed to understand". Mkdw^talk 10:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No problems, apologies if I seemed overly-harsh, not my intention. GiantSnowman 10:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Final inquiry, WP:NFOOTBALL cites, 'Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable.' Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues however states at the end of the lead paragraph, "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league ... or cup, will generally be regarded as notable." Mkdw^talk 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:FPL quotes an old version of WP:NFOOTBALL. FPL is also not official policy or guideline, it is only an essay. GiantSnowman 10:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I see you are an experienced user on deletion requests. I believe Harutyun Bezciyan does not meet the notability criteria. I see that so clearly that the other day I proposed its speedy deletion. It was not accepted. I think it should be discussed in Articles for Deletion. I recognise my lack of experience in this area and am very disturbed to be accused of bias by some users (to put it politely, because indeed I was accused of "bad faith") and am hoping, if you or Ritchie or anyone else thinks the same way about the notability of the person, to begin this deletion discussion. (BTW I am very surprised about the accusation: Mr Bezciyan seems to be an Ottoman philantropist who made a hospital and a school in Istanbul. Why in hell somebody would have a "bad faith" POV against such a person? If it were about Hitler, I could have a negative POV but still would not propose deletion because he is quite notable.) As you may understand I feel intimidated, or at least disturbed, so I pass the ball to whomever would be interested. If I am wrong about the notability issue, please do tell me so. --E4024 (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi E4024, I'll take a look though I'm not feeling like I'm on a hot streak today with AfD's. I'll let you know what I find. Mkdw^talk 10:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the article this is a very difficult case. All the results at Google Books are in Turkish and not fully available. As such I am unable to determine if this person has received in-depth coverage or only received trivial mentions. Under WP:ANYBIO, an article must assert enduring notability for historical figures by show significant coverage in independent and reliable sources (often written by historians). If you decide to AfD the article, you will also want to cite that WP:Verify was difficult as much of the article is un-sourced while the parts that did have citations were not easily verified. Keep in mind that a source is a source, even if its in Turkish, and has the same weight as that of a source in English. The article seems borderline so please ensure you have done a thorough WP:BEFORE check through Google Books, Scholar, Web, and News. You should also check the Turkish Wikipedia if they have an article or ask editors at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey to help verify the sources in Turkish. Mkdw^talk 11:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Cretan Runner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cretan Runner 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 high-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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I originally placed the WP:PROD on the article but if you didn't find anything either Tokyogirl79 then I doubt anyone can. Mkdw^talk 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

In what way is this applicable as a WP:NAC? LibStar (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NAC is an essay and states in line one "For the actual guideline on non-admin closures, see WP:NACD". I had an admin look over and endorse the close. If you would like to overturn my decision and re-open the case you may do so. Whatever you feel comfortable. Mkdw^talk 21:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of redheads. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(refactored from User talk:LibStar) Hi Lib. I discovered something rather strange when going over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of redheads (3rd nomination). It appears this IP has been stalking your nominations and specifically voting against you, and in one case replying to your comment directly. Normally this wouldn't be strange but this IP only !votes in your nominations with no other edits and over a widespread number of days. I've decided to ask for a second opinion at the SPI just in case but I thought you would like to know. Mkdw^talk 07:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good news. The IP has been blocked per the awesome investigative team at the SPI IRC. See User talk:143.105.49.234. I have gone ahead and struck their edits from the active AfD's. Mkdw^talk 07:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(thanks) For the notification, never realised! LibStar (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Yes, was aware of that DRV, and that was kind of what I was trying to suggest. I was perhaps too subtle. I see G4 has now been declined, but I really think it would have caused us more grief if it had been done. Best just to build a very strong consensus, delete, salt and be done with it, in my opinion. Can't see there being much support for keeping it so it should all be over soon. Not CSD soon, perhaps, but soon enough. Ha ha. Stalwart111 04:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I see you have "Monster's Legacy" under a copyright block because of the TV Guide ref w/ Mike Tyson. I'd understand it if I took everything WORD for WORD off the page but it is not, it's direct quotes from Tyson. I really do not wish to manipulate what he (or anyone else) stated in anyway. I think a clean-up is in order, versus a copyright block on the page. You do this, you might as well copyright block 1/3 of television articles alone on Wikipedia. Care to brainstorm?--SVU4671 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have left my comments at Talk:Monster's Legacy. Mkdw^talk 05:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to let you know I've got plenty of non-chess edits in my history. Just check. Thanks. OGBranniff (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have looked over your edits and left my comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff. If you would like to address them, please do so there for the admins to review. I am not concerned about edits made to chess articles, in fact I encourage them. I am concerned about your block due to incivility and the seeming use of another account in AfD's and discussions. Mkdw^talk 03:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Amqui (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, since you're "into" lists, can I pick your brain re policy opinion on something? Q1: Would Chess variants be considered a "list" (or not)? Q2: Some of the items at that article have their own articles, some don't. Do all (or just some, say, the un-articled items) need WP:RS at that article, to justify the item's existence there? (I asked an Admin who has position that all items need RSs whether they have articles or they don't.) Am not trying to prove anything right or wrong, just wanna cast a wider net to get to sense of confidence re my understanding about it.) Oh! (Q3: Ditto Q for items at List of Internet chess servers - do they need their own RSs at that location [or not]? But I'm not looking for consistency, since as above I'm not even sure Chess variants is considered a list and plays by the same rules [no pun intended].) Thanks for input. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ihardlythinkso. I'm not sure if I consider myself an expert on lists, perhaps the opposite, though I have been carefully reading the list related policies/guidelines because there have been several controversial lists put up for AFD. I will certainly do my best to answer your questions.

• Q1: It certainly looks like a list. There is quite a bit of prose but ultimately not an article. I would say its half way an article and half way a list. Major reconstruction would be required for it to be submitted as a Good Article or Good List.
• Q2: Content can be note-worthy but not notable enough for a standalone article. We see this commonly about the personal life of a notable person such as family members. Reliable sources will mention them and their inclusion to the person's article is relevant, but not relevant to the encyclopedia for their own article. Everything in an article should by default have a reliable source. This is not an opinion but a pillar of Wikipedia.
• Q3: If they have an article and it's straightforward that they should be included in the list (no one would contest a server being on a list of servers), then it's very unlikely a reliable source is required at the list. If it is not extremely clear then a citation would be required. They would require reliable sources at the primary article to establish notability and in the very least meet WP:GNG. This is why I strongly suggested that each server included be a standalone article otherwise the list is indiscriminate. Because a server is cited by a reliable source that does not make it a notable server. If the New York Times published a list of every chess server that ever was, then using that as a source would not establish notability, only verifiability. This is why WP:CSC requires verifiability for a grouping of a members that belong to a list, and then subsequently requires notability to be established for entries outside that grouping of members (or if no grouping exists) for any entry added to a list.

Hope these answer some of your questions and let me know if you have any other questions. Mkdw^talk 07:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of the earlier debate seems to have leached into your answers here as a re-hash, that wasn't my intent. (No need to discuss pillars, or CSC, here.) The Admin I queried re Chess variants RSs came down no exceptions - items in the list need their own RSs at the list article - whether articled or not. It seems you're taking position that sometimes yes, sometimes no (i.e, "if it's obvious"). So to that extent I've got two diff answers (yours, & the Admin's) which differ. (And that's ok, I'm just clarifying.) Ok, thanks for your view. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Maybe I'm confusing. (Maybe the Admin saw it as a list, so questioned the consistency under CSC, without ref'ing it, of some of the items being there, that didn't support their own articles. And, if you feel the article is a half-breed, then, it really isn't governed by CSC, or shouldn't be. I guess in that case my Q is still the same: do all items in the "article", need RSs there, even if they have their own articles? I don't know about s/w servers and what is obvious or not regarding grouping, but CVs [chess variants] are probably different, but I'm not in position to compare the two [so don't know].) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me, dedundancy could be avoided if a list item relied on its article to provide all the RSs needed for the list item. (At first I thought there would be a disconnect, but now I realize it'd probably be just fine, since if the article lost its article status [notability or RS coverage], the list item link would go red. So with that connection, it seems messy & redundant to provide RSs in two separate places for the same topic.) But, I don't know if policy agrees with that (thus my Qs). Sorry for confusing this up some. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I decided to take a look at some featured lists. There are policy requirements and then ideal practices. Like many editors, I sometimes forget the line between the two. It appears almost every featured list is required to have a reliable source for any piece of information on it. The same with articles. Even if they have their own article, their information on subsequent lists must have RS. I also read what User:Toddst1 wrote and would have to generally agree. He has far more experience with lists than I do. Even though redundant, Wikipedia, unlike other collections of books, look at articles alone for the most part and thus the sourcing must be widespread since the cross-referencing could become difficult and susceptible to inaccuracies if edited independently. Mkdw^talk 08:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just thought of a reason to require supporting RSs in both locations (the list article, and at the linked article)!: What if a sub-content of WP is printed and bound for sale? (If a list article was in the bound volume, but not every article for items in the list, then the list article wouldn't have its support in the volume.) At least that is also consistent w/ what you found. But your last statment ("the cross-ref could become difficult and susceptible to inaccuracies if edited independently") seems - to me at least - to describe more the problems with maintaining refs in two locations, instead of one! Anyway, thanks for your research and thought on this, I appreciate. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

p.s. We both agree this statement by Juno is entirely wrong then (correct?). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That comment is extremely inaccurate of the status quo. WP:Source list and WP:RS specifically say lists are required to have references. Mkdw^talk 08:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thx again for your discuss & input. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've begun the GA review for James Gwyn; it looks relatively good overall, but there are some substantial areas that need to be addressed. Check out the review for details, and thanks for your contributions! I've put the article on hold for your revisions. Cdtew (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just ping me on my talk page when you're done making your corrections or comments. Cdtew (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Mkdw, thank you for your support during my RfA. Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know, the checking on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OGBranniff that you requested has been done and the results published. It's not a problem personally, I know the whole thing with the other guy looked kinda odd. I think what happened is that there are tons of ongoing discussion about Wikipedia on the "chess.com" forums and it's attracting all sorts of new users from chess.com here to weigh in, pro and con. Heck, even the owner of that site ended up commenting via IP recently. Anyway, have a good day and enjoy. OGBranniff (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw that and the more I look into the chess related articles, the more drama I seem to come across. I'm not surprised that other players would come to Wikipedia to support one another's arguments. Thank you for not taking it personally. I merely did it as procedural considering the nature of how well the other editor worked around policies. I did my best to keep the SPI to the facts and neutral with out focusing on the merits of each of yours arguments or actions, but merely the similarities. I'm likely going to step away from the discussion since everything that can be said has. Mkdw^talk 22:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but just recently another user came to the "List of Chess Servers" article and reverted your changes, without discussion, and against consensus. On the "has to be notable" side there is you, Mark Viking, Hefha, and myself. The only person supporting the "all in" side is Quale. Are you keeping an eye on that article? OGBranniff (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mkdw. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NACA Technical Note No. 1629.
Message added 07:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, are you around? I just have a couple ideas/concerns. Thanks, OGBranniff (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi OGB, I'm around but in a limited capacity. Just finished getting an article to GA that I've been working on for a month and diving into my regular AfD monitoring. I won't be monitoring the Talk:List of Internet chess servers as regularly as everything that has been said from a logical guideline based discussion has been exhausted. You can reply here about your ideas and concerns. Mkdw^talk 06:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I just wanted to say thanks for working on the site and looking after things. Since the SPI you requested is in and shows that I'm not sockpuppeting, would you mind if you left a little note on the page acknowledging such? thanks. OGBranniff (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On 16 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Automotive industry in Thailand, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in 2011 the Thailand automotive industry was the largest in Southeast Asia and the 15th largest in the World? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Automotive industry in Thailand. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am making an article which is relevant to "Hatsune Miku" which is named "Hachune Miku". She is referred many times in the other article but I am making a separate article. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuicyJam (talk • contribs) 06:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The subject already has a section on Hatsune Miku#Cultural impact and does not appear to be notable enough for its own standalone article. Notability is not WP:INHERENT and essentially it's only a famous redesign of the same character and the information seems to rightly belong on that page. Mkdw^talk 06:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, another user has started a Request for Comment on the list criteria at the "List of chess servers" page. Are you in? So far, you are the most articulate and policy-educated member who has weighed in on the past debate. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Barely as soon as I can create them, you jump on them trying to get them deleted. Considering how much stuff is on here, often no citations at all, I don't understand why you can even give someone else or myself to put more work into the article.EmperorOfLancs (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a fairly common thing to see individual dioceses have articles created, but each must show individual notability, and they are commonly deleted because they are not internationally regarded. The fact that other poorly sourced articles exists does not mean this article should be kept, but rather, those ones should be deleted too. Mkdw^talk 23:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It just seems like a less than kind thing to do, considering how the article has not even been in existence for a day.EmperorOfLancs (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I nominated a series of them, some much older articles. It's nothing personal, just cleanup. Mkdw^talk 23:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So you say, of course you went after mine first, pages for places I attended, pages that I only began to create and edit. Now, if this is how you like to spend your free-time, I won't bother trying to stop you. I can't anyway, I'm too new and am not sure what I'm doing half the time. But if you really want to make it seem like it is not a personal thing, why not go after similar pages for locations in dioceses other than mine? Other how about similar pages that are not about the Catholic Church? What about non-notable sports athletes with no citations in the article or places in non-English speaking countries, where the articles aren't even in proper English? There are countless examples of those kinds of articles, why not take a look at them too, if this is what you do here?EmperorOfLancs (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I came across the series because I regularly patrol new pages by new editors. I was not targeting you and your edits specifically. I assure you I have no motive other than the regular XfD tasks I normally perform. Please try to remain civil and not accuse me of any ill-will. I don't really see what non-notable sports athletes have to do with this, but hundreds of new articles are created each day, and I nominate a wide variety of pages, including sporting related articles, for maintenance or deletion based upon my assessment of them against Wikipedia policy. To suggest that I, and other volunteers, clean up the rest of Wikipedia before we get to your articles is not really how the project works. It continuously needs work and articles that do not meet the requirements are patrolled and nominated for deletion each and every hour. If you need more time to work on your page, you can go to WP:AFC and have it reviewed for notability concerns against WP:ORG, or use your sandbox. If you have any other questions, let me know and happy edits. Mkdw^talk 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As a courtesy, as you are unable to access to their archives, below I copied the text of the first article by La Stampa ("Dalai: così rifaccio la Baldini & Castoldi"), just to let you verify that it consists in significant coverage:

If necessary, I can copy and paste the other article plus others (like "Baldini & Castoldi, nuovi talenti addio (forse resta la Tamaro)", transl. "Baldini & Castoldi, goodbye new talents (perhaps Tamaro remains)" 4 December 1999, page 11) I have not used as sources but that anyway are still SIGCOV. Cavarrone (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You tagged several images for speedy deletion, e.g. File:Kappy Corn.jpg. These images are hosted at Wikimedia Commons. To request their deletion, you need to click on the link just below the picture that says, "Information from its description page there is shown below" and follow Commons' deletion process. All images at Commons automatically show up on Wikipedia and we have no control over it. --B (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not as familiar with the commons so when I clicked the link it took me to the Wikipedia page. I've made the adjustments to the other images as well. Mkdw^talk 03:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good close, however, I am just letting you know that your talk will soon be stormed by the nominator demanding you to revert yourself. Or they will just do it themselves.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Status. It would seem it went to two ANI's and possibly a DRV later, but I don't believe in not contributing to Wikipedia out of fears of harassment -- even if it ends up that way. No editor should have to feel that way and it's unfortunate that Till has a history of incivility. Mkdw^talk 04:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. I was hoping to be wrong this time.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, as pointed above can you please take another look at the closure of this Afd which in my opinion is not the correct reading. If you analyse the keep votes they do not hold much weight and are not based on policy at all. No one has succedded thus far to address the initial nomination concern that the topic did not attract third-party indepth coverage. Thanks Till 22:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for note. I will certainly do my best to explain the outcome, but if you feel necessary, you can take to a WP:DRV. The strongest argument for the keep camp was Status' in citing the individual points of WP:NSONG. Others in the keep camp simply reiterated that they felt the song was notable, the policy being WP:N. In conducting WP:BEFORE, it shows that the song has been covered by numerous sources [1] [2], [3] [4]. WP:TRIVCOV is not a stronger position for the delete camp and also largely discusses GNG and the article sources, but does not address the sources outside the article or gained a clear consensus among the other participants that this was the case. A merge note was mentioned because of repetitive content but that's a editorial problem, not an AFD one. I could not foresee any admin or other closer taking this as 'delete' or no consensus' with out it being overturned at DRV. Mkdw^talk 23:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

HI. Thanks for clarifying the nomination. Per WP:DISCUSSAFD, removed content in an AFD is usually struck through rather than remove so that the context of the subsequent statements can be seen by referring to the struck through material. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

With regards to our ongoing conversation about refactoring, and this comment perhaps it is a cultural difference (see the bullet point "Opinion" in Defamation#Other defences), but under English law (and hence polite discourse) there is a big difference between "In summary, PBS' arguments are mostly 'I don't like it' arguments ..." and "In summary, I think PBS' arguments are mostly 'I don't like it' arguments ..." the first is an allegation the second is an opinion. If you still see no difference in them, and you did not intend to cause offence, then you will not object to adding {{green|I think}} (I think) to your statement. -- PBS (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

PBS, I've made the change. I'm not too keen on getting into legal terminology, allegations, and defamation accusations unless you're suggesting that's where we're heading. I'd rather just focus on contributing to the encyclopedia which is what we're both here to do. Mkdw^talk 17:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My posting here has is nothing to do with a legal threat, it was to highlight to you the common understanding of the difference between an allegation and an opinion (as you had written "Adding an 'I think', while grammatically correct, does not make the sentence more polite or change the meaning in any way. That is simply the formal style of writing I have become accustom."[5]). I placed it here on your talk page because this thread is not directly relevant to the discussion about refactoring, and it was consuming too much space (and so was a distraction) on that talk page.

Thank you for adding the requested phrase to you posting. -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(refactored from User talk:Lugia2453) Based upon this diff and my initial WP:BEFORE of the person which netted a facebook page and a twitter page. I give it a chance if I find a seemingly possibility of there being an assertion of notability but my findings were strong evidence to the contrary. Mkdw^talk 22:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I took this editors history at techno bass into consideration too when I first visited the talk page. Mkdw^talk 22:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I had removed the speedy deletion nomination for no content you put on because I had a feeling that the user would add more content to the article (it looked like the user would do so, based on their contributions to the article), and I thought you were a bit hasty in adding the speedy deletion nomination for no content only 9 minutes after it was created. I have nothing against the one you added for notability. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hear ya. I wasn't sure if it was a band or more 'test' edits like at Techno Bass. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is more appropriate for the Infobox in the Scott Allie article in this discussion? You don't need to know anything about Allie; I'm contacting you because you've worked on Featured Pictures. I tried contacting lots of editors who work on comics-related articles, but every time I do so, we wind up with the sentiments split down the middle, and no clear consensus. I'm thinking perhaps that people who work on matters dealing with photography might be able to offer viewpoints that yield a consensus. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.

I am a student of history and the Wikipedia experience has left me very confused.

The following are perhaps some of the most widely quoted sources for that period of history that relates to Maharaja Ranjit Singh's era (1799-1839 CE). They are reports of travellers (foreigners not Indians, Sikhs or Hindustanis), often eye-witness accounts of events and people they met as they travelled through the Punjab Kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Vigne, G.T., 1840. A Personal Narrative of a Visit to Ghuzni, Kabul, and Afghanistan, and a Residence at the Court of Dost Mohammed (Englishman who came as a visitor) <http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1I1CAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+Personal+Narrative+of+a+Visit+to+Ghuzni&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tps5UeW5KYLqrAf6hYGICA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA> Hügel, Baron (1845) 2000. Travels in Kashmir and the Panjab, containing a Particular Account of the Government and Character of the Sikhs (German/Austrian nobleman) <http://books.google.co.in/books?id=boJCAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=hugel+baron+punjab&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V5s5UY-_LYrrrQfc1oCQAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false> Masson, Charles. 1842. Narrative of Various Journeys in Balochistan, Afghanistan and the Panjab, 3 v. (originally a deserter from the British army, who later became a Political agent) <http://books.google.co.in/books?id=21YpAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Narrative+of+Various+Journeys+in+Balochistan,+Afghani&hl=en&sa=X&ei=55s5UevbNoTjrAe_yIHwCQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false>

The following books were written by British historians... Cunningham, Joseph Davey (1918). History of the Sikhs. (employee of the British Government in India...was posted in the British war office and was privy to how the British won the battle(s) against the Sikhs) <http://books.google.co.in/booksid=ZGlNAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=cunningham+sikhs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W505UZesIomsrAen1YG4BQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cunningham%20sikhs&f=false> Griffin, Lepel Henry (1865). Punjab Chiefs. (British administrator in Punjab after it was annexed by the British)<http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Q0ABAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=griffin+chiefs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S545UajSKo3krAfJ_IC4BA&ved=0CDQQuwUwAA>

My questions: 1. Can all these sources be dismissed as being unreliable? 2. If "A" quotes from "B", who do I give as the 'source' for the information - "A" or "B" (when "A" is a twentieth century historian and "B" wrote his/her book in the nineteenth century)?

Thank you Twiceplus plus (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not think your bulk AfD of Singapore church articles - particularly in cases of newbies - was in the best spirit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Although policy allows this and slapping templates on new and inexperienced editors' pages, in this case when 4[3] of the 8 [6] are easily notable in Google Books, and 2 of the remaining 4[2] sourceable with a little more work, you've combined a bad call in relation to editors making clean reasonable articles, with careless source checking before a bulk nomination. I've commented on the Talk of the Nativity church. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC) double counted due to similarity in edit history

I withdrew my nomination in the case of snow keep on one particular nomination. In regards to biting newcomers, you based your accusation on the fact that you thought I nominated 8 articles User:Pretty Pig created and never left him a personalized message, but in fact I only nominated one, and it still remains a good AFD candidated. See the rest of my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Please in the future assume good faith and do not make hasty accusations that are untrue. Couldn't find your comments on Talk: Church of the Nativity. Mkdw^talk 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I was incorrect that only one of them was the young lady Pretty Pig's but in term of wasting everybody's time what I said was correct. You issued a series of AfDs for no good reason whatsoever that set off a chain of events that earned a newbie a block. Even minimal checking on each article would have found sources. I repeat, that you combined a bad call in relation to editors making clean reasonable articles, with careless source checking before a bulk nomination. If you can't see this then you shouldn't be doing AfDs. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagreement will invariably arise. It is not your place to tell me where I should or should not be editing. Your provocation in your false accusations served no other purpose but to be problematic as it had nothing to do with the AFD. If you have a problem with behaviour, you should report it at ANI. I am not going to tell you that Wikipedia is no place for incivil people, we already have a policy about that, but I'm more inclined to simply say we disagreed on an interpretation of a guideline and the AFD process will sort it out. If you dislike the aspect of disagreeing on AFDs, in the least, remain civil and trust in the process to sort it out. If you feel it wastes your time, do not participate. Plenty of other editors happily participate in AFDs as a contributing process of Wikipedia who know their policies/guidelines well enough that if something does meet inclusion criteria, it will stay. Mkdw^talk 19:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Your provocation in your false accusations" - I initially got wrong that all the Singapore churches you AfDed were by Pretty Pig, that doesn't amount to "Your provocation in your false accusations." The problem here is still your block AfDs without properly checking sources. Seriously, I find it difficult to understand what prompted this.

If you still believe that your AfD nominations were in line with WP:BEFORE, then is there a place at WP:BEFORE where that can be reviewed? BTW. I fail to see how the Australian IP's showing 338 results for the Novena Church's annual procession in Singapore Times since 1935 relates to the IP's previous edit history. Is a user who edits articles on Motörhead not allowed to bring sources from Singapore Times to an AfD on a major Catholic church in Singapore? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally notability and the interpretations is discussed at the AFD itself including observing sourcing at the article and outside Wikipedia. You've largely based your assumptions on the fact that I have not found the same sources you have, but rather as I pointed out, nearly all the third party sources are either trivial in nature or tourism guide books that talk about a wide range of churches. I'm not certain what you're referring to regarding the IP. If you mean the IP that suddenly voted on the AFD's and arguing WP:BEFORE with no history of AFD or editing in general, then it had nothing to do with hit counts about the Singapore Times. If you think due course has not been met and has become disruptive to the process then it would be filed at ANI. I cannot recall a case similar to this being filed at ANI so I would recommend you seek advice from an admin, as any advice about the best means to report myself would surely be a conflict of interest, though I'm fairly certain ANI would be the only natural recourse. Mkdw^talk 21:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the 6 Singapore church AfDs are not the worst AfDs I have seen by a long margin - it's just that there were 6 of them, 3 of them on 3 of the most important churches in Singapore. ANI is not the venue for what is evidently a generic AfD issue. And if AfD doesn't have a forum to discuss AfD then that is also a generic issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked up WikiLeaks' user contributions, he/she's a SPA. I just removed the {{tl:dubious}} tag for the third time, this is really now an edit war. The campaign by Hollywood activists to discredit Vancouver was rife on the Hollywood North article, seems to be on their radar again....Skookum1 (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Responded to and hopefully handled. Thanks for letting me know. I see Moxy also added some even better sources so hopefully that puts a solid foundation on the statement. Any opposition will need to show substantiated contention in reliable sources. Mkdw^talk 20:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Perhaps. I think we should if this goes any further. Perhaps it's a single vandal and we should request a checkuser? Revolution1221 (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We've got another one: Boston College Dining Services Revolution1221 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged about a dozen or so articles about Boston College students as well. This seems to be a class assignment. Mkdw^talk 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Another one, already tagged: Amy lacombe Revolution1221 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And another: John_W_Wetzel We should file an ANI. Revolution1221 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Boston College if you have anything you'd like to add. Mkdw^talk 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(refactored from User talk:GabrielF) Would you be able to follow up on the recent Boston College activity that seems to be led by User:MauriceJackson24? Notably, the userpage makes a claim to be this professor: http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/english/faculty/full-adj-fac/George_O_Har.html. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 20:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked BC's public directory and there is an undergraduate student named Maurice Jackson. I think its most likely that User:MauriceJackson24 is that student, not Prof. George O'Har and that he just didn't understand how to use the user page. I can email Maurice and ask him to have his professor contact me. GabrielF (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to hearing what the whole story is behind these mysterious bulk article creations. Mkdw^talk 21:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)