User talk:Mkativerata/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some advice please?[edit]

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

Yes, the military notability essay is the product of an individual wikiproject. It doesn't have guideline or policy status and has never been put to the community for acceptance. So for me, it has no value at all. Having said that, it is certainly too late to use this AfD as a vehicle to express that point of view (and I'd better not !vote there lest we be accused of canvassing)! I suspect the military-based notability essay arguments tend to stand up in AfDs because MILHIST is an active and well-respected project. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree entirely, but I was surprised at how many people don't. I've come to the same conclusion about the AfD, and I wasn't expecting you to participate for the reasons you gave. Do you think I'd get much of a response at the Village Pump? As an aside, about MILHIST, I get the impression that at least part of the reason those arguments work for them is the culture of hero worship that is applied to the military by some people in the U.S. What do you think? And is that attitude common anywhere else in the world? Regards, RadManCF open frequency 21:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with MILHIST to comment on that. I have never been involved in military-related articles here (doesn't interest me at all!). I do know that there are leading members of the project who aren't from the US and there are also those who publicly identify as "anti-war". As for the Village Pump, I'm not sure anything ever really happens there. I suspect this will end up like high schools: there is no guideline or policy that says high schools are notable, but there are always enough numbers at AfDs to push that view so it'll probably never change! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, a fellow cynic. In the case of High schools, I think that many, but not all, have a better chance than most ships to pass GNG, and I think that many of the arguments for presuming notability of high schools seem to rest on their subjective importance. My personal opinion on high schools is that they are run of the mill. Just an essay I know, but I would support elevating it, or something similar, to a guideline. Do you think that's doable? My reason for supporting that logic is that I feel that the inclusion of articles like LST-766, or about every high school in existence, or individual pokemon, give the public the impression that anyone can come onto Wikipedia and create crufty articles on anything, without regard for quality. I draw heavily on the sentiments of Meta:Immediatism in the formation of my opinions on article inclusion, as I feel that concentrating on increasing the immediate value of our articles is the best way to bolster our credibility with the general public. Do you think that view would find much support in the community? (I realize my questions have digressed somewhat from the origin of this thread, but, IMO, there's almost always issues under the surface of a dispute that should be addressed, as they more than likely contributed to that dispute.) Regards, RadManCF open frequency 21:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I think -- and this is very cynical -- that we are at a point on the project where any proposal for a new policy or guideline will fail unless one of two circumstances are met: (a) there is an urgent and obvious need for something to be fixed; (b) the change is merely incremental. Certainly there are few examples of policy proposals that have passed, especially in notability. The only one in the last year that I can think of was the change from WP:ATH to WP:NSPORT (an incremental change). That change succeeded because both inclusionists and deletionists accepted a need for change and the change was incremental. Even then it only just scraped through. I can't see many inclusionists supporting WP:MILL, and it would also be opposed by individual projects that had a lot to lose (like schools, geography, bus routes etc). I have come to accept that we have a lot of crap and nothing much can be done about it. At least having a lot of crap is not mutually exclusive with having quality as well. We can have kids write articles on pokemon while more mature editors write quality (that's not to say there aren't quality pokemon articles out there -- perhaps there are!). Hopefully (through mechanisms like TFA) it's the quality that the public are likely to see more of. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That's kind of what I figured. I wouldn't go so far with WP:MILL as to apply it to locations, but feel that it's generally a good idea. I think it's worth noting that I came to this project after initially being very skeptical about the concept, having bought into all the arguments about how we're inherently unreliable, since anyone can edit our articles. I lean towards deletionism, immediatism and exclusionism as a means of presenting this project as reliable, and on par with traditional encyclopedias. Do you think that there are many that would share this view? I get the impression that a number of more experienced editors are so enthused with the concept of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that they want to concentrate on developing in that direction, and don't worry so much about our public perception. And now that you mention TFA as a PR tool, it does occur to me that the average person isn't that likely to click the random article link, and find themselves at a crap article... RadManCF open frequency 17:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Chelo61[edit]

You were the last admin to deal with Chelo61's edit warring, so I'd like you to take a look. He and Ending-start (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) have been edit warring at Usher discography. When I looked things over, I saw that Chelo61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has also reentered the issue at Michael (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with this edit and looks to be edit-warring at Raymond v. Raymond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well. I let Ending-start off with a warning to take it to a talk page and not restore his material unilaterally, but blocked Chelo61 for a month. I interact with Ending-start on a reasonably frequent basis, so it's worth it to me to have someone else take a peek and make sure I wasn't biased.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (qualifier: I'm no longer an admin). I'm not a fan of equivalent blocks for the sake of equivalence. Chelo's history warrants a lengthy block. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mkativerata. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 00:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Charlie Adam[edit]

Hi. In reference to this edit, which you summarized as "undo inappropriate use of rollback":

  1. What makes you think I used rollback? The previous edit was a revert, but not a rollback.
  2. What makes you think my revert was inappropriate? I "Reverted addition of unsourced content" concerning a living person, in compliance with WP:BLP.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.   — Jeff G.  ツ 00:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Re (1): I admit I find it hard to tell from edit summaries whether rollback has been employed. I assume because it was huggled it was rolled back. Re (2): WP:BLP is completely inapplicable. The material is not negative. It is normal practice for the lead of an article to be unsourced. The PFA nomination part is sourced later in the article. I have some problems with the rest of the sentence but it's not in violation of BLP and certainly the whole sentence should not be removed on BLP grounds. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

- for dropping the stick. I'm not a bad faith person, neither by nature nor behind the anonymity that Internet names afford. Our reform project has merit, but if it does not receive consensus, so be it - there's plenty of other good work to be done here :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've certainly taken personal umbrage at some of your past comments (especially the diff I pointed out on your talk page). But I am more than happy to move on. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...: Support: This candidate demonstrates a level of maturity and professionalism that seem to be becoming rare among recent RfA candidates. Throughout his work, I find no reasons to hesitate in supporting. --Kudpung (talk) 8:48 am, 4 August 2010, Wednesday (8 months, 12 days ago) (UTC+7) - and I would still say the same :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :) BTW I don't know if you've noticed yet, but there is now an easier way to get to WT:RFA :) --Mkativerata (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect help[edit]

I need help with redirecting List of Chief Ministers of Perlis back to List of Menteris Besar of Perlis. I copied the contents of the original page to the intended destination, but I know this isn't the proper way since the edit history is not transferred. Thanks! Yk (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there - great to see your username popping back up on my watchlist! I've tagged the page for a history merge - it'll need an admin to do it, I'm afraid. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
It's done, thanks for the help again! Yk (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Finnigan's policy interests include" - who says?[edit]

His own parliamentary biography, LOL! :P Timeshift (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah right thanks, ok, it was unsourced so I assumed it was just guff. How about we put it back but say, "According to Finnigan..."? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine with me. Timeshift (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Curious[edit]

What does a persons race have to do with ITN inclusion? RxS (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't and why ask here and not in the appropriate forum? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
You brought race up in an ITN oppose. [1] So as the editor, this would be the appropriate forum. RxS (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Right... Is it not tolerably clear that I'm arguing in that post that race should have nothing to do with a decision to post an item on ITN? That I'm arguing (in the context of previous posts) the deaths of thousands of Arabs are more worthy of highlighting than those of two thinly notable white people? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't. If it were so, you'd say thousands of people dying in a war are more worthy than 2 people dying in the cross fire. You're singling out race when the rest of the editors are talking about notability. RxS (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok. At the risk of sounding like a toxic bore... I'm arguing notability. I'm pointing out the fallacy in posting an item that makes the death of two white people more notable than the deaths of thousands of Arabs. I don't understand what your problem is with that. Instead of white, I could have said "western", serving the same purpose. Would that have pleased your sensibilities? Is this discussion anything other than a complete waste of my time? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative scripts[edit]

Your opinion needed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Malaysia#Alternate_scripts. - Yk (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Mahathir[edit]

Mkativerata, you have deleted multiple edits by various people (deleting views of pluralisms) and changed it to a singularity of your own view, though perhaps you never have close encounter with the subject and never comprehend him.Huayi (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this before at length: User_talk:Mkativerata/Archive10#Mahathir. My only regret with the work I've done on the article is that the job is only half-finished. Unless and until you are willing to particularise any specific concerns you have with the changes I've made there's not much point engaging in another discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ed Baird[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Malaysia-related articles)[edit]

Would certainly appreciate your input here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Malaysia-related articles)#Expansion. - Yk3 talk · contrib 01:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wt;rfa[edit]

Howdy - I notice you're restored this redirect. As it's a redirect to the Wikipedia talk Namespace (rather than the Wikipedia ones discussed here), Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects advises deletion. I've RfD'ed it so we can thrash it out in the usual channels. Cheers - TB (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by your reasoning. What's the relevance of your distinction between Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk (WP:CNR covers both) and why don't the arguments from the old RFD apply to WT redirects? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
While it may occasionally be necessary to direct a user of the main namespace to a relevant internal procedure or policy page, it shouldn't ever really be necessary to refer them directly to discussion about such a procedure or policy. Redirects in particular need special care as they have the potential to inadvertantly divert readers into the confusing and scary world that is the Wikipedia beaurocracy. In the worst case, a naive user might end up reading a policy page (or in this case policy discussion page) thinking it to be encycloapedic content. It's a fine baalnce, trading off convenience for our editors against clarity for our readers I know. I myself tend towards favouring the readers conveneience over us editors, but appredciate that points of view differ. - TB (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a friendly hi[edit]

(Given the choice between this and a cookie.... :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, MRG :) I don't think I've ever been given food before on WP! I hope you are well! --Mkativerata (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)