User talk:Mkativerata/Archive12

Karpal Singh

Hello again. I kinda feel like I've extracted as much as I can from internet sources to build this article. I intend to take it up to good article status, therefore I could use some help on beefing up the sections on his legal and political career. If you have any more external info on these two topics, please do help contribute. I'll be researching his political career in more detail. Also, any comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks! - Yk^3 talk · contrib 20:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I imagine the difficult with Karpal will be finding sources that aren't heavily biased one way or the other. I came across this book on a search although it doesn't seem to be very easy to get (and from the title doesn't sound like a neutral biography). The article as it stands looks really good -- a huge improvement from where it was about 12 months ago! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespearettes

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to tag this as a hoax? - seven fingers on each hand... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted so I can't really look now. But you're probably right. I tend to mentally go through the As before the Gs when tagging. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane meetup invitation

	Brisbane Meetup v t e Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a barbeque and meetup at Southbank this Sunday (26 June). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil ^(speak to me) 10:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane)

2011 Bersih 2.0 rally

Hey there again. I was hoping if you could watchlist the above article to watch for WP:POV language. Just like the heavily-biased 2007 Bersih rally, the article is more likely to be edited by pro-Bersih editors. While I appreciate contributions from everyone, I feel that some well-meaning editors on the article inadvertently use a tone that (subtly) portrays the govt. in a negative light. - Yk^3 talk ~ contrib 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with the article. It's on my watchlist now - I agree it's likely to be a target! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin again

Just wanted to leave a quick thank you after I saw your request for the tools again. I have appreciated your help on the project and was a bit sad when you had your bit removed, but I understand why people might do that. So I just need to say thanks for taking up the bit again and helping with the admin chores around here. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you:) Although I really don't expect to be overly active. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on returning to the admin corps. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Although we may not always see eye-to-eye on some issues, I never really understood why you handed your tools in and I'm glad to see you back. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I wonder if someone might be able to point me in the right direction with a problem: none of the AfD closing scripts (Tim's, Z-man's) are working for me - there's no "close" tab popping up. I have Firefox so I can't figure out what the problem is. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I removed some other scripts and now it works! --Mkativerata (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. Regardless of how active you'll be, I'm glad you asked for the tools back. Acalamari 17:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Grim

Another user found 3 more mayors from Cumberland with the same problem as Brian Grim. He listed them on Grim's AfD. Could you add those articles to Brian Grim's AfD. 4 for the price of 1. Oh.... condolences on becoming an Admin again. It's sad to see people who like self-mutilation. :) Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks! I'm thinking it might be good to let this one run its course and then, assuming it's deleted, batch-nom the rest using Grim as a precedent. I'm just suggesting this because some editors might object to a messy change of this nom to batch-nom this half-way through the discussion (some editors oppose batch noms as a matter of course). Your thoughts? --Mkativerata (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Barack Obama visit to India

As one of the admins who closed the last deletion discussion for this article, I thought you'd like to know that it's been re-created and is up for deletion again. Nightw 03:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm as annoyed as you are. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PointClear

Hi Mkativerata,

Why did you delete my page: PointClear? This is a posting about the company,yes, but it is not an advertisement. It is very similar to the page on, for example, HubSpot, or Microsoft. These are informational pages, not pages meant for advertisement.

Please reconsider, and allow me to repost my article.

Thanks, Sudarshan.muralidhar (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Sudarshan Muralidhar[reply]

I'm sorry, the page had to be deleted as it was promotional top to bottom. We can only accept articles about private enterprises if they are (a) written in neutral language; and (b) built on reliable independent sources. This article was neither. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand your point. What would I need to do in order for the article to not be considered "promotional top to bottom"? I can easily find independent sources rather than the company's website itself, and I can adjust the language to make it more neutral. Would this help make it acceptable? --Sudarshan.muralidhar (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Sudarshan Muralidhar[reply]

Yes, but I think it will only work if you start it from scratch. Looking around, I'm having trouble finding any reliable sources (ie sources that aren't press releases). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A press release from a different company or group would be considered reliable, would it not? Regardless, I am sure I can find something and rewrite the article- maybe not as comprehensively as before, but definitely more neutrally. Could you please give me a copy of my article back, so that I can use it for reference as I rewrite it? I would hate to have to come up with all the information again. In other words, yes I will rewrite the article, but I would like to see the original just for reference. Sudarshan.muralidhar (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are really not reliable at all. I suggest reading WP:RS, which explains that reliable sources are those that have a reputation for reliability and fact-checking. In other words: good newspapers, journal articles, etc. I'm really not comfortable retrieving a copy of the deleted article -- using it as a reference for a new article will not be helpful at all. The new article -- if a new article is even possible -- will have to look completely different to comply with core wikipedia policies. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will be sure to avoid press releases, and I will read the article you mentioned. However, I still request that you return a copy of the article to me. I didn't have any backups of it, and I spent quite a while on it. While it may not be written in a neutral way, all of actual information presented is sound. Also, I would like to use some of the formatting in the article, which I spent a lot of time doing (the infobar, etc.) as it will take me some time to recreate (this is my first wikipedia article). I promise to not make the new article as biased as the last one, and I will be sure to adhere to wikipedia policy when writing it. However, I would really appreciate it if you could retrieve the article for me. Again, I promise not to rewrite the article in the same way as the old one. After all, if I do- it will only be deleted again :) Sudarshan.muralidhar (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you'll have to enable email though as I'm willing to email you a copy of the article but not to restore it to any wikipedia page. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I confirmed my email. Thank you for your time.Sudarshan.muralidhar (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'd also recommend reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, if you're associated with PointClear. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I recreated the page, and made a draft page. It is now considerably shorter than the old version, but everything on it is cited using an outside source completely unaffiliated with the company. Please let me know if this is okay. Here is the link.Thanks Sudarshan.muralidhar (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better, although still very (and in my view, unduly) positive about the company. You can move it to the mainspace but I can't guarantee someone won't delete it or nominate it for deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St George's Day (disambiguation)

Hello, could you please delete St George's Day (disambiguation) too? With the film article deleted, there is no need for the disambiguation page. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for picking that up and sorry I missed it. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting it! :) Happy editing! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTW

Perhaps you might be so kind as to review my suggestion for a minor tweak to the ITN sentence which might provide a more fuller picture to readers.[1]. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bersih 2.0

Hey, just a quick note. Thanks for keeping the Bersih article updated. Appreciate it. I'll be checking in every now and then in Wikipedia today, so if you need any help, please let me know. Thanks again. Bejinhan talks 04:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - thanks, but Yk Yk Yk deserves the credit for keeping this article on the rails. 441 arrests so far; quite extraordinary! --Mkativerata (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We really need some free or CC images. So far all the ones in flickr are restricted ): — Yk^3 talk ~ contrib 00:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Perhaps Malaysiakini would release one or two for free but I wouldn't know where to ask. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bejinhan said she's going to ask a friend. I also messaged User:Earth who posted some photos of the previous rally and seemed to have also attended the 2011 rally according to his blog. Btw, the page was viewed almost 60,000 times on July 9 [2] [3]. — Yk^3 talk ~ contrib 06:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

60,000's pretty good - much more than most TFA's get. Well done again! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers Pharmaceutical Industry Fellowship

Hello, I am not really sure why my page about the Rutgers Pharmaceutical Industry Fellowship Program was deleted. I tried to make it as informative as possible, as it is a NONPROFIT organization. If you could let me know what needs to be changed in order for my page to avoid deletion I would appreciate it.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissarutgers (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see you've just recreated the page anyway. I'd suggest reading WP:COI. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nmate's block

Good morning

I am writing this message cause I wonder if the penalty given to Nmate is too mild, considering that it is not his first deviation from civil behaviour and collegiality.

He was blocked in the past for personal attacks for 2 weeks and I think it should be used a progressive sanctions system. He was warned only a few months ago by an administrator to tone it down and avoid any remarks that other users could consider insulting after aggressive attitude towards Yopie, Iadrian yu and Iaaasi (remarks like "Iadrian yu is not an I.Q.champion" / "If I report anybody for edit-warring, and then I do not leave notification on the talk page of the reported person, it is my own business"" / "Do not be in my enviroment. It is quite weird and annoying" and deletions of talk page messages of other users). He also was warned by an admin. for repeated unexplained reverts There is also a fifth person that was treated without politeness by Nmate, namely Wladthemlat: [4]. Besides the unfriendly words "I do not "enjoy" your presence at all", he falsely accused Wladthemlat of wiki-hounding, even if Wladthemlat's contributions were totally constructive and he did not confront or inhibit Nmate's work. It is obvious that Nmate himself came to that article after tracking PANONIAN's edits.

WP is a collaborative project, where editors should cooperate between each other and there is no place for such venomous messages: none of you is welcome to post any messages on my talk page and in my health enviroment. I am asking both of you to avoid me and my talk page as much as possible. I also avoid both of you unless I need to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.204.65 (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, he inserted in an article grossly falsified demographic data ("the most dominant group there are the Hungarians with a population of 1161 (98%)") which are in a strong discordance with the real numbers ("53.89 % Hungarians")

Thank you for your attention (Daccono (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there, I'm afraid I'm not going to respond to block shopping. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Geourdu

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Geourdu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Singularity42 (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 9, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 9, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The product of a compromise in the pre-Federation constitutional conventions, Section 116 is based on similar provisions in the United States Constitution. The provision has been interpreted narrowly by the High Court of Australia: while the definition of "religion" adopted by the court is broad and flexible, the scope of the protection of religions is circumscribed. No court has ever ruled a law to be in contravention of Section 116. Federal Governments have twice proposed amendments to the provision, principally to apply it to laws made by the states of Australia. On each occasion—in 1944 and 1988—the proposal failed in a referendum. (more...)

John Defterios, FBC Media & Government of Malaysia

Hey, I don't know if you've been following the FBC Media-Government of Malaysia controversy, but I found something on Wiki related to it that's really interesting. Sarawak Report, the blog that exposed FBC's conflict of interest, is unconvinced with CNN's insistence that Defterios is no longer working for FBC. They have their reasons to believe so, but some editing activity on Wikipedia may prove otherwise.

Going through the history of Wikipedia's John Defterios article, I found two users who are either Defterios himself, or people editing on his behalf. I say this because they both edited in a somewhat promotional tone, and added one piece information that was not public at the time. The first one, Jkdefterios (talk · contribs), basically added some autobiographical puff in 2008. The second one, JohnKD (talk · contribs), made an edit on June 21, 2011, claiming Defterios no longer worked for FBC Media, which only he or people close to his organisation could have known.

Just a note. — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I was writing this message, an IP 83.244.231.50 (talk · contribs) with a questionable edit history, removed information on the controversy from the Defterios article. — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 15:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the IPs edit history is interesting indeed. I've watchlisted the Defterios article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Schaefer article

Why do you continue to delete content including citations without any discussion on the discussion page of the article? Please read the guidelines for deleting content. The material deleted was not even moved to the talk page for preservation. Your concerns of missing citations have been addressed, and if not sufficiently, please discuss in talk before taking any action that could be destructive.

Continue the discussion on the article's talk page if you insist there is something wrong with the facts presented, please.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.235.139 (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source you give describes such theories as those of "conspiracy-mongers". There is no place for that here. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a reference to Nancy Schaefer's own report. You did not move a copy of the deleted text to preserve the original in the talk page. These are violations of Wikipedia policy. Every fact was published in major news stories. The fact that there is a controversy was only mentioned, no bias was given to either side. Nevertheless, you should discuss any such changes on the talk page for the article per Wikipedia policy.

And now calling names has no place in Wikipedia. --72.177.235.139 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you erase my article about Vic McLean

Dear Mkativerata,

While I am new to posting on Wikipedia I intend to be proactive for a long time to come. I am still learning. Why did you simply erase my article? And what made you believe that it is advertising?

I disagree with you. There are many top music business industry executives listed on Wikipedia - do you intend to erase all of them? And if you don't - why can't another top exec have his profile amongst the many others?

I greatly appreciate a thoughtful response.

Edie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edie Okamoto (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written as an online resume, and not a particularly good one at that. Examples:

• "Vic McLean is a renown music industry executive that devotes his time to assist independent labels to thrive in the new era of the music industry."
• "In short, Vic McLean brings a wealth of experience, know-how, and a golden rolodex of distributors, venues, songwriters and musicians. His quiet way of focusing on the end result has earned him the respect of the greats in the industry. Vic McLean believes that artist management must start and end with the artist."
• "Vic McLean, and therefore, Virtuoso Music & Distribution, offers a unique set of competencies effective in all aspects of artist development and consumer awareness."

I'm sorry, but such self-promotion is not acceptable on wikipedia and will be deleted on sight. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it couldn't be self promotions since I am not Vic McLean. I am the editor of the UC Jazz Newsletter and I am interested in providing more information about independent artists and about music executives that support the independent artists. As such - your assumption is simply false and incorrect. That said I am interested - what in the man's profile I provided - made you think that it is "self" promotion? I am not Vic McLean and he doesn't even know about it. I also want to add many others and as such I need to know what it was that you found objectionable. Wikipedia has a lot of profile of music execs - so why not this one? Please explain. When I study the guidelines I can't come up you YOUR PERSONAL and seemingly arbitrary reasons. For that reason I am following the instructions. Which asks me to ASSUME YOU ARE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.

I want to learn since writing these profiles are a lot of work and thus I must learn what you object to. I don't want to waste my time - but at the same time I thought this is a "democratic" vehicle. So why are some exec's profiles okay and this one not?

Edie Okamoto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edie Okamoto (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - how would you like to see it written?

   "Vic McLean is a renown music industry executive that devotes his time to assist independent labels to thrive in the new era of the music industry."

What is wrong wit the above sentence? The music industry is currently undergoing one of the most amazing changes in it's history. Why is the sentence above objectionable? Remember - he is not the author. I am and I am eager to learn how you, as an experienced person would prefer to state that he is one of most influential people in the new music distribution paradigm.

   "In short, Vic McLean brings a wealth of experience, know-how, and a golden rolodex of distributors, venues, songwriters and musicians. His quiet way of focusing on the end result has earned him the respect of the greats in the industry. Vic McLean believes that artist management must start and end with the artist."

Would you prefer this sentence to read:

Vic McLean's quiet way of focusing on the end result has earned him the respect of the greats in the industry. Vic McLean believes that artist management must start and end with the artist."

Or do you wish me to back up the statement by collecting quotes from some of the many, many artists whose career he assisted - in order to make it "encyclopedic"?

   "Vic McLean, and therefore, Virtuoso Music & Distribution, offers a unique set of competencies effective in all aspects of artist development and consumer awareness." 

What is wrong with this statement? It is a fact.

Thank you for your willingness to provide deeper insights. I am willing to edit the article until is is "wiki" ready. I also have several others that I have been working on and I want to do them soon. So please help me get the hang of what you are talking about. Thank you very much in advance. Edie Okamoto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edie Okamoto (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC) --Edie Okamoto (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Gordy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Davis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A._Reid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdman_%28rapper%29

what is the difference between what I want to add and those? Thank you for your assistance.

--Edie Okamoto (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the last question first: Those have references, they aren't written in a promotional tone, and their formatting is more in line with Wikipedia's standards (not, of course, than formatting was why Vic McLean was deleted). Not that it matters, either way. Supposing you were right, and those articles were not better, that doesn't mean that yours gets a freeby; we'd just delete them too. Quality control here at Wikipedia is... patchy.

The main problems the article had were in tone and word choice. The words seek to puff up an image of McLean while saying as little as possible; they speak volumes in great vagueness, but very little of the concrete. You would need to tighten up the prose, cut out pretty much all the information that isn't based in cold, hard, discrete fact (such as birthdate, biographical information, positions held, awards, etc.). After that's done, the tone issues should be fairly well in hand.

In addition, you'll want to find three or four sources that can be used to verify the information in the article, and to make sure that McLean meets our general notability guideline or our biographical notability guideline. If you can't find any, then I'm afraid that any article about McLean will end up being deleted, regardless of how well we fix up the tone problems.

I, or Mkativerata, will be happy to userfy the article for you, so that you can work on these problems without having to fear another immediate deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it appears that you copied your content from this website, in violation of its copyright. We will not ever restore it. I suggest you start over, from scratch, in your userspace, such as at User:Edie Okamoto/Vic McLean. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lifebaka. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nephilim_(film)

Mkativerata,

For Nephilim the film, it has been mentioned twice in the news recently. Gulshan Grover is more gung-ho than ever- Grover also plays, Azazel, a favourite archangel name in movies like the psycho-thriller Fallen, in another unreleased movie, Nephilim. He explained, “It is based on a comic book so its being made to have international appeal among kids. I’m the baddie angel.” Grover added, “Working in Hollywood broadens your view because it pulls you out of your comfort zone. In Hindi films because you are senior, people seldom point out your mistake or tell you how to do your work. There, if I do something shitty, I will know about it.”

Please reconsider, and allow me to repost my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faronshapter (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been incubated here, where you can work on it. But you'll have to overcome the reasons why the article was deleted, here. The main reason the article was deleted is at WP:NFF. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GreenEDGE Cycling

Hi, I noticed you created a stub page under your user page for GreenEDGE cycling. I've created a page for the team and would love any help if you're interested. Journeyman (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this up and for letting me know! I will have a look. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhyiddin Yassin

This IP User:77.207.231.117 keeps trying to add Muhyiddin's "Malay first" stance to the opening paragraph of the article, and has slow-edit-warred over its inclusion for weeks now. The significance of the "Malay first" statement is, IMO, his personal opinion, but he just never listens when I tell him that reliable sources do not indicate this. His insistence on mentioning it is really WP:SOAPBOXing. I have tried to compromise by writing a balanced lead, but once again, he re-added the "Malay first" stuff in the first paragraph. I don't even believe it should be in the lead. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 01:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. The page is on my watchlist but I haven't been around much the last few days so I must have missed it. I'll keep an eye out for any more attempts to insert it. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi, I though I should let you know about this mention I made: [5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't think I've ever edited Jimbo's talk page, a fine record that I should probably look to continue :) --Mkativerata (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! At least I don't watchlist it... --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus Moore

I am disappointed about the removal of the article Fergus Moore, just after adding some more information. But life is tough sometimes. I have two questions for you. What was your main reason for deletion, lack of convincing sources or otherwise? And the second question: can you put the last version back to User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage8 so I can work further on it? I am convinced that there are more sources available, but it means digging through paper magazins. That will take some time... (and next week I will start a 3 month course) Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As for the first question, the reason for deletion was essentially that cited by all four delete !voters: a lack of sources about Moore himself as WP:GNG and WP:BIO normally require. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can live with that. And thanks for the move. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_forerunners_of_punk_rock

you don't know what "demonstrably" means, you shouldn't take quotes out of context, & you ignored the quality of the nom which the keep !voters were reacting to (oe explicitly). also afd shouldn't be used to get articles sourced, only to demonstrate that they can be sourced, in cases where the nom has actually read the title correctly and thinks otherwise. 86.44.26.197 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you wish to seek review of the way the AfD was closed, you can take it to WP:DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]