User talk:Mkdw/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

Hello Mkdw. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Churning Waters to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate on that - A7 doesn't apply to books, so it has to be either PROD-ed or AfD-ed. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, at the time it was written like a biography instead of a book character. Good catch. Mkdw^talk 08:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Closest Chinook Jargon-like expletive I can think of right now for "whew!" (kweesht is more like "oh shit", that's from up Lillooet).Skookum1 (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Alta konaway kwann = now everything/everyone at peace/rest.Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a difficult word, so I can understand people's initial misgivings, though I was surprised the nomination was not withdrawn following Cullen's findings, though most of the delete's did reverse their opinions. Mkdw^talk 19:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As I'd commented, it's as much a cultural phenomenon as it is just a word with fifty dozen meanings. There are few Amerind words in English that are anything but nouns/things e.g. tobacco, moose, chocolate etc; this is a rare adjective but also, importantly, one that survives in popular use and recognition and is the name-source of a lot of organizations...and has a role as a regional identifier, though I do know people in provinces and states who have adopted it during their time in BC, or who have used it elsewhere.....was surprised to see a bed and breakfast in Scotland named Skookum House.......I think "someone" may have thought this was a vanity page of my own, but as I think you know my username is a lot older than my participation in Wikipedia. Skookum, like chuck (for body of water though technically meaning water or any liquid), is so much part of the regional linguistic culture that most people don't realize their origins are not English.Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is not eligible for PROD as it was previously at AFD; please take back there and open a new nomination. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Didn't see it on the talk page because the oldafd template was not there. I've added it and will consider it for XfD. Mkdw^talk 19:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, an RfC has begun which proposes rewording WP:NSONG. As you participated in a related discussion, I invite you to join the RfC conversation. Regards,  Gong show 04:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I watch the page, so if you would like to restart the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Refactoring which your new thoughts, I look them over and reply. -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. I wasn't sure since I made an inquiry on 8 April but hadn't heard so I went to you direct. Mkdw^talk 19:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

--Vigyani (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

I created a page for the band Ducktails - after several people before me tried and had their attempts deleted - but it was deleted by a chap named bwilkins who insists it doesn't meet the notability standards. He recommend I get in touch with an administrator involved with WP:MUSIC

You can see the page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails_(band)

I believe it meets several of the required criteria... what are your thoughts?

thanks!

Marcushamblett (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not an administrator, though what bwilkins recommended was finding someone (didn't have to be an admin) at WP:MUSIC. I can certainly give you some advice about the article though. There are some good references in there, the guardian and rolling stone magazine one. The article requires more sources similar to that. I recommend you remove the sources that are only listings, e.g. most of the BBC sources are merely listings amongst many many other bands. In some ways, those sources work against the article because it makes it very difficult for the reviewer to find the sources you're basing the notability assertion, and which ones are not suitable sources. On a side note I like the band. I was listening their video on the rolling stone article as I was reading the article. Mkdw^talk 01:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Sheng nu at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 07:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Mkdw^talk 08:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mkdw. You have new messages at Tokyogirl79's talk page.
Message added 09:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you! I feel honored! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mkdw. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Digital dementia to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Seems like it meets the criteria for hoax fairly nicely. I literally quote from the article as the treatment for Digital dementia; "It is good to remember your favorite songs or phone numbers of people close to you such as your family members or friends." and "It is very beneficial for meticulous reading daily newspapers and magazines for . two hours." Google shows that this is totally made up and secondly, the treatment methods are so ridiculous it could not be anything but a hoax that someone made up one day. Mkdw^talk 10:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The author said on the talk page that this is a class project. I reckon "hoax" implies "made up with intent to deceive", and I don't think this is completely made up. I found things like 1 and 2 which show that the term is in use, though I doubt it is established enough to pass WP:NEO, even if it were made a proper sourced article rather than a rambling essay. JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Either way I think the article will be deleted. I could write an article about memory loss and because it's a real term would not mean the article I wrote was not a hoax. If I wrote a one liner that said "you can avoid memory loss by starting at the wall for 2 hours a day" it's clearly a hoax even if memory loss is a real thing. There's a line where having a two sentences about the actual term and then 20 other sentences that are hoax material: "Without the help of your PDA, we can't remember important dates such as anniversaries or to schedule meetings." According to who? I don't even know a PDA. I remember important dates all the time. "Few can remember song lyrics without reading the words on the screen in karaoke.' That's not the case at all. I'm sure plenty of people can sing songs with out a screen. Everything from Happy birthday to the national anthem is not a problem for most people I would assume. Mkdw^talk 21:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Sunciviclee#Comments (from Bearcat) and followups, also at Talk:Adrian Dix there's a lot, re this situation here, and not my comments under my real name which I think you know. Isn't there a rule somewhere in Wikipedia about journalists as editors? Bearcat has advised me to stand down, the adminship will deal with this and I can only make it worse; I'm contemplating a complaint to the Press Council of BC for the Sun's slander and false facts, but that's like complaining to the RCMP's pet watchdog, it's just there to protect reporters and newspapers....and is run by the MSM no less.Skookum1 (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I can take a look but no promises. Based upon a quick skim of the whole situation, I support Bearcat's approach to the matter. What appears largely problematic is whether we are talking to Jeff Lee, the Vancouver Sun reporter, or Jeff Lee, the Wikipedia editor. As far as I know there is no rule that states professional editors, publishers, or journalists cannot edit Wikipedia; I believe the fundamental law of Wikipedia that anyone can edit stands fast here. The obvious problem here is that Mr. Lee has written a media story about Wikipedia prior to fully understanding the situation, or the rules and regulations that apply to the situation. He baits it as a political agenda when really the issue is how NPOV must be applied to BLP. I think Bearcat has explained the situation, Mr. Lee accepts, but the damage is already done in the article and it cannot be fixed unless he retracts or adds an editorial follow up. I certainly appreciate your fiery defence of Wikipedia, but you are giving him a loaded gun with the incivility. I don't think you have to back off, but if you want to talk to Lee, the professional journalist for the Vancouver Sun, then you need to be Skookum, the professional critic of journalistic practices and accuracy. Otherwise you're mounting in the eyes of the public an amateur against a professional, regardless of their qualifications in the subject matter. These, of course, are only my opinions and I trust that as long as you remain in the pillars you are free to proceed as you wish. Mkdw^talk 08:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of my problem with WP:CIVIL is that uncivil judgments couched in what seems to be civil language are tolerated. My own journalistic/writerly roots include tell-it-like-it-is and shoot-from-the-lip writers like Ma Murray, Allan Fotheringham, and Jack Webster ;-). If someone's shovelling shit, doesn't matter whether what you're doing with is called a spade or a shovel or a backhoe, it's still shovelling shit. The second or third Sun headline tried to pin this on Dix himself, if only by insinuation.....the newspaper's agenda is clear to me, even the use of "critical information" as part of their effort to make something out of what is really a non-issue or such a minor, and misrepresented one (like so much of their coverage of politics). Seemingly passive language defending an aggressive agenda/opinion is not really "civil". Yes my anger comes out in my posts/responses and some edit comments, but generally provoked by those making edit comments or talkpage posts accusing me of something I'm not (i.e. pro-NDP); those commenting on the Sun article to me are clearly the SPAs and IP "contributors" though that can't be proven; Lee's article - and the tone and content of the headlines his editors fielded it with - took their agenda/criticisms at face value and is really "more of the same". The COI noticeboard thing particularly is out-of-line.......Skookum1 (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW as an actor and performer, I've kept my Skookum1 identity both here and blogspace separate for career reasons.....I came out myself in the Sun comments section, but that doesn't mean another Wikipedian should make a headline out of me, especially in contentious and untrue terms for which he has made no sign of regret or apology.Skookum1 (talk)

On 16 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nandu River Iron Bridge, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Nandu River Iron Bridge was built by the Imperial Japanese Army in Hainan, China, during the Second Sino-Japanese War as the first bridge to span the Nandu River? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nandu River Iron Bridge. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much Casliber! Mkdw^talk 05:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brad Zellar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomington (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) 14:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Provided ALT1 for DYK. Check it out. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Provided ALT2.1. Tell me what you think. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Looks good to go. Mkdw^talk 21:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• MKDW, there has been recent revisions to the article in accordance to the issues raised at the DYK nomination page. All problems have been sorted out. However, can you please reassess your vote so that the DYK promoters will be able to see that the problem has been sorted out and that is GTG. Thank you! Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Still looks good to me. I agree with the advice to update the article to be more clear, but as far as the hook is concerned, all issues have been addressed. I really hope your picture is selected. Mkdw^talk 21:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. MKDW, may you please confirm your approval once again on the DYK page please. It would be otherwise stalled. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually you need PumpkinSky's approval. My confirm stands, while his question remains open until he changes it to confirm. Mkdw^talk 05:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Mkdw. I'm not sure what you mean by reviewing this page. I patrolled it because I thought it looked like a constructive stub, but I thought patrolling and reviewing are different actions. So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally understandable. I only 'unreviewed' it because I knew about the on-going sock puppet case and wanted to explain why I had done so. If there was no sanction it would have been a good tag indeed. Mkdw^talk 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I should have just blocked him as soon as I saw him and then gotten a CU for others. He's persistent, or perhaps obsessive is a better word. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. I think it simply means we'll have to get as aggressive in limiting the damage done. It's clear this editor has a very narrow area of interest, and I think preventative steps like salting the articles, semi-protecting the template, and undoing their revisions will be the most discouraging method. Legitimate editors, especially confirmed editors, will be able to add the content if such locations do exist and are notable. Just my thoughts, Mkdw^talk 21:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I wish he did have a narrow area of interest - he creates articles on a wide range of subjects, from the Fisher King to diplomats to emergency organisation - and a lot of attention to the Lebanon where he locates the Garden of Eden (can't remember his religion, but he isn't Christian or Jewish). Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a shame. Well we'll see if we can at least keep the stone related monument articles clear for a little while. This editor does seem persistent and oddly not resorted to malicious vandalism, but rather a refusal to ignore Wikipedia guidelines. Mkdw^talk 07:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

I created a page for the band Ducktails - after several people before me tried and had their attempts deleted - but it was deleted by a chap named bwilkins who insists it doesn't meet the notability standards. He recommend I get in touch with an administrator involved with WP:MUSIC

You can see the page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails_(band)

I believe it meets several of the required criteria... what are your thoughts?

thanks!

Marcushamblett (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not an administrator, though what bwilkins recommended was finding someone (didn't have to be an admin) at WP:MUSIC. I can certainly give you some advice about the article though. There are some good references in there, the guardian and rolling stone magazine one. The article requires more sources similar to that. I recommend you remove the sources that are only listings, e.g. most of the BBC sources are merely listings amongst many many other bands. In some ways, those sources work against the article because it makes it very difficult for the reviewer to find the sources you're basing the notability assertion, and which ones are not suitable sources. On a side note I like the band. I was listening their video on the rolling stone article as I was reading the article. Mkdw^talk 01:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Sheng nu at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 07:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Mkdw^talk 08:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I feel honored! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheng nu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Typology (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) 00:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah DPL bot, I thought I was so thorough when I went back to check all the links. You win this round... well played /grumbles. Mkdw^talk 00:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On 25 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sheng nu, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that sheng nu is a pejorative term promoted by the Government of China to pressure unwed women into marriage in response to the gender imbalance caused by the one-child policy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sheng nu. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently established a page for Sadie Benning's video "Girl Power". I've been notified that the page was challenged for its presumed insignificance (not enough "notability"). Considering the fact that feminist artists have been excluded from the mainstream art establishment and essentially omitted from history, I understand why one might thing a page dedicated to one of Sadie Benning's video MIGHT NOT have "enough notability". However, I would easily respond by mentioning that ALL of Sadie Benning's video, ESPECIALLY her video "Girl Power", played a pivotal role in the formation of Girl Power as a concept, radical feminist politics, and the Riot grrrl's commitment to the child icon. This video has been discussed amongst scholars and academics who focus on everything from art history to gender studies and from new media studies to sociology. If Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic database that indexes "notable" historical and current events, then it would only make sense to include a page on this highly influential work that has greatly contributed to the emergence of feminist 90s politics and art. Any attempts to delete this page will be excluding important information about a widely-acclaimed video that has ONLY been excluded from historical documentation databases because of the artist's sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisfalcone (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chrisfalcone. Thank you for mentioning that this video is widely acclaimed. Unfortunately, you've missed the fact that the article does not make any similar assertions. If it had explained why the video is notable and had reliable and independent sources, then I likely would not have put the PROD tag on it. At the time it only said it was a video created by someone notable. Nothing more. Did not mention any awards, critical claim, notable achievements, or anything. As far as I could tell it was merely a 15 minute home video of someone who seemed notable. Every celebrity has them and there's a reason why we don't have articles on every home video of every notable artist. One important thing you should note is that notability is not inherent. Just because someone famous made it does not make the video famous. If Frida Kahlo painted a picture, any article about that picture, would need to assert notability on its own and not rely on Frida Kahlo's fame. If someone notable did make the video, and it actually had a major impact, then it's likely it got noticed and professional publications wrote about it. Also, I did not nominate it for speedy deletion; I placed a prod template on it to give you 5 days time to improve the article. Frankly, your comment here would make a better article than what is currently written. Your comment here actually sounds like an article that if I read it I would say that video sounds important than an article that said "x was a 15 minute homemade video". See the difference? Mkdw^talk 05:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(refactored from User talk:GiantSnowman)Did you also confuse User:BDD with User:Bbb23 like I did? I was initially going to say the same thing until I realized it wasn't and then had to look through everything. Mkdw^talk 09:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't get them confused, I'd just seen BDD's positive input & comments around various noticeboards / talk pages etc. and assumed they must be an Admin! GiantSnowman 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Just I who got confused... well maybe a few others. For the sake of clearing up the confusion he'll be an admin shortly (knock on wood) and all will be settled. See you on the AFDs, Mkdw^talk 09:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mkdw, for no good reason I stumbled onto your talk page. But it always crashes my default browser at work (IE9 on Windows 7). I am not too good at such things but am trying to learn and so was wondering is there something funny/clever that your page does that might be causing me this problem (or some add on or something that might be missing). I am just curious and asking for ideas and am not suggesting you do or change anything. I normally use another browser (am doing this on Chrome) so it is no real issue for me. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)) PS: It does it on your User page too (not just on the talk page). Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC))

Maybe it's karma telling you not to edit Wikipedia at work (kidding!). That is so weird! I have a bunch of code in my profile that does all sorts of little things but nothing that I imagine could crash your browser... The clue that it happens on both my talk and user page is very interesting. The only two elements they share in common would be User:Mkdw/Header3. Would you be able to do another test and view that page at work using IE9 and see if it crashes it? Mkdw^talk 10:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point about work! User:Mkdw/Header3 opens fine. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)) As do User talk:Mkdw/Archive 1 etc....

You're testing this at work on IE9? Hmm, there's actually one other obscure template that is rarely used on Wikipedia which is {{DISPLAYTITLE}} that both pages use. Would you also go to User:Till and see if the same thing happens. I know he uses the same displaytitle template. Mkdw^talk 10:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes work on IE9 and no User:Till opens fine!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msrasnw (talk • contribs)

Well I'm spent on ideas. The things listed above are the only things User:Mkdw and this talk page have in common. Unless your computer doesn't like the colour scheme... but if that were the case then User:Mkdw/Templates and User:Mkdw/BBC wouldn't load for you either... Mkdw^talk 10:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Mkdw/Templates crahses but User:Mkdw/BBC opens! Anyways no worries (Msrasnw (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC))

It is not just your pages eg [[1]] this one crashes too! Sorry again for bothering you and I will get back to work now. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC))

Hi - have copied another user's page which also crashed to a test page and edited it down to see if I could see where the problem was - and this little bit that is left causes an IE crash. User:Msrasnw/TEST Would you know who or where I could ask about such an issue? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC))

It's probably a way your computer is loading the wiki-table. All the pages have that in common and it's used in a lot of places such as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter which is common to the test page you created and Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page. Because the table is so common I would doubt it's a widespread problem and likely localized to your computer. Have you tried re-installing IE9? Personally I avoid IE like the plague. Mkdw^talk 17:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Cross Parish, Fall River. Since nobody pinged me on talk, I didn't see it till now. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That may have been my fault for not pinging you. I was surprised by the argument since I fundamentally did not say anything different than my nomination which you would have read when you made your initial keep comment. As I said at your RFA, it's not something I would have flagged as dire, so I'll take a look through your full RFA today. Mkdw^talk 17:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. For some reason I thought we had a policy that those types of organizations are inherently notable; I learned otherwise since. So many thousands of rules we have, those days... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a dispute at Talk:George Juskalian on whether or not a local newspaper is a reliable source for the claim that Juskalian's awards are "among the rarest bestowed on United States service members". You've been involved with the article in the past; could you please take a look? Huon (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll cut you a deal. If you review my Template:Did you know nominations/De puinhopen van acht jaar Paars, I'll do yours. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure a quid pro quo arrangement is necessarily appropriate since that could arguably jeopardize the neutrality of the review. Subsequently, I have reviewed your nomination but perhaps someone else should review mine. Not that I don't think you'd be fair or that DYKs are very 'controversial' but others might not appreciate it. Mkdw^talk 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing mine! I do get what you are saying though, and I do believe I should not approve your DYK when I feel it's nonetheless ready. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with me stating my concerns about the article, because I got one.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 09:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

On 30 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hocutt v. Wilson, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Hocutt v. Wilson, the first attempt to desegregate higher education in the United States, was dismissed for lack of standing because the president of the university implicated refused to release the transcript of the plaintiff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hocutt v. Wilson. 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Brad Zellar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 09:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Check back, please.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hocutt v. Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregated (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) 11:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the help.Hoops gza (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You posted to User talk:Max Borin. He was another Paul Bedson sock. Keep an eye out for them. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to flag this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#User:Max_Borin but no one addressed it for over two weeks. Oh well. Mkdw^talk 08:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, I'd been avoiding ANI, a shame. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries at all. I'll probably just come to you if I spot another suspected sock of his. I have thought about writing an essay about this persistent sock since he's becoming one of the more notorious ones. Mkdw^talk 23:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Mkdw, hows it going? I was wondering if you could review the Spokane, Washington article real quick and just tell me what you think about it-its quality, scope, layout, or whatever. Dont spend too much time on it, I just want a quick opinion. I have been working to make it better for a little while and I have run out of ideas...I dont know what else can be done to make it any better, its rated as an A-Class article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.202.98 (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's going well. I'm a bit short on time today, and I'm not familiar with Spokane to talk about the accuracy or balance of the article. I did a preliminary technical check on the article and found some issues you could address that would bring you closer to an 'A' class rating. While red links are accepted, when they're of people and places, it's a bit contentious and many reviewers look upon them negatively, especially if they're given undue weight in an article (WP:REDDEAL). Basically only haven them if it's clear the red link should have an article on Wikipedia. Lead sections also generally should avoid citations since it's a summary of the information below (WP:LEADCITE). I ran the references through a linkrot detector and came back with about a dozen reference urls that need attention. The Inland Northwest Memories Project and The Spokesman-Review do not appear to be appropriate links for the external links section and may be perceived as spam. Lastly, I would recommend you use Help:Shortened footnotes (specifically {{sfnm}}) for the shortened footnotes you're using. The reference page is so long that it's difficult to know where the shortened footnote refers. Mkdw^talk 02:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Ill look into some of these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.202.98 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and answering my help request. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 02:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I couldn't have been more help. Mkdw^talk 02:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I would like the opportunity to examine the alternative. Being competent in both Excel and Access I am familiar with organizing and handling data. As a long time editor I am familiar with marking up text for publication. If you examine the history of the List of George Cross recipients for 23 April you will understand why I do not want to repeat the exercise. My work may have been deleted in good faith but rather than getting irritated I will work towards consensus before adding the entries deleted which was the first installment of putting up the missing 244 names. Anthony Staunton (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any specific needs that you want this new spreadsheet to accomplish that the current one does not? The one being used now is the most common for tables of that nature. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables. Mkdw^talk 04:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Good luck! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's go! Mkdw^talk 17:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of marking this submission for cleanup. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall that submission too well. Seemingly I declined it for creation but it's been deleted now so no worries. Thanks for letting me know. Mkdw^talk 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm totally too late to nominate you for adminship, the least I can do is nominate you for a t-shirt! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That shirt is amazing! I'll buy one if I have to. Thanks for the support and shirt nomination. 18:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, most of your it's were correct. Wherever you want to say 'it is' or 'it has' it's is correct. You don't use it as a possessive though which, I can't find where now, you really did so only in one place. --regentspark (comment) 22:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RegentsPark. I did go back over and strike a few out that I caught were in the possessive pronoun form rather than contraction form. Admittedly I did write a lot of these answers late at night when I had time to sit and think them over, but my sleep deprivation likely got the best of me. Mkdw^talk 22:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

On 13 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brad Zellar, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Coen brothers film A Serious Man, nominated for the 2009 Academy Award for Best Picture, used a book by Brad Zellar for inspiration? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brad Zellar. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

PS your "userpage • talk page • contributions • my templates • edit info" thing messes up Twinkle by blocking selection of items. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm I'll have to take a look at that. Mkdw^talk 07:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

On 14 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Black Count: Glory, Revolution, Betrayal, and the Real Count of Monte Cristo, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that The Black Count: Glory, Revolution, Betrayal, and the Real Count of Monte Cristo won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography in 2013? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Black Count: Glory, Revolution, Betrayal, and the Real Count of Monte Cristo. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on your 100 supports :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I reckon (unless you have a sudden, dramatic and very public meltdown in the next couple of hours) that congratulations on your imminent adminship are also due. Well done, and do feel free to bend my ear if you need a hand in the first couple of weeks (there's a lot of new buttons headed your way!). Yunshui 雲‍水 06:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw, I have closed your RFA as successful — you are now an administrator. Please consider the guidance at Wikipedia:New admin school, it'll keep you from ending up here. Good luck! WilliamH (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• That went well, congrats to you. Looking forward to the new fun stuff you will be doing with the new toolkit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Mkdw, if you wanted to reply to my comment at your RfA, even if what I said had been complete and absolute nonsense, you should not have waited so many days and only reply to it just 3 minutes before the RfA was closed, thus giving me no chance to even read your response in time. I hope you understand this. In any case, congratulations for the very successful RfA, and thanks for your service. Best wishes, DanielTom (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  I intentionally waited until the close as to not invite argument or bartering to the process. I was not necessarily seeking a reply from you since it was not my intent to disuade you from your opinion, but to reassure you near the close that in the likely case of being granted the tools, that I would use them respectfully and you would have a frame of reference to use if you felt I had not been despite my guarantee. Thank you and best wishes to you as well. Mkdw^talk 19:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• A general thank you. It is not my style to thank-you-spam all those that participated in my RFA. Instead, I have opted to leave a message here for those that might be passing through in the next few days. I am deeply humbled and honoured by your trust and support. I mentioned to Yunshui that I fully expected my RFA to not be a sure thing and that participation would be low due to the solitude of my contributions. While many editors were not familiar with my work, I was blown away by the numbers of editors that did recognized my name or were somewhat familiar with my contributions. Thank you once again, Mkdw^talk 19:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Congratulations! We need more RfAs like this. Depends on who turns out to to vote though. Hope you'll stick around at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Congratulations and all the best with the new tools. Tolly4bolly 10:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think he has a lot of spare IPs... [2] — Richard BB 18:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You may need to seek a temporary IP range block. Mkdw^talk 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Teamwork Barnstar

Thank you so much for your assistance and efforts with the Tom Reiss article about his 2013 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Black Count: Glory, Revolution, Betrayal, and the Real Count of Monte Cristo. I don't think I would have been up to submitting it to DYK, so I'm grateful that you jumped in to help. I wholly appreciate your work and encouragement during my health crisis. Teamwork and support like yours never ceases to bring me a smile. On an entirely different note... Congratulations on your new role as administrator! Sorry that I missed participating in adding my recommendation. That said, I'm in your corner. Be blessed, Cindy(talk) 16:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cindamuse! I hope you're resting well and look forward to the next time we can work together. Mkdw^talk 18:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was about to appeal the speedy deletion but it was deleted too quickly. Can you please undelete it so I can add more information. Junior Lightfoot (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was made by an editor who was evading a block by using another account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dbromage. Please let WP:REFUND run its course. Mkdw^talk 07:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CTE: Learning that Works for America - Based on your feedback, I've declined the article instead. But doesn't it seem more appropriate to nominate any AfC submission for CSD should it be purely promotional and require a fundamental rewrite? hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We have specific decline criteria at AFC for promotional submissions. The purpose of AFC is to allow editors to learn about our policies and guidelines regarding promotion, notability, and more. Deleting the AFC submission does not provide that opportunity. Until the status quo is resolved at the on-going discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11 and AFCs then we should abide by the AFC process.Mkdw^talk 06:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you just closed an Afd and are "doing things". Could I talk you into closing the simple issue here which just awaits someone? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please articulate a rationale for closing against numerical consensus, or redo your close to match it. To recap:

• The only unqualified delete is the nom's.
• The most commonly occurring !vote is keep, with 5.
• Merge had three editors favoring it, the latter two of which advanced non-policy-based reasoning.
• Even if you add the nom, Sarek's delete-or-merge, the two merges with non-policy-based reasoning, and the final redirect with non-policy-based reasoning ("Utterly, utterly dumb topic"), you get 5 keeps vs. 5 non-keeps. I would grant that a no-consensus close would be within closing admin discretion, but I cannot see how a merge is. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It was certainly a close call. I perceived it as 4 in favour of merge recognizing that it had reliable sources but would be more suitable to be a merge than a standalone article. The remaining keeps either !voted GNG citing that it had reliable sources, but did not address the points of the merge camp that an appropriate article already existed. It was noted that the article could be split away into a sub-article. I factored in the !votes that said they would not be impartial to a merge. As you pointed out, the delete and redirect camps did not present any reasonable rationale outside of IDONTLIKEIT. By closing merge it clarifies that the subject is notable. I don't mind asking another uninvolved admin for a second close opinion. I think I saw a few kicking around. Mkdw^talk 00:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You really discounted the "GNG met" votes on that basis? Sure, a possibly appropriate article existed... but the vast majority of sourced content really can fit somewhere else. LENGTH and other guidelines specify when things aren't appropriate to be merged into such larger articles, and "religion in space" is far more generic than "Christmas on the ISS". The GNG is really the lowest threshold for individual article existence, and while I can't speak for the other !voters, I can certainly say that when I say "GNG is met" there's an unwritten "... and it shouldn't be merged because it's better as a standalone article" at the end of it. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not discounted, did not see a strong amount of support for that argument since the other keep arguments did not really extended towards that argument except for one other. I've relisted the discussion to gather a more clear consensus. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the content deleted from child genital mutilation and it's talk page userfied? I would like to work on it until it has more potential to survive as an article. Ranze (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay... seems this got ignored and instead the genital mutilation disambig was altered. Could you explain what your opposition is to the inclusion of red links on a disambiguation page? Red links are used to suggest content that deserves articles, and I maintain that this does. You also deleted the link I added to intersex genital mutilation in the process. Ranze (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm still reading through the sources and subsequent material. Please wait. Not everything happens immediately or at what you may consider a reasonable time frame. I literally made that edit a moment ago. Mkdw^talk 19:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Ranze, with all due respect, I strongly urge you to read both the guideline about the deletion process and WP:AGF. When you say, I "shut this one down", I closed the AFD discussion as per the policy. A discussion is open for 7 days before it is closed. The discussion began 11 May 2013, and was closed by me on 19 May 2013. Secondly, I am curious as to what other articles you refer that I have deleted relating to MGM. I regularly close AFD discussions as the area I am active. You may have a look at my 19 May 2013 contribution logs. You can look through my 19,000 edits but as far as I know, I have never deleted or edited any articles relating to genital mutilation prior to the 19 May 2013. I had seriously considered your userfy request despite the consensus that such an article should not be made at the AFD. I've noticed you've considered filing an administrator review and have gone to other venues to find a solution. As such, it would represent a conflict of interest for me to meet your request as it may appear to be a means of appeasement. Mkdw^talk 19:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not make the inference, I asked about an inference by another editor. The 'same group' comment may have been in reference not to you, the closer, but rather to those who participated in teh discussion, I expect. I'm unclear on what you mean by 'other venues', isn't Userfying a simple courtesy? If you aren't doing it to appease, why does it matter how it might appear to others who are presumptuous? Ranze (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it was very clear from your comment on Tumadoireacht's talk page that you were directly referring to me. Userfying is a courtesy. Conduct is very important especially in situations where a new conflict of interest has arisen and now that I am technically, "involved". I saw your message at Category talk:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and would recommend User:Legoktm or User:King of Hearts. An FYI regarding your inquiry for an administrator review, the process is "inactive" per the top of the page. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 20:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this is sort of a separate issue, my comment was a response to this comment. I was referring to you only because Tuma said "same admins shutting down MGM discussion". I don't take claims at face value so I was asking for evidence of his claim, identifying the shutter-down and requesting to know what he meant by 'same'. Your beef's with his claim, I think, not my inquiry pertaining to it. Ranze (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to Mkdw the above statement is correct- 7 days is the normal period for an Rfc discussion and she/he does not appear to be part of the" greek chorus" on MC, and here exhibits both an honourable honesty and helpfulness--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: Mlapinig (talk · contribs) has appealed their block and upon review, I have modified it to indef as a VOA. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. I actually realized it was a VOA after the block but wanted to see what they would do. Fully support your decision. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 22:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw, I see you removed the page Weed bike yesterday. However the page showed up again and I nominated it for speedy deletion. I don't know how to do, but maybe it's worthwhile to check how many times the page is deleted already and if it's published again by the same author (or IP)? Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been re-created twice. If they create it a third time let me know and I'll salt it. Mkdw^talk 18:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:128.174.93.28 ... they were very clearly blocked for adding unsourced stuff about spinal cor injuries and a coach who had been fired 3 times, or junk ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't properly look at the deleted revisions. It only showed up as mass blanking opposed. I fixed the decline rationale since the editor did not recognize nor really present an unblock request. Mkdw^talk 02:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:92.7.9.108 is evidently edit-warring again and in breach of their block with IP 92.7.2.17. Can a range-block be applied? RashersTierney (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute being talked out on the talk page. I won't be intervening with out an SPI or 3RR. Mkdw^talk 21:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Want to help close an easy RM? I can not because I participated, but there has been no support other than the proponent who has tried to convince just about everyone who has opposed. All you need to do is replace the top Requested move/dated template with

{{subst:RM top|'''Not moved.'''}}

at the top (it will sign itself, so no sig is needed)

and

{{subst:RM bottom}}

at the bottom.

The backlog is getting really high at WP:RM. If that one is closed, Talk:Fergie (singer)#Requested move (May 2013) is the same story, although with some support. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I'm a little surprised you're asking me for an RM close considering you opposed my recent RFA because of my opinion and response to RM closures.The close looks straight forward enough, but don't you think you should ask someone who you think is qualified as both an admin and a closer? Mkdw^talk 01:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone gets beat up pretty badly during the RfA, but after it is over, we all desperately need your (every admin's) help. It's a straightforward, nothing to do close, sort of like this one. I almost gave you the Cleveland one, but decided these were easier. We have gone from a backlog of 20 to 124 in a few weeks so I am trying to get some help. I posted a chart and hopefully that will let admins know how we are progressing with the backlog. Apteva (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sure your RFC will attract other editors and sysops to respond. I am glad you felt comfortable asking me for help. Despite my RFA being over, I am still the same editor as I was last week. I said what I said in my RFA not because I thought it was what you wanted to hear but because I knew from experience that closers should know what they're doing. I respected your position but I hope in the future you consider what you said to me today. We need all the help we can get and opposing good candidates because they're unwilling to work in certain areas because they are either unfamiliar and uninterested will only prevent some good editors from getting the tools. All editors are free to express that opinion and doing so does not make them untrustworthy of the tools if they have otherwise shown to be both responsible and trustworthy in the areas they have been active. This stems from assuming good faith which is sometimes easy if the candidates have shown over a long period of time no reason not to trust them. In any case, I participated in the discussion, not that consensus need anymore nailing down. The backlog is probably a sign that more editors are needed to close them, rather than one experienced editor contributing to the discussion, and one inexperienced sysop making a close a non-admin could have done. Mkdw^talk 04:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion given, in the form of the Delete button. No way is that appropriate. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui! I don't have much experience with user pages and that one was handed off to me by another admin. I offered to tag it and let someone else, you, make the final call. Mkdw^talk 08:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sensible move. If you're ever unsure about whether to take an administrative action or not, the smart money is always on "not" - just consider what you would do if you ran into the same situation without the toolset, and do that instead. You're never obligated to use the tools, even if someone asks you to. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I saw you restored a large number of pre-block warnings and notices at Loubnan (talk · contribs). I was curious as to the reasons for this. I don't see anything at WP:BLANKING which requires that those items remain. There is some discussion in an RFC about removal of discussions related to an ongoing block - but the pre-block content appears to be fine to remove under WP:BLANKING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted those instructions. "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user... any other notice regarding an active sanction", which I've always assumed were things from tags, warnings, etc. that lead up to the current sanction, as well as, additional notices such as shared IP, unblock requests and corresponding comments, etc. "Other" is so ambiguous when it comes to relating to an active sanction. Whether that specifically means including leading up to, or only post-sanction is questionable and being addressed at the RFC. I'm not overly attached to it and if you want to blank the page, I wouldn't object. Mkdw^talk 21:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If the user re-blanks, I don't see a problem, but I won't revert it myself at this time. I've always viewed the warnings as being something that if the user blanks them, they are aware of their receipt - no need to leave them up any longer. It's the post-block material that has always been a bit vague to me under the existing wording. I can see good arguments for and against leaving it, so am following the RfC closely for comments that may influence my opinion before I weigh in to add my own views. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've frankly always been in favour of leaving the warnings so when an unblock request comes in a reviewing admin can see the actionable sanction warnings than having to look at various diffs. I'm in agreement that it does need clarity and hopefully the RFC can provide that. Wouldn't be an overly imposition either way but having handled a few unblock requests lately it certainly helps weed out the clear decline ones. Thanks for letting me know about the RFC. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 22:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

Why did you delete the page I wrote on The Cultch? The Cultch is a legitimate cultural institution in East Vancouver that shows theatre, dance, etc. I am in no way affiliated with it. I was not attempting to promote it (unless every mention is also a promotion). I was merely trying to fill in a dead link from the Vancouver page, where The Cultch is mentioned, to a dead link.

Thanks Charles Carroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccarroll (talk • contribs) 14:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Every article must meet a specific set of criteria. Aside from the copyright infringement, the article only promoted the venue, the organization (as described in the article) did not appear to meet WP:ORG, the article did not make an assertion to notability, and it did not include any reliable sources other than one primary source. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, there are things you can do to write an article that meet all of the necessary criteria. I would recommend you take a look at Writing your first article and checking out the Article Wizard. I think an article about the Cultch will have a good shot if written properly (I'm from Vancouver myself and am familiar with the venue). Mkdw^talk 19:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm contacting you with regard to the deletion of the Brad Peterson article. I may have been remiss in following protocol (As I am just now studying Wikipedia and how to effectively contribute), but I made effort top address all reasons mentioned in the proposal for deletion: 1) it was not meant for promotion; only to clarify Brad Peterson the singer song writer from another music publisher, pro golfer and published lawyer. 2) I added several citations per request including WGN news. 3) added several references of notability though I'm still trying to find an on-line reference to nomination for a Grammy award in the late 90s. I'm not sure all edits made it, but I'll happily provide what I can. Thank you for your time.

Can you please advise?

BPL BPLabsWiki (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi BPL. Per Wikipedia's deletion process, an AFD was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Peterson between 8 May 2013 and 23 May 2013. The consensus was that the individual did not meet our criteria for inclusion under WP:MUSICBIO. It should be noted that the one keep !vote was discredited as a blocked editor who did not provide a rationale for their position (see WP:JUSTAVOTE). If you still believe the person does meet WP:MUSICBIO, I would be willing to userfy the page to your sandbox or subpage to continue working on it. Keep in mind the article will be deleted again if it does not meet our notability guidelines or does not adhere to the WP:PROMO. Mkdw^talk 21:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"No explanation of significance" - how is being one of the few self-made teenage millionaires, and having been covered by fox news and the st. louis times. not significant? --Vincentjames (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Being a millionaire does not assert notability. We do not indiscriminately keep articles on every millionaire out there. Secondly, no reliable sources were provided in the article and several other editors had to remove large portions of copy violation material. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's promotional guideline WP:PROMO and see WP:RS and WP:V. If you need help Writing Your First Article, I would recommend you check out the Article Wizard. Mkdw^talk 09:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say no reliable sources, Fox News and the St. Louis Times were listed in the article as sources. If these don't count what does? --Vincentjames (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the page; I missed those sources in their unformatted condition amongst the other primary sources. I apologize for the hasty delete. That said, I strongly recommend that you read more about WP:PROMO and WP:COPYVIO. The article would likely have been deleted under G11 or G12 had it not been for the large removal of content by Biker Biker and Melbourne Star. Mkdw^talk 09:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• User is a blocked sockpuppet. See the SPI and related discussion on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware. Thanks for catching that. Mkdw^talk 21:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you knew someone would be here sooner or later so I guess I will jump in as the first. Thank you for the props when closing the deletion discussion of the article. Also, thank you for listing your reasoning as I see so many closures that simply do not elaborate the reason for the closure one way or another. I am requesting that you overturn your closure from a redirect to a keep based on the reasoning I gave in the discussion and the lack of reasoning provided for by the redirect !votes. If you look through the discussion, you will find that even many of the redirect votes agree that they are notable, yet still did not change their !vote to keep. I'd be happy to discuss on my talk page as well if you would like. Thank you. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi FoolMeOnce2Times, ultimately it was a close call but in the same breath I would say that the consensus was not there for a keep outcome. The arguments by J04n, MelbourneStar, and Gene93k brought up several valid arguments that strengthened the redirect camp's position. In each case they did not advocate's the group's notability as a band outside the competition. Fundamentally it was a balance between whether they met GNG versus BAND. The concerns about inherent notability were not widely opposed by other than by yourself, and as a result there simply was not enough keep support to warrant an outcome other than redirect. Regrettably your other keep campers were not very helpful in the discussion and I would have reconsidered if they addressed the issues at hand. I think there is a lot of potential for an article in the future once the band establishes itself under WP:BAND with out trading their name as that X Factor band which placed third. Mkdw^talk 19:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. You are right about others in my "camp" and unfortunately they presented as much evidence (or lack thereof) as the redirect votes). It also didn't help that there was a hit and run SPA as well as additional IP and SPA editors who spammed information into the article. Although I still assume good faith, I have to say that if you checked all of the SPAs and IPs you would probably find out that many of them are the same person or a small group of people (sockpuppets or meatpuppets). What gets me about the article is how people ignore the clear notability of the article. Regardless if they are notable with the XFactor or outside of the XFactor, the article needs to be judged based on WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Sorry to leave you such a long explanation here, I guess it is just the former lawyer in me that is bugging me and not letting me let go of something that I see as obvious. Hopefully you can help me understand otherwise. Here are the discussions from the redirects that you state above made valid arguments:

J04n - Stated "the folks promoting this band is doing a wonderful job getting their name and faces out there but Wikipedia should not be a part of that publicity machine." There was also a mention that it is WP:TOOSOON for the article. As part of my comment to J04n, I asked them to state how the band fails general notability guidelines or guidelines for band notability. No response was made by J04n so while they made an argument, they were unable to support it with evidence showing why the policy applies in this situation. Also, I argued that for WP:TOOSOON, entertainers (WP:ENTERTAINER) it states "even if failing the GNG, might still be reasonably presumed as notable if having...(2) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." That means that even if they do not pass WP:GNG, which it is pretty clear that they do because of the WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, that WP:TOOSOON would not apply as they have a significant fan base, referred to as "Harmonizers" here and here.

MelbourneStars - Stated to redirect per Gene93K and also stated, "I'll also note, what this article lacks in substance, it makes up for in WP:BLP violations — This section is full of unsourced personal details as well as inappropriate sources, including Wikia, Tumblr; a big 'no, no' in the eyes of WP:BLPSOURCES." This is how the SPAs and IPs did a great job of making the article so full of unsourced information that people want to redirect it. In fact, I think that the majority of the content in the article needed removed and keep it to the basic information with the WP:RS that support the notability of the article. MelbourneStars' argument is a perfect example of WP:ATA, particularly WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Under surmountable issues, WP:SUSCEPTIBLE is not an argument. The fact that people will introduce spam links, not source the information they add to the article, or frankly write the article poorly is not a reason to delete an article, so why would it be a reason to redirect (as redirect is basically a subset of deletion, while still keeping the name of the article present in Wikipedia)? Should we redirect all articles with policy violations until the violations are corrected? Sorry, that was a rhetorical question as the answer is "no." --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Gene93k - Stated, "This group still hasn't established notability independent of X Factor. An standalone article can be recreated if and when the group charts." This is a logical argument so let's follow it for a minute. Gene93k states that the band would be notable if it charts, which is criterion #2 under WP:BAND. WP:BAND is a consensus guideline for band notability and Gene93k recognizes it as they cited #2 as a reason to bring the article back once they meet that specific criterion. So, they should support notability under any of the other criteria under band. You can see that many of the keep !votes and even some of the redirects (specifically Nate who in the discussion comments shows they agree notability is met under the #1 and #9 criteria under band) agree that they meet WP:BAND under #1 criterion. So, while Gene93k supports them under #2, picking and choosing which criteria to apply is not good policy. On a side note, the last redirect vote states that they would be notable once their "debut single is announce." There is also confusion with the vote as this is NOT a reason to establish notability. Releasing a song, let alone just announcing it, is not proof of notability. In fact, they HAVE announced the debut of their album in numerous reliable sources. So, that last vote should be disregarded in its entirety. If they do not understand the guideline, then their !vote should not be considered part of the consensus. Same holds true for those who voted to redirect and yet could not support their arguments with valid policy. Hopefully this wasn't so long of an argument that it frustrated or pissed you off. I guess I just cannot see how something that I see as notable, and many of the redirect votes see as notable, would be considered a consensus to redirect. If you would please reconsider your closure I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

FoolMeOnce2Times, I see the lawyer in you. I admire your passion and dedication. I completely identify with your situation having found myself in your place many a time. Some times it blows my mind how others can interpret what I see to be an obvious and clear cut outcome. I'm sure you have, in your legal career, come across many occasions where your interpretation of the law was not supported by either your peers or a judge. The thing about consensus is that it is not always about the 'correct outcome' because we all invariable have our own opinions on what that may be. You have done a very thorough job 'Wiki-Lawyering' the discussion, but at the end of the day, others simply did not support your position to warrant an outcome your way. I will not make assumptions or argue on their behalf. For me, it was clear that they all !voted redirect and in fact, did not support a keep outcome at all. I would only consider reversing my decision if you convinced those three to change their minds about their !votes. Mkdw^talk 06:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks again and I am glad that I can continue to fill up your talk page. Hope the archive kicks in soon for you. So basically the appeals court will make a ruling once I go and get the opposing attorneys to come to my side after the case has already been decided in their favor? Is there a place in Wikipedia where I can hang myself? :) Probably not worth my time to even try at this point which is why I came to you for a decision. Without offending you, would this be a reviewable decision at WP:DRV? I know this is used for deletion reviews, but from the explanation in the first part of the project page, I believe that it would qualify. Not asking about the potential outcome of the review, just if you think it would be something that would be reviewable. Thanks. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, more than welcome to take it to WP:DRV. I do not take closing AFD's personally and if you would like other opinions you are more than welcome to file one. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this page with stopping the vandalism and edit war that was inadvertently started by me I meant no harm or intended on causing such an uproar 68.114.152.179 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. The editor who was blanking content, using multiple accounts over several days, and edit warring required a block and a page protection. Content disputes are always best to be talked out first and then the changes implemented but that editor clearly had no interest in following consensus. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 20:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree and My IP adress changed and this was just simply an attempt to expand an exisitng article I am glad wikipedia stands up for the news at least lol 68.114.152.179 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I am very upset that the page was deleted yesterday can you fix this or find out why? 68.114.152.148 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The page was deleted under a complex rationale. There was a discussion on the talk page to redirect it to another article which in turn was speedily deleted because of a copyright violation. As a result, any redirects to that article are also deleted. I have restored the page and recommended that the article must undergo it's own AFD process in order to be deleted since the redirect did not work out. Mkdw^talk 20:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe gospelfan45 is up to his old tricks can you look at the varnado afd page and see what you think? 24.107.242.73 (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You're an admin? Why didn't you delete the hoax article Mario Kart U? The article was a direct copy of Mario Kart 7 but with false release dates. The game hasn't been unveiled yet! The article's been changed to a redirect now, but if you have a genuine reason that article should stay, please elaborate. Thanks, DarkToonLink (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have the sysop tools. I did not delete Mario Kart U because CSD G3 is only for blatant hoaxes. An important fact to remember that not being unveiled does not automatically mean it's a hoax. It simply means that it either does not meet verifiable or WP:FUTURE. The article may have been a hoax article, but not a blatant one. For articles where you contest the accuracy or reliability, you must take those to another venue such as WP:AFD. When you talk about "genuine" you make the assumption that my initial reasons were not. I responded to your request for G3 and declined it not because I did not necessarily think it was a hoax, or should be redirected, or that there was more custodial work to be done, but merely that your request did not meet the criteria. Plain and simple. If you wanted additional help fixing the article or assistance in submitting it for AFD, I would have been more than inclined to assist you, but you only requested a G3 speedy deletion which could not be applied after review. Please familiarize yourself with the speedy deletion policy as we are closely governed by it. I have no opinion regarding a redirect but the deletion policy is clear and you would need to take it to AFD for deletion. For example, the article George Colby was deleted today. Despite evidence that it was a hoax, it could not be deleted under the CSD criteria and was taken to AFD where the consensus was that it was a hoax. Thank you, Mkdw^talk 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to suggest that your reasons were genuine and I wanted explanation, as I was going to tag it for Speedy Deletion but noticed it had already been rejected. I just became a bit flustered because the article was getting some traffic and was potentially misleading many readers. I thought it qualified as a blatant hoax because it seemed obviously made up, and the page should be taken down as soon as possible. In the end I just restored it to its previous redirect state, and it's probably best to stay like that. Thanks for explaining the proper procedures, I'll be sure to act in a better manner next time, I just got a bit flustered because it was my first time trying to deal with something like this. Thanks for your understanding, DarkToonLink (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work vetting articles for deletion, and for your quick responses for articles nominated for speedy deletion. Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 02:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much Delta1989. Mkdw^talk 02:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Even concentrating on autobiographies, large unwikilinked article and CSDspam seems to have become a full-time job. Someone is doing a through job of rooting out spam user pages too, so then there's the blocking (although thanks to Easyblock, that's quicker than it used to be). It's a hard life... I need to write some content... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of easy block; I'm intrigued. Do you have a quick link to its doc? Mkdw^talk 07:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The script for the basic model is

 importScript("User:Animum/easyblock.js"); //User:Animum/easyblock.js

Full details and customisation options here. I haven't tried these. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The page on Triumphant Institute of Management Education was deleted with out any meaningful debate, based on one liners and opinions, not facts. I posted my observations on the page. Will be willing to help out on rewriting the page, confirming to wiki' s guidelines. Request a relook at the deletion. I am not sure how many users who posted on the AfD are Indians but as an Indian and one who has been tracking this company, it deserves a page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairama44 (talk • contribs)

Hairama44, the article was discussed over a two week period at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triumphant Institute of Management Education (2nd nomination). Despite your criticisms of the arguments, they brought up several valid policy based arguments which is the fundamental practice at WP:AFD. Every article must meet a strict set of criteria and the article Triumphant Institute of Management Education fell short on several points. The most important being that it did not make a credible assertion to notability and it did not have any reliable sources. The other point brought up was that it was overly promotion in nature. Wikipedia is not a business directory to list all the services and features of an organization. I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with the five pillars of Wikipedia. It is important for every editor to carefully read and understand these rules before they participate in deletion discussions and to criticize the process. The Triumphant Institute of Management Education may be a notable institution, but the way the article was written and worded, and that no sources were used, simply made it not a credible or reliable promo article for which was unsuitable for Wikipedia. If you have any questions, I would recommend you ask the folks over at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Also, please familiarize yourself with how to properly edit a page. When you left your comment you changed several other editor's comments that had to be corrected. You should also sign your name after making a comment on a talk page by using ~~~~. Mkdw^talk 18:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

188.96.183.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who you warned earlier has now hopped to 188.96.190.75‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and is carrying on the same silly edit war. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I only warned them about making disparaging comments and did not block them. If they breach the WP:3RR you should report them at WP:AN3 rather than WP:AIV. Mkdw^talk 21:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. They can call me a homophopic, racist, anti-semitic, misogonist arsehole for all I care, but calling me American is beyond the pale. Thanks for hopping to my defence :) --Biker Biker (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw, my reasoning in requesting a speedy deletion of the user page was the combination of user name representing company names and content about the company. I do realize that the user did add some personal content, but if one does a Google search using "Wikipedia:" [3] on the key terms of the company, the user does come up. I just wanted to let you know that I don't tag a user lightly, for everyone I tag like this, I probably assume good faith on 10 like it.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi I am One of Many. Yes I know you often tag for a good reason. I thought in my judgement the user page wasn't overly promotional but the user name is in violation of the user name policy and I have blocked the user until they request a new name. Mkdw^talk 22:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Artist was just featured in Vibe Magazine and has been nominated at Long Island International Film Expo. If I incorporate these additional references can the page be restored? SylerDurden (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The requirements for a musician to have their own article is outlined at WP:MUSICBIO. Having coverage in a magazine and receiving a relatively non-notable nomination (not a win) would not likely meet the requirements. The article was deleted after a two week discussion about notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syler. Unless you can find significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, I would say that the small change you propose would not be enough. Mkdw^talk 22:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The artist has been featured in The Source, DJBooth.net, AllHipHop, Hip Hop DX, all of which are well known national hip hop publications. Additionally, his latest release is currently number 36 on the college hip hop top 40 via rapattacklives.com An additional 5-6 reliable references (websites that I see referenced in other artist's pages) should suffice. Should it not? SylerDurden (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have read the page you referred to and am certain the artist meets the necessary requirements. Can the page be retored for editing or does it now have to be created again entirely? It would be nice if notifications were provided to the contributors of the article prior to deletion. SylerDurden (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You can appeal a delete decision at WP:DRV. Normally it is the standard protocol to notify the article creator in the case of a deletion. It appears the nominator failed to do so. Mkdw^talk 05:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping to resolve this with you directly if possible. If you could perhaps undelete the page so as to allow me the opportunity to add additional reliable references? I would be very prompt with my edits, and if you still do not believe that the page is warranted, I am more than happy to go through a deletion review. SylerDurden (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello I was just following up again on my most recent message. SylerDurden (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

SylerDurden, sorry for some reason Wikipedia didn't notify me that you had written on my talk page. Can I make you the following deal? I will restore the page to an WP:AFC page and you can work on it there with out the risk of deletion. You must also undergo the review process there and if the page is accepted by a reviewer (and the page must be fundamentally different than the version deleted). Please note that your request for me to overturn my decision is not like a court ruling where it is based upon my opinion. The consensus at the AFD was clear and I do not have the authority to mandate an outcome that is against the discussion. If you're willing to go through the AFC process with your article I will undelete it to that space. Otherwise you will need to go to DRV. Mkdw^talk 20:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds perfect to me, I am happy to go through the AFC review process again. Please let me know when I can begin my edits. Thanks again. SylerDurden (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A copy has been emailed to you. Mkdw^talk 00:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have remove several questions about obvious attempts by companies to promote their products or clients. Please see WP:ADVERT. I cannot "approve" your attempts to market your interests so please do not invest your time in doing so. If you would like to make a genuine request for a non-promotional article, I would recommend you avoid a conflict of interest in writing a neutral article and request one be written at WP:REQUEST. Mkdw^talk 05:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I do regret now the 50 eur donation I have sent Wikipedia a few months ago.193.77.151.160 (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you thought you could buy advertising space on Wikipedia. Please in the future contact the foundation if you have a serious inquiry as it has been explained to you many times that your article was a blatant advertisement and not suitable for inclusion. Mkdw^talk 19:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please see Talk:Heritage Grill and Talk:Five Stones Church and have a look at the edit history on those articles.Skookum1 (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Skookum1. I had a quick look. Looks like a debate about notability on both between three editors. Were you looking for a 4th opinion? Mkdw^talk 06:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

yes, Thincat thinks they're fine, and as per my latest there, just now, it's "strange" why someone in Nova Scotia, who's never been to BC and knows nothing about British Columbia or New Westminster, so thoroughly created these articles from community papers about only these two establishments and is so ardently and petulantly owning them. He's accused me of lying, I've asked him to come clean as to why he's so ferociously defending them and making specious rationalizations; I've stripped "bunk" material from the one article, I'm a busy man and am tiring of this; and smell COI big-time.Skookum1 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a good forty places on Commercial Drive and environs that are more notable for all the reasons he thinks these are notable....google "Five Stones Church"...other than the highly-placed top-of-the-page Wikipedia article he's put up, all others are by the church. I've lived in New Westminster, and these are mere blips on the civic landscape. Wikipedia should not be a directory of cafes and churches that hold community fundraisers, no? And why is it a Nova Scotian is so interested in these two places, if he doesn't have connection to them, or to someone who does???Skookum1 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for more, my pique ratio goes up with bunk articles; especially about somewhere so important in BC history (former colonial capital and long-time second city in the Lower Mainland as you probably know). So many heritage and notable buildings on Columbia Street alone and two nondescript modern establishments get not just promotional articles but also a fierce defence from someone eight provinces away? here's but one of many pages on New Westminster's heritage available by googling. HOW did he get "news" (advertorial) links from teh New-Leader is not sent them? There's more than casual interest going on here IMO. And he's wanting and AfD....I'm tired of the drama of such things, believe you me I am, and it's like he's baiting me to get his way. WP:HEY may apply here, but I see nothing in the links to suggest anything worthwhile is in them, other than the bit about the art gallery space, which he'd added the category for but no content, and now is inviting me to add that. Yeah, I'd love to do up Holy Trinity Cathedral (New Westminster) and Government House (New Westminster) (that's redirect to a terse section on the New West article) and New Westminster Courthouse (officially the New Westminster Law Courts, though perhaps that first title is better for its Victorian/Edwardian-era predecessor structure), all highly notable and within spitting distance of these two places....it's not just a notability issue, IMO these are spam and by circumstantial evidence alone also "obviously COI.Skookum1 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It does seem suspicious but I do not think there is enough proof linking them to the organizations aside from speculation for any sort of administrative recourse. You could try ANI. Mkdw^talk 22:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

He's almost demanding that I take them to an AfD.....I'm tired of procedural bearpits, I have a few CfRs pending as it is....this is more than AfD now, and as you know I rarely launch ANIs, and have been the target of some, and have been threatened with them repeatedly. There seem to be a lot of promotional articles of this kind cf Cafe Coco and Vytopna mentioned in this section or RHaworth's talkpage - Hungry Horse is a chain, which is kinda more OK......as a certain BC editor who recently quit, then came back, commented to me privately via email, "he's tired of the drama that some people seem to love" and this seems to be a case of that, also......I'd rather spend my time, when available, in creating good and needed articles about New Westsminster than having to spend even MORE time with an AfD and monitoring it; he's saying "why haven't you started the AfD yet", like he wants me too. An AfD is gonna involve other teenagers (quite frankly he is, and the admin who blocked me in the "Harper war" during the last election campaign was similarly a teenager with no political acumen at all. In this case, it's a complete lack of proportion...and that little mystery about how he even found out about these places, and the fact that they're neighbours and have done things jointly. I can see major nightclubs and restaurants and most churches of note; but this one is a promotional new-era church bucking for non-profitable status, sounds like. Wikipedia is full of enough garbage as it is; he has yet to reply to my comeback at his complaining about me saying he's lying; I said he's being evasive and not fully honest as to how he found out about these, and why he's so vociferously defending them. Gotta be a connection there somewhere.....as for junk restaurant and bar articles, it's like there's a task force out there somewhere; I'm reviewing the Music venues task force and associated articles today, by the way, as there's very little coverage of them and wondering what the criteria are for inclusion; I was a bit stunned when RAHaworth deleted that redirect I made last night, within 24 hours of posting it for Speedy Deletion or less; he seems very snippy towards people who complain about his deletions; an experienced editor but, hm, even bitey-ier than I can be ;-); he hasn't yet replied to my dress-down about that deletion; (Fort Grahame Waterdrome)....so many unwritten but needed articles (Fort Grahame, the various New West titles I've redlnked, and the needed split of the City article itself) and so much junk and people with "junky logic and junky rationales". Hell, mabye I should start writing spam too ;-0. Neelix has yet to reply to my latest, but it will be "more of teh same" I'm sure, and he won't take my suggestion that he learn about New Westminster and write relevant articles....more and more mature, informed editors are falling silent......gee I wonder why.`Skookum1 (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Smug" is what I'm getting off his tone now re "I'll wait for the AfD"; I'm being explicity and Perry Mason-like analytical in my responses but I know it weighs against me to people who think long-windedness is "ranting" or "angry"....it's like he's trying to goad me; maybe he was even put up to this by kwami, who likes to do that, who knows....I'm so bored with AfDs, CfRs, and the like.....as you can see from my usercontributions this last few days I'm taking measures to redress the lack of content and poor shape of the New West article and get more on that city in place; an AfD is just a waste of time.......and he knows that. Wikipedia will become a garbage dump of irrelevancy and "I think it's notable" judgments by single authors if this kind of "it's just you and me, take it to an AfD" weasely-ness continues....nothing useful will get written because knowledgeable people will shun the place, or find themselves tangled up in bearpits full of false comparisons and misapplications of rules.....and I know I always take the heat in them, too, for not having "wikiquette".....I don't speak softly and carry a big stick, but I do have a very big stick....called knowledge, and I see no point in speaking softly when somebody is speaking stubbornly and wielding a hot dog....Skookum1 (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that there's an AfD now on Christian Life Assembly, which he also created and is similarly defending.Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please my comment on that AfD re further implications of COI; I checked the COIN and saw the bit about COI allegations not being used to "trump" an article dispute, so wondering if I should strikethrough my commnents in that regard. His sole authorship of the Tara Teng article, created only March 28, and which is mentioned in the CLA and 5Stones and Heritage Grill article (or was), raises the COI question he denies, but it seems very clear to me. I'm busy trying to earn some money today, don't have time to launch those AfDs but they're clearly needed. Even if a COIN ANI were to proceed, it would have no great effect and just be more hassle yet.Skookum1 (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

have a nice break, I'm contemplating one, too, just not getting the time to work on articles, so much b.s. to plow through gets distracting. Maybe next day or two, I'm gonna get a certain couple of articles written...as you know I have survival issues going on and if not resolved I'll have to stop anyway once uprooted (sigh).Skookum1 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw,

I recently created a page for my company; however, it was deleted by you with no reason mentioned on the page. See page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Balloon_27

Do you mind letting me know the problem with the page? Sorry I am new at editing wiki, and am having a hard time understanding how submissions work. I requested my page was undeleted and i am hearing back as well. Thank you in advance for any tips or help!

B27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byballoon27 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw. You actually deleted this under G13, but it's not an abandoned draft - it was created the same day you deleted it. G13 only applies if an AFC draft has been left untouched for six months. However, it was a clear copyright violation of this and a number of other articles (all of which look to be based on the same press release), so the deletion was a good call - should have been G12, though! Yunshui 雲‍水 10:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that Yunshui. I had cleared out about 1,500 AFC's tagged that week with G13 but I seemingly missed a few that were incorrectly deleted. My apologies. Mkdw^talk 18:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello -

You deleted the page 19:36, 28 May 2013 Mkdw (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Small and Growing Businesses (SGBs) (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) because of copyright infringement. Can you please explain? My organization coined the phrase Small and Growing Business (SGBs) (please see our website - http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/aspen-network-development-entrepreneurs/ande-home/small-growing-businesses-sgbs) so I am not sure how we infringed on copyright by the Wikipedia page. We are trying to create the SGB defn page so we can link to it from our organization wikipedia page (Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs)

Thanks for your help!

Sp1newcastle (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sp1newcastle. Welcome to Wikipedia. The page was an identical copy of the page on your company's website which does not meet our copyright policies. See WP:COPYVIO. If you do own the copyright to the material, there are various methods in which you can release the copyrighted material for use on Wikipedia, please see WP:DCM. While we're talking about it, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business and I would discourage you from using Wikipedia in that regard. See our conflict of interest policy and advertising policy. Thank you, Mkdw^talk 00:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mkdw,

Could you please let me know how I can edit the page I was trying to create, which you deleted, with the reasoning "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement", so that it can be "Wikipedia material".

The page I had created was about a public figure (reference below), and the information was from a publicly available biography on the person's official website. Should I better reference the source? Is it the person's publications which are missing references? Was there another reason? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Henri_Malosse

What is the next step for me to do - should I create a new article, or would you prefer to 'restore' the one I had made and give me some tips on what changes you would like to see, in order to approve it?)

Thanks in advance!

Hi Mminchev (talk · contribs). I'm currently taking a break from Wikipedia, but if you would like to take a look at WP:COPYVIO and see how and why Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted material, it would be the right place to start. If you need more clarification, we have this really cool IRC chat feature where volunteers will give you advice on how to create a suitable article. Otherwise, you can ask for advice at the help desk: WP:HD. Mkdw^talk 20:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The group is still currently working on their debut album however during the process they have released music, tour dates, singles and have been seen performing on various events, talk shows, the radio and are going to perform on Good Morning America the Today show. To me that shows that they have gained lots of notability plus to top all that they've won various awards too! "Miss Movin On" is their first debut single it has been released digitally and will soon be released on iTunes after that I'm pretty sure the single will chart across the world in different countries and if that doesn't explain enough about how notable they are then I must not know what notability is? Welcometothenewmillennium 19:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability is established through our guidelines such as WP:BAND and WP:NSONG. To say "pretty sure the single will chart" is a future prediction. I agree that has a very good chance of doing so, but until then, we would not write an article about it. We have a policy called WP:CRYSTAL that talks about that more in depth. Mkdw^talk 20:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So what's this talk about the universe is inside us? Welcometothenewmillennium 5:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, who makes a comparison between the most common elements found in the universe, and their one to one relationship to the most common elements in the human body. Tyson speaks about it in several prominent lectures but this one is a tidy summary; YouTube clip. Mkdw^talk 20:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay so wait how does the act of homosexuality, religion/belief, sex, nature/science, disabilities/diseases (Dyslexia/Apxergers/Cancer/ADHD) and human evolution all play out? I'm just asking you these types of questions because I want to expand my mind and knowledged! Welcometothenewmillennium 10:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read an encyclopedia. I do not have the time to explain all these things to you. Mkdw^talk 08:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Their debut single was released today on iTunes [4] and it's already charting worldwide [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PokerFace3 (talk • contribs)

Please see Talk:List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth harmony. Mkdw^talk 05:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but their single has charted they are now touring, released music, singles performed on live national television what more can you ask for? The group just released a single and it is charting now in different countries as we speak! Billboard Hot 100, iTunes, oh my god the freaking single it's charting in Canada, United States, North America, South America, Australia, Brazil all over the world! To add on top of all that they are about to tour with Cher Lloyd? Can someone please tell me why the girls arnt notable enough to hold a stand alone article? There are articles about less notable than Fifth Harmony! If they can't pass WP:BAND then what will make them pass it? Welcometothenewmillennium 20:17 23 July 2013.

Please see Talk:Fifth Harmony#Edit request on 8 July_2013. Mkdw^talk 21:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello why did you delete the page Neha Uberoi? She is a former professional tennis player and has valid sources to prove so. She is also a notable figure in India, America and South Asian communities worldwide. Kindly recreate for page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neha_Uberoi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberoipr (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The article was deleted under WP:A7. A credible assertion to notability must be made adhering to WP:ATH. Mkdw^talk 04:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you be my new best friend? :D C: JuicyJam (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about best but I am willing to help you acclimatize to Wikipedia if your sentiment is sincere. Mkdw^talk 19:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please could you explain the reasoning behind deleting the Wintopo page? I thought it was informative rather than unambiguous advertising. What would need to be different/improved for re-inclusion? Can you reinstate or provide me the original text so that I may improve the page to appropriate standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoThoughtPolice (talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The page was deleted under WP:G11 as described on the page. An article can be both advertising and informative. Those two qualities are not mutually exclusive nor are they the basis for what constitutes what can be included and what cannot on Wikipedia. I recommend you read the following policies at WP:N and WP:RS. I also find that the essay WP:FIRST is very helpful for newcomers and you should probably submit your articles through WP:AFC. Mkdw^talk 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you upload a cover art for O Lado Certo da Vida Certa

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/o-lado-certo-da-vida-certa/id709549803 189.4.33.62 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Mkdw,

We are two university students who have been assigned to edit an article on wikipedia. The article we chose is Aaron Paul. As part of the assignment, we need to interact with other wikipedia editors. I noticed you posted on his page awhile ago. Would you mind reviewing the page after we edit it and give us some suggestions?

Thanks! FingersInFood (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. can you please reply on my talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FingersInFood

Just a heads up. thanks!

-Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbaroth (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Happened to notice this guy vandalized the death penalty page. I checked his user contributions and from what I saw vandalism is all he does. Saw you warned him in the past and wasn't sure what the proper procedure was so I figured I would give you a heads up.Winfredtheforth (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Doesn't seem to have replied or changed their editing habits since their last block. I have given him a week long block for now. Mkdw^talk 21:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

To anyone passing by and has thought, "wow... Mkdw must be on one heck of a deadline if it's still going on after 4th months!" I have finished the project I was working on, am midway through another that overlapped, and this week I found out I will be moving to a new city. I am extremely excited for this brand new opportunity and big step but sadly means I will need to extend my leave of absence a little bit longer. Regards, Mkdw^talk 18:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)