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

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Great job catching that sock farm you mentioned on AN/I and your willingness to clean up their actions. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you RickinBaltimore. I'm surprised at how big this ended up being. @CerealKillerYum: this is as much for you as it is for me. Mkdw^talk 18:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I've been looking further into this and the story's getting more interesting. Alex Becker owns Source-Wave (as stated on his wikipedia page). There's a marketplace on Source-Wave (market.sourcewave.com) and there are sellers selling Wikipedia pages on there. Alex Becker must have purchased a page from his own marketplace (as well as the other individuals) [1][2]. There are others selling selling Wikipedia link spam on there too. This [3] individual is selling link spam on uploaded photos. The page shows a screenshot of an example link but I can't find the page on Google (maybe it has been taken down?). We also don't know if the example link is a real paid link or just an example (probably an example). What should we do about this? I'm guessing what the dude's doing is uploading non-free images, claiming their under CC license, and then citing the source has his/her client's website. Also, I think the legal department should send a C&D to the marketplace. It's obvious they're violating guidelines. CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears, based upon the community consensus forming, that we will ban this particular editor and delete any articles they created. In terms of linking this particular sock farm to any external websites, that is beyond our purview. While it seems likely that the website you mentioned may be involved, there's no definitive evidence to tie them together, only circumstantial evidence. Additionally, legal rarely becomes in these types of issues. Paid editing is not expressly prohibited by Wikipedia and it's the editor who created the article that is in breach and not necessarily the client who paid for the services. Even so the community has come down very harshly against paid editing (even disclosed paid editing). You can read more about it at WP:PE and WP:PAID. Mkdw^talk 22:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah Ok. Well, I did some more digging and have found File: pages that match what the advert was stating. For example, [4] this page claims that a logo is available under the GNU license but the company's website doesn't state that their logo is available under the GNU license. The Source section promotes the website. [5] this image is linking to a Flickr page that is promoting an SEO service. The meme is non-notable and the image was added to the The dog ate my homework page by an admin [6]. Here are self-made images uploaded to Wikipedia with links to a commercial site [7][8]. Again, I'm no expert in what should be done here. It just looks like there's an obvious problem as: 1.) there's an advert stating that they're selling link spam on Wikipedia 2.) the advert shows an example of what they're doing 3.) there are examples of similar pages existing on Wikipedia. So, maybe, those pages are link spam. You know, it's just something that's so obvious that I can't help but point it out. If somehow this is within guidelines then, well, I'm guessing they're gonna have a field day with this. CerealKillerYum (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought I should let you know that I closed the ANI Discussion regarding that sockpuppet you found. I'm not an admin, but it was turning into a snowy situation. The consensus seemed to be ban and nuke 'em. Of course, since I'm not an admin, an admin can revert my closing it if they have good reason, so watch for that. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Block user:Sun 01010101 2602:306:3357:BA0:6044:E986:57BE:CEB5 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yikes that account was on a rampage. Mkdw^talk 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Now she is abusing her talk page. 2602:306:3357:BA0:6044:E986:57BE:CEB5 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think the edit summary you just deleted at AIV needs to be rev-deleted; it was just simple profanity. Note that the policy says: "Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility". Regards, --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I aware of the policy. There's always been a problem with the wording around "ordinary" and "low degree". Typically I wouldn't have but considering the volume of the disruption (including deleted edits), however feel free to restore the edit summaries as you feel appropriate under the policy. Mkdw^talk 16:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mkdw, My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages. 1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages? 3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 4. How would you describe your gender? 5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor? Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to! Sincerely, Stelba90 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Stelba90: Thank you for reaching out to the members of the WikiProject Women. Unfortunately, my involvement with that WikiProject and many other similar projects has been a lot less than I would like. As such I do not think I am a good candidate to ask. Also, I have opted to keep my account gender ambiguous because I strongly believe that gender should have no bearing on an editor's experience or treatment on Wikipedia. I imagine gender identity is an important aspect of your data gathering and without answering that question would limit the usefulness of any info. Best of luck on your paper. Regards, Mkdw^talk 23:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I commend you for your largeness of spirit in fixing all the things that needed improvement in the article's GAR, despite our sometimes pointed disagreements, and I'd like to thank you for your efforts, which were very timely as I was tied up with a few things IRL. Your changes were significant enough that I think that you deserve credit for the article's promotion as much as I do for initially expanding the article. I'm toying with submitting the article for an A-class review once I get access to the ship's biography and would like to add your name as co-nominator, whenever I do that, if you're agreeable.

I'd be happy to collaborate with you if you have any other ships that you'd like to work on; I'd even follow sfn formatting if it's already present ;-) Between us we seem to have access to quite a variety of sources and I think that it would be to Wiki's benefit if we can put our differences behind us.

I do have one question, though; I was just tidying up the article and was wondering why the photographs are cited? Clicking on them will bring up the source if a curious reader clicks through to Commons, so they seem rather redundant to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: It's nice to see the article as a GA and I would be happy to assist you in getting it to the next step. Admittedly, I don't have a tremendous amount of experience with history articles but I do have talents for research. In regards to the citation in the caption, it was something that I've seen come up in other GA reviews including at least one that I've nominated before. WP:WHYCITE has a brief sentence, "Image captions should be referenced as appropriate just like any other part of the article." As such, I've always defaulted in doing so, mostly to negate that argument, in case it's ever brought up during a nomination again. Mkdw^talk 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, it's me again. It seems like I didn't explain my question well. What I meant is to add information that I was still at school at my user page. I saw several user pages and they use some kind of a settings that shows important messages that write: "This user is still at school" Can you help to show me how to make those messages like that? I appreciated your help. DarryLaz (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@DarryLaz: Yes, I can help you with that. We have various templates and userboxes. There's a fairly good list of the userbox categories at here. There you can find links to categories like Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education. Once you find one, such as ((User:Llama man/Userboxes/Grade)), you add to your userpage. There are instructions at WP:UBX about how to format them into rows and groupings. Hope this helps. Mkdw^talk 21:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A good deal of the time, my comment or !vote is opposed to SwisterTwister's and many I don't respond to at all (such as Crowdrise). There's nobody who can count on my agreement, because I look not at the suggestion, but directly at the article. I used to look at every AfD, but I no longer have the time for that, so I've decided to concentrate on avoiding no consensus because of insufficient participation closes. He is primarily notifying me of these. If you'd like to do that for the ones you run across, I'd appreciate the help. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

To me this seems even worse. They're notifying you only when they're involved in a discussion that is close making your input more influential than ever. SwisterTwister is a well known deletionist around AFD. They !vote 97.4% in favour of delete/redirect -- or viewed differently 2.6% in favour of keep/merge. You !vote 80% in favour of delete/redirect. That seems like pretty good odds to me to ping you into a conversation that's going to be close, even if I don't know for certain what you're going to !vote. For all we know, SwisterTwister is only pinging you into conversations whereby they assess you'd likely !vote delete or in favour of their way. Maybe sometimes you disagree with them or perhaps quite frequently, but even if the number of times you disagree is relatively frequently, say a third of the time, that's still a two thirds odds for SwisterTwister to get a !vote out of you in their favour. Anything short of 50% is in theory able to be gamed. These are exactly the types of problems that can occur around WP:GAMING and campaigning when it's up to the involved individual to pick and choose which conversations they're going to ping a close colleague into. DGG I have all the respect in the world for you. I don't always agree with SwisterTwister but I also acknowledge that they're a well respected editor in the community. I've participated in the AFD where this issue came up so I can't even say I'm not biased either, but if I had been a patrolling admin and saw this, and it had been anyone else, I may have taken it to ANI. Perhaps you would have been able to demonstrate that it was being done impartially and never even considered these possibilities. But going forward you will. The practice is dubious in principal, even if you two are able to make it work. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not reporting anyone here. I'm offering this advice and if you ignore it that's your prerogative. Mkdw^talk 01:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

that is not what I said, that I want to be pinged when the decision needs another !vote. I said they are notifying me when there is a AfD with not enough participation to justify closing, especially after multiple relistings. Too many afds end up with one or no people responding to them, a situation which we should prevent if we can. They are also notifying me when a discussion involves something I'm sort of expert in, like citation analysis. If I think I know enough about the field to comment, and have an opinion or want to add some information, I do. Sometimes a!vote, sometimes just a comment. Anyone who thinks the alerts are biased has an easy solution, which is , as I suggested, to send me their own. I almost always respond to any request to look at an article or a discussion. Even if I get to do nothing else that day, I try to respond to questions. But I will keep what you said in mind, because appearances matter also. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdrise would seem to be inconsistent with that request then. The AFD had 7 participants, considerable discussion, lots of policy based arguments on both sides (though seemingly a strong leaning among the participants to one side), and had never been relisted -- before SwisterTwister pinged you into the conversation. Perhaps it would be pertinent to clarify that criteria again with SwisterTwister. Anyway, appreciate that you'll keep it in mind. As I said before, I do trust you implicitly, and it's really more the principal behind how pinging your friends into consensus discussions can be easily abused. I do understand what you are trying to go for though. Mkdw^talk 02:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it's User:DarryLaz again. I just wanted to know that I really appreciated your help, but it seems like what I was looking for was not there. I'm trying to make the information similar to this user: User:Babymissfortune. Can I ask where and how I can make that kind of information? Sorry once again for your inconvenience. User:DarryLaz114.125.169.195 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@DarryLaz: Ah you're looking for a page banner. The one specifically about school us ((Atschool)). These are part of a series of banners called WP:WIKIBREAK. Hope this helps! (Also, don't forget to keep signed in) Mkdw^talk 18:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Kimberlymyrie posted on my talk page, apparently on a client's behalf, about what it would take to restore a certain deleted article. Since it was deleted as part of the Sunilseth sockfarm, I thought you might like to look into it. BethNaught (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thanks. I was hoping to see how they would respond to your reply but I have left some additional comments and concerns. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 22:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

...for protecting Superman again. I'm flabbergasted that after User:BaronBifford would make a change I specifically advised against and then claim "merging Tenebrae's and my content". I just don't know what to do anymore. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I've reviewed the situation and placed my recommendations on the ANI thread. Mkdw^talk 01:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And I'd like to thank you more personally than just a "thank you" notification: Reading through the Superman talk pager and the previous ANI, spending all that time to do so — I mean, whatever you would have decided, that shows such a dedication, competence and though we're volunteers, professionalism of the kind exemplified by the best and most diligent admins. Thank you for all your work, Mkdw. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Mkdw, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Though I firmly stand by my work, in the interests of convivial relations for the next month I will not make any edit on the Superman article without first running it past other editors. BaronBifford (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

After two ANIs and his reversion to his same OWNish behavior within two hours of page protection being lifted, my feeling is that a month is not long enough. He is not going to change. Some at the ANI have suggested a topic ban. I'm not yet ready to go so far as to endorse that, but it's clear to me he needs to run every edit through the talk page for consensus indefinitely — and even that may need supervision, since he recently made a change that was the complete opposite of what I had stated in talk-page discussion, yet in his edit-summary claimed I supported it. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I'm watching the conversation at User talk:Euryalus. I too am a little bit lost in the process because there was quite a bit of conversation that occurred at Talk:Superman while the article was protected. In the most recent series of changes made by BaronBifford, it's hard for us to distinguish whether or not the changes were discussed or not on the talk page. If you could help Euryalus make that determination then they are the most appropriate party to issue a block if one is warranted. That being said, I do think a block will only be warranted if the changes were implemented (without talk page discussion) and are disputed changes (not on principal but on content). I petitioned at the ANI that any disputed sections on the talk page should not be changed without consensus (intentionally leaving open sections that were not disputed). If they became disputed then these prohibitions and recourse for a block would apply. I recognize that the ANI ended without much of a consensus, but I still feel strongly about this being the criteria for a block. Therefore, I think Euryalus is the one to issue any block if it comes down to it, as I have now a bias on how it should be handled. Mkdw^talk 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've just commented on Euryalus' talk page, and will return there after work. Much obliged for, and appreciative of, your help. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I created the article Kayla Day. After that sock @Neebras: started mass creation of non-notable tennis player articles and he even edited the article created by me, which triggered the AFD. Now the article was userfied by you. I didn't want to move it to main space again as the AFd was just few weeks ago. If I would have moved it to main space then Fyunck(click) would have once again nominated it for deletion.

Now another user has created the article so soon after the AFD. I spent my time and energy on that article. I first created that article Kayla Day. She was covered in independent news websites. She was already a pro-player as I even gave link of her pro profile. She was not junior player when I created the article.

If Neebras would have stayed away, then my article would have survived as just after few days she played in US Open main draw. But when I created her article she already a professinal player with world ranking.--Marvellous Spider-Man 06:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The AFD was closed on 10th August and the article was created on 16th August. These Wikipedians shouldn't harass other editors like this. If I would have recreated the article on 16th August then others would have warned me of disruptive editing and I am sure @Fyunck(click): would have re nominated it for speedy deletion on 16th August, under G4 criteria. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This didn't deserve AFD User:Rainbow Archer/Kayla Day. You commented that it will be moved to mainspace. I wanted to be patient, but now you delete this and let others be happy and celebrate. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: I understand you're upset that the article you worked on was deleted and moved into a userspace. Please understand that it isn't 'your' article. No one has any ownership over content on the English Wikipedia. The article was deleted because at the time the subject did not meet our criteria. The participants in the deletion discussion did note that it was likely the subject would soon meet the eligible criteria and therefore they recommended a draft version of the article be preserved should that occur. It seems that within a very short amount of time from when the AFD was closed, the tennis player did qualify for a very notable tournament and thereby passing our minimum criteria. Rather than the saved draft being moved back into the mainspace, another editor, who likely did not know a draft was being saved, re-created the article. No one deleted the article to be unfair, and no one re-created the article to intentionally slight you. The article about the tennis player now exists; that's the end goal that everyone should have wanted. It would take minutes to merge the stub draft content you worked on with the now mainspace article. Wikipedia is not about using Marvellous Spider-Man's version or another editor's version. We're not in competition with one another. If your objective is to create and publish your own content, then that's not going to align with the goals of Wikipedia. We're here to collaboratively work together to create an encyclopedia. Sometimes that's going to mean using other people's work even if there was a missed chance to start the article or use your own (that essentially imparts the same information). You can still contribute and build a good article -- together with other editors. Mkdw^talk 17:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

(refactored from User talk:Part) Midnightblueowl deleted ancestry information from Nelson Mandela that sh/e believes is fairly trivial although other page(s) on Wikipedia have this information. This is very likely systemic bias. I reverted the edit. Part (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok... please use the ((admin help)) template you need the help of an administrator. Mkdw^talk 00:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mkdw. I am not sure what you conclusion was on the issue below? Please reply on my talk page. Part (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Part: If you were seeking administrator intervention on a situation, then typically you would file it at WP:AIV, especially if you're looking for some sort of moderated resolution regarding a violation of a policy. Instead you made a bunch of statements and then declared you reverted it at the end of it all. I essentially took that to mean, I've done this 'for your information' and saw no further action required. Especially when you provided no evidence how or why you thought this was systemic bias and failed to mention that a discussion was already unfolding on Talk:Nelson Mandela where a number of other editors agreed that the section should be removed. Also, if somewhere in all these statements, you have a request, which comes in the form of a question, then I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Do you want this editor blocked? Are you simply seeking a determination from an uninvolved party? Some of these things don't require an administrator specifically. Mkdw^talk 15:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This conversation has been continued at Talk:Nelson Mandela (in multiple sections). Mkdw^talk 18:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As you see that Kayla Day was userfied in AFD.

Few weeks ago I created an article about a British teenager who has own many Muay Thai world championship and national championship competition.

As I am a new editor, I didn't know about this strict notabilitioes about wikiprojects.

A painter's article will be kept with zero reference. An eighteenth century military general's article will be kept with zero reference.

Dakota Ditcheva This article which I created was nominated for AFD. The editor who nominated it, didn't do follow the procedural formality of informing the page creator of a deletion discussion on my talk page.

I read these articles from WP:RS sources non sports websites BBC, mirror, elle uk. I didn't create the article without checking the details.

This is what I saw while creating the article. As she is world champion and national champion, that's why I created the article.

I tried to userfy this User:Marvellous Spider-Man/Dakota Ditcheva as I think the nominator is right about WP:NKICK but wrong about WP:GNG.

My page move was reverted, I don't want this to be deleted but userfied like Kayla Day AFD. There are some AFD regulars who don't do their own research while voting. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: I have moved the article back to the mainspace to allow the AFD to run its course. As a tip for the future, I would suggest you create any new articles in the WP:AFC or a WP:SANDBOX before moving them into the mainspace. This will then preserve a copy of the article should it be deleted. Additionally, the proper way to request a deleted article is to submit a request at WP:REFUND. Likewise, in the AFD, you can request the article be userfied to your userspace when the AFD concludes. Mkdw^talk 18:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw. You userfied User:Rainbow Archer/Kayla Day based upon the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Day. About a week later, a different editor created Kayla Day. I'm not sure if WP:G4 applies here because apparently the player in question (according to User talk:Marvellous Spider-Man#User:Rainbow Archer/Kayla Day and this edit) accomplished something after the article was userfied that has made her notable per WP:NSPORT or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Player. If she is now notable, then I'm wondering if a history merge is needed for the draft and the article and whether there should be some mention of the original AfD on the talk page of the article. Also, I'm not sure why a new article needed created when the draft could've just been moved to the article namespace. Could you take a peak at this when you have a spare moment or two? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Marvellous Spider-Man brought this up above at #Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Day. I determined that WP:G4 did not apply in the situation. Firstly, the AFD participants already noted that there was a very high chance that this athlete would likely meet our notability inclusion criteria within the near future. It was under this rationale that the article was to be preserved as a draft. I don't suspect any of the editors expected her to meet the criteria quite so soon but that's exactly why we have WP:CRYSTALBALL. The future is unpredictable. In terms of the editor who re-created the article, I suspect they were not aware of a draft being preserved. When they went to the article, all they would have seen was the log entry that stated: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Day. Sportsfan77777 is a relatively new editor. At the time they had less than 400 edits. I think it's easy to forget how much knowledge and understanding of the system we as experienced editors accumulate over the course of our time here. In this situation, Sportsfan77777 would have needed to click through the log link and then properly assess the AFD outcome and understanding "userfy". They then would have had to move the draft back into the mainspace and make their changes. While this is probably the preferred method as it would have saved some work, what unfolded was not improper or in conflict with any guidelines we current have on th eissue. Drafts do not have to be used first before a new article can be created. I'm not going to recommend a merge history here because the pages, while about the same subject, have two distinct beginnings and the genesis of the content share no point in common as far as I can see. If Sportsfan77777 had copied and pasted content from the draft to make their article then we would be looking at a history merge. Another example, when the outcome of an AFD is merge, we do not merge the article histories. I do understand Marvellous Spider-Man's frustration in this situation but as I mentioned above, we shouldn't try and think of it as Marvellous Spider-Man's version over Sportsfan77777's version. We saved the article to reduce the amount of work required in creating a new article. It wasn't to preserve who wrote about it first; it's not a race. I say this in the context that already this issue has exhausted the time and energy of everyone involved far greater than any effort saved by moving a stub article with a few sentences back into the mainspace. I hope this clarifies the situation and feel free to ask any follow up questions. Mkdw^talk 17:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Mkdw for clarifying things. FWIW, I only asked because I still had the draft on my watchlist and then I remember that I had also seen the created article. I have no vested interest in who gets the credit for creating this; it just seems as if the draft was no longer needed. I just wasn't sure if it could be deleted without a history merge. Anyway, I have no further questions so thanks for taking a closer look to check again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, very thanks for your help. I also temporarily put link to my archive page in my talk. Regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: I replaced your link with ((Archive box)) because your first archive will already be full and a second archive will be started shortly. The archive box template will automatically update the number of archives you currently have going. If you'd prefer to go back to a plain link at the top, then it's easy to remove. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 16:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your second help. By the way template Archive box, Does Miszabot will can make it regualry instead me? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: The way your user talk page has now been set up, it "should", automatically archive threads older than 100 days but will always leave the last 4 threads. It will manage the size your archives to a maximum of 150k before starting a new one. It will also automatically update the listed archives for each new one created in the box on the right hand side. Mkdw^talk 16:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, do you can make a copyedit in Paper soccer ? I am not a native English spoeaker and it is difficult to me to correct it article better. I am an author of the sections of the strategies and XRSoccer. Main author of the gameplay on large playing area there was mainly Alhesoft. regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: The best place for a copy edit request would be at the Guild of Copy Editors. There's a request page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Mkdw^talk 19:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lowell Goddard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Dominion Post. 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) 09:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User:KGirlTrucker81 has asked for a deletion review of Tomas Gorny. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 20:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems WP:DELREVD was not followed before the DRV begun and the AFD in question occurred some nine months ago. Considering the nominator is trying to present new evidence so far down the road seems inappropriate for DRV. Since AFD is not a lifetime sentence for an article, I don't think by policy a DRV is required to recreate an article if things have changed since the closure. There would be no point overturning the decision on evidence that did not exist at the time. Mkdw^talk 01:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw,

Some of the reports that I have made are a bit preemptive because of the long history of vandalism coming from them. When looking at the block logs, I see that the IP addresses have been blocked in the past, so I figure that they don't need as sufficient enough warnings... I've reported IP's to AIV on numerous occasions (in similar situations) where the IP's are indeed eventually blocked.

Actually, I find that a fair amount of admins block IP's shortly after they have vandalized, if they have a very long block record on them... not a critique on your part at all, but just an observation, that's all... 73.96.115.3 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

In response to the above, I'm going to look at 146.164.212.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which you reported to AIV and was declined by another admin. No long history of vandalism. Not previously blocked in the past. Not sufficiently warned. I don't think any admin would block them especially considering only the last edit was vandalism. The other two edits were possibly a test edit and they reverted themselves. This contradicts nearly all of your criteria you've outlined above. Mkdw^talk 04:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A good example is this. I see here that you and Paul Erik made the block at the same exact time, and the duration is significantly different. 73.96.115.3 (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@73.96.115.3: Let me know when you're done editing your message or expanding it and I will reply. Mkdw^talk 03:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. 73.96.115.3 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Separately, let's compare your "good example" to another report that I declined.

70.166.73.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):

• had a recent block history some 10 days ago.
• had received repeated warnings since its last block.
• its last warning was 13:06, 19 September 2016
• its last vandalism edit occurred on 17:01, 19 September 2016

And therefore received a block. Administrators are allowed discretion in the length of escalating blocks. Blocks are expected to escalate and a first block of 24 hours to a second block of 3 months is an unusually steep curve, but one granted to Paul Erik as an admin. You've used this to illustrate a point that admins make different decisions. And they do. But review the instructions at AIV in the context of the list below:

110.170.21.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• had a single block in 2014
• received one warning in September which was today at 02:22
• the last warning was not a tier 4 warning or above which outlines final conditions that will result in a block
• last active edit was at 02:20
• had not vandalized since being warned
• blocks are preventative, not punitive, as you reaffirmed.
• reviewed at 3:28 and still no activity since being warned.

The IP met very few of the AIV criteria. In fact, it only met one in that it had a single relatively recent edit of vandalism. Therefore I declined the report. So, I maintain my recommendation that you do your best to follow the instructions at the top of AIV. That's all. I'm not saying all of your reports are unwarranted. 204.184.109.252 was one that I could have easily seen another admin block. The only reason I did not was because of a lack of recent activity. I think those reports are fine even if you think they're borderline. However, I would hope you also acknowledge that sometimes by reporting vandals that do not meet the AIV criteria, at AIV, on the hopes an admin will block them out-of-process, that some reports will be declined. If this is done too frequently it creates a burden on the system. Mkdw^talk 04:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mkdw. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all thank you for using my SkipPurge script. If you could please add a backlink besides it to User:VarunFEB2003/SkipPurge I'd be really really grateful. Thanks a lot! VarunFEB2003 15:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I've done it. Thanks, Mkdw^talk 18:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! VarunFEB2003 08:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You know that this is an alternate account to User:BadaBoom right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Thanks I was not aware of it. It appears BadaBoom hasn't edited since 2013. If the account becomes active then I'll consider a block under WP:BE. Mkdw^talk 03:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:OUP#Apply. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

In re: your access modification request. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mkdw. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is The Wikipedia Library - Oxford University Press.
Message added 22:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Your request has been approved. Please see the e-mail for more information. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mkdw. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is The Wikipedia Library - Oxford University Press.
Message added 23:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Your access to Scholarships has been renewed, I'm  Working on Journals it may take an additional 2 to 4 weeks. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Thank you! Work great. Mkdw^talk 15:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay I found David Elmasllari (actor) on the new page feed, which it appears that David Elmasllari is a locked page, I'm not sure though if this is the same guy who has the page protection or not, so I figured I ask you. Wgolf (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wgolf: I will check it out. Mkdw^talk 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Martine van Hamel 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! Yoninah (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I want to be honest with you and say I'm a bit offended by your claim. I've left my comments on the review template. Mkdw^talk 14:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

On 22 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Martine van Hamel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Martine van Hamel won a gold medal at the 1966 Varna International Ballet Competition, one of the most prestigious dance competitions in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Martine van Hamel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)) 00:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month

Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Sign up now

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

You issued some blocks for the sockpuppet investigation for TheErectile. His page tag was changed to an indef block without an indef block being given. Were you planning an indef block on him or should the tag be corrected?

Thanks -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Mkdw^talk 18:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
	Announcing two exciting online editathons Women in Food and Drink and Women Writers as well as our strong support for articles on women in connection with Wikipedia Asian Month Faciliated by Women in Red

--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

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

Hi there! Wikipedia Asian Month is about to start. Here is some information about participating in the event:

1. Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
2. Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
3. Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
4. If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
5. If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

Best Wishes, Addis Wang
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

battle ship and ballerina

Thank you for quality articles such as HMS Curacoa (D41) and Hee Seo, for service over ten years beginning with topics around Vancouver, for your admin work and the courage to step in the arb ring, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for the comment. You're awesome! I can't even count all your articles and GA/FAs. I do feel the need to mention that it's really Hawkeye7 that deserves the credit for HMS Curacoa (D41). Mkdw^talk 21:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not me. Credit goes to you and Sturmvogel 66 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh gosh, yes it was Sturmvogel 66! I'm so sorry about that. Mkdw^talk 22:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't count ;) - I was told that I am awesome in 2010, well before any GA, and remember the feeling. He who told me was later blocked, and I rescued one of his articles from his sandbox and made it my first GA, - collaboration is what counts! - You may want to think about the stars on top of your user page, - at least one is for an article that isn't FA anymore. I have only one top icon, I like things simple ;) - Good luck with your step forward. I asked the first candidate a question but was kind of warned to ask every candidate the same. If you like you can answer here, with less publicity, but only if you like ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't made a major change to my user page since 16 February 2014 and I have been thinking about changing up the picture and expanding the 'about me' section. Also my tools subpage is seriously out of date. I think I'll wait until things die down before I get into a redesign. I've always wondered about etiquette for FA/GA badges and userboxes. A lot of them, including ((FA user topicon)), state "This user helped promote name to featured article status", which is true for both Vancouver and Portal:Vancouver. So even if the article and portal have lapsed and no longer retains their FA/GA status, the editor has still done the work and collaboration which I think is still worth recognizing. I suppose I've always took the icons/userboxes to mean it in that way, rather than displaying the current status of the article/portal. As for the aesthetic of the top icons, I kind of like them that way. I think we're a bit opposite in that regard. You prefer a very detailed user page body and mine is very simple. On the other hand, you prefer a minimalist approach to top icons and I like to have a few more up there. For me, I'm not a prolific or very good article writer. All the articles that I have contributed on took an embarrassing amount of time. I can't even imagine having contributed to so many FA/GAs. At that point the top icon space would maybe crash the browser. ; )

As for the question you asked Salvidrim!, your suggestion was part of a much wider discussion about infoboxes. I'm aware of the controversy surrounding infoboxes and I haven't had the time to read the discussion yet; only the subsection. I'll have a look through it when I have the opportunity. At a precursory glance, I don't see anything wrong with your suggestion. In fact, I love proposals. The reason I like them so much is because they typically include a solution rather than just being a complaint. The proposals are not always good and I've seen some pretty awful ones in my day, but at least they're putting something out there for the community or the other person to assess.

Getting back to your suggestion, I don't think anything supplementary could be implemented to penalize editors who did use a group label such as "infobox warriors". If they're using them a generic sense and not necessarily directed at a specific individual, then it would be very difficult to define a policy that wasn't excessively over reaching. I would worry about WP:CREEP and the misapplication of that ban to silence open discussion and expression. Especially if it had instructions beyond NPA. I think where anything could be done would be in assessing the context in which it was said on a case-by-case basis. If it amounts to harassment, NPA, or as Salvidrim! said, contributed to a long term pattern of BATTLEGROUND, then there is a problem. If it is something directed at you and not said maliciously, then there's always asking the other person that you prefer to not be referred to in that way. It's undeniable that group names can be used to trivialize or demean a group of people. In addition to NPA, there's always CIVIL to fall back on but it needs the willingness and courage of someone to enforce it.

So I think it's a fine suggestion. It gets your point across and you're able to express your dislike for when people use those particular labels. Hopefully others will be more mindful and respectful of that when discussing it. As you said, collaboration is what counts. Mkdw^talk 06:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a note on your extended statement—in my experience, there is usually a flood of noms and renoms in the last day or few hours. The discrepancy is usually just editors staking out the field. I wouldn't be concerned about too few nominations or at least I don't recall a precedent for such a concern coming to fruition. Regardless, thanks for volunteering to serve czar 19:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Yes, I think you're right and we'll see a spike in nominations before the deadline. It appears a similar thing did occur last year Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates#Where's all the candidates?. In any case, I hope others are encouraged to come forward. And thank you for the kind comment. Mkdw^talk 21:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am still somewhat new to posting and noticed the G.D. Crain page got deleted due to a lack of sources. I'm not sure if it's because it was "G.D. Crain" instead of the "G.D. Crain Jr" mentioned here or just lack of primary sources. The NY Times did an obituary on G.D. listed here: http://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/17/archives/gd-crain-jr-dies-at-88-published-advertising-age.html?_r=0 . As a result, I truly do believe that he's notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. What would I need to do to get his page reconsidered?

Pokeefe363 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pokeefe363: The article G.D. Crain was deleted following a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.D. Crain. The editors expressed that they did not believe this individual met our notability guidelines. I looked over the article Gertrude Crain and I would also say the same thing is possibly true of that article as well. Wikipedia requires significant coverage from multiple reliable sources in order to be included. The New York Times article is a good start but obituaries are not necessarily a good indicator as publications will frequently include them for every-day-people. If you can demonstrate that this individual does meet our notability guidelines, you can request a deletion review to present this new evidence. I would not recommend going there unless you had several examples of publications that wrote lengthy articles about this individual. The community will weigh your findings and determine whether the article should be undeleted. Mkdw^talk 22:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

v t e The Challenge series – Current drives
Africa	Africa 10,000 Challenge
Asia	Asia 10,000 Challenge
Europe	European 10,000 Challenge Nordic 2500 Challenge
Latin America/Caribbean	Latin America 10,000 Challenge
North America	Canada 10,000 Challenge United States 50,000 Challenge: California New England New York North Carolina Pacific Northwest
UK and Ireland	UK and Ireland 10,000 Challenge
1000 Challenges by topic	Indian cinema Video games

• Use ((subst:The Challenge series invitation)) to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

Hello, Mkdw. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Roza Shanina.jpg December 2016
	Two new topics for our online editathons Women in Aviation and Women in the Military Our geographical topic of the month is Caribbean Women During the period of 21 Nov - 8 Dec, we are also supporting BBC 100 Women Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Her user page article doesn't look bad. Can you explain her to move it to draft. She recreates her deleted userpage. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've left them a note and moved the draft article into a sandbox. Mkdw^talk 22:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2017 Arbitration Committee. Please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org indicating which, if any, of the checkuser and oversight permissions you wish to be assigned for your term. Please also tell us what email address you would like to have subscribed to the Arbitration Committee mailing lists.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalize registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Mkdw^talk 05:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mkdw, I have granted you the CU and OS flag. You can subscribe to checkuser-l and contact an op for access to #wikimedia-checkuser and #wikimedia-privacy. Congratulations and regards, -- Mentifisto 06:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Go Phightins! 00:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mkdw: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings1)) to send this message

Thank you Northamerica1000. To you as well. Mkdw^talk 03:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Hello Mkdw: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GAB^gab 03:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings)) to send this message

Thank you GeneralizationsAreBad. The same to you. Mkdw^talk 03:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you delete said article and close the AfD discussion for it? Thanks. Dr. Neurosis (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Neurosis: AfD discussions are expected to run seven days. The discussion started on 13:12, 22 December 2016 and should expect to be closed on 13:12, 29 December 2016. It has another sixty hours to run before being closed. It would be best to simply let it run its course and I wouldn't recommend you petition other admins to close it early. Mkdw^talk 01:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mkdw, Can you please take a look at this ticket we received regarding an article you deleted as G5. The customer claiming that the article was created by an unauthorised third party without subject's knowledge or consent and they want to repost the same article. Thank you – GSS (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@GSS-1987: I've reviewed the article history for Richard B. Herman, OTRS ticket, the initial ANI, and 2016 ANI. The issue here goes beyond routine WP:COI and runs into two community bans for WP:PAID. It appears in both cases, the individual in the ticket or their associates, engaged the services of editors who covertly created the articles (and many others) for financial compensation and failed to adhere to the WMF imposed Terms of Service. Aside from this major breach of policy, the article was unsuitable for the encyclopedia, regardless of whether they approved the version. Content such as "Herman is widely regarded as a tenacious litigator who conducts a fierce, calculated cross-examination" resorts to nothing more than WP:PEACOCK. I think your responses were appropriate and if further discussion ensues, I would strongly advise them to not pursue the issue further because of their COI and previous disruptive attempts to have the article created. Mkdw^talk 20:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I just closed the ticket and advised them not to create an article because of COI reason and also asked them if they desperately want to create one they can add their request at WP:REQ. Cheers – GSS (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
	Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This edit request to User:Mkdw has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2602:306:36D5:5690:281E:9B12:E1D3:372F (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - empty request. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Mkdw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Hello Mkdw, The customer of this ticket was requesting to remove the contents added by an IP address by citing a source in the Croatian language. A newly registered user already deleted the contents and I closed the ticket by replying the same but do you think that the revisions from 753058748 to 758427194 need to be deleted too if the claim is unverifiable? Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 11:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A revert is fine. While a serious WP:BLP issue, it's not something I would recommend for rev del or suppression. As for the legal issue, I doubt it's credible but if you feel inclined you can forward it to legal@wikimedia.org for their record. Mkdw ^talk 18:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, I have closed the ticket already so if they come back I will forward it to the legal team as it don't sound necessary at the moment. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 04:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Scott Santaniello (talk · contribs) should not be tagged as a blocked proven sock per sock master Scottbourbon (talk · contribs) not being blocked (just warned). Right? Just clarifying, and thanks for archiving. --JustBerry (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Scottbourbon was the master account that was warned and not tagged. Scott Santaniello was the sock puppet account that was bagged (no tag necessary). Mkdw ^talk 21:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. --JustBerry (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Generally I leave it to the discretion of the CU or clerk. There are different philosophies around tagging beyond the block notice. Each CU or clerk has their own preference. In my experience, minor incidents with first time offenders that have only one other account, the practical purpose of tagging the user page is minimal. Mkdw ^talk 21:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. When I was confirming with you, I was thinking of a possible philosophy along the lines of the following: if an editor notices a tagged sock and another user making similar edits in a particular article, it might enable them to suspect that other user as a sock and file accordingly. Part of my thinking had to do with the fact that I have seen first-time offenders with one or two accounts get tagged in the first report. However, looking back, at least most of them had blocked masters. Similarly, some people may not tag long-term trolls per WP:DENY, whereas others may per the initial reasoning I mentioned. Regardless, your thinking seems to be fairly reasonable. --JustBerry (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Until this happens... --JustBerry (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ping blocking administrator King of Hearts while we're discussing. --JustBerry (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have left a gentle warning for the user here. They seemed confused at their block and its rationale. Per WP:AGF, I'm giving the user the benefit of the doubt for now and will watch how well the user heeds this warning moving forward. In addition to the user page deletion explanation, the main message is "don't make any more accounts in the future." --JustBerry (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You deleted Chris Santos (actor) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waffen77. Could you check the recently created Chris Santos (Actor). Thanks, Tassedethe (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tassedethe: It's a word for word recreation. I'll take it to SPI. Mkdw ^talk 00:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tassedethe. Amanada looked into it and results posted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waffen77. Mkdw ^talk 01:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions can be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 20:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: I'm willing to answer a few questions. By whichever means is easiest for you is fine with me. Mkdw ^talk 22:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

GamerPro64 03:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw/Archive 7 I a writing to you since you seem to be the lead editor at wiki project Vancouver. I don’t know if you are aware of the Miscellaneous Statutes (Housing Priority Initiatives) Amendment Act, an article which I started on 29 July 2016 , and which has miraculously escaped any deletion attempt, so far. It is about a topic (15% foreign tax on housing in Vancouver) which has countless economic and social implications to the city/province, to Canada, as well as other countries.

I have been working on this article on and off with some help and some obstruction from other editors. It is a very complex topic and I am totally swamped with other wiki-stuff and wanted to get help from other editors, so I have been adding wp:RSs to the talk-page in the hope that others will use them in the article.

Here is where I could use your help: An editor has been blanking the talk-page, thus preventing me and others from using these RSs for the development of the article/ and from posting any more RSs . Can you help? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: I first moved your notes to a page in your userspace. I explained why I did that on your talk page. You did not reply to my post there. I left you a another note on your talk page when you continued to edit war on Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia). Again, you did not respond. When you started up the edit war again just a couple of days ago, another editor got involved and suggested that I create an archive of the page instead. Although I don't think your notes have any value to anyone other than yourself, I followed that suggestion. You can access (and search) that archive from the talk page, so no one has been "prevented" from using the links you have been gathering. Incidentally, you might want to read WP:NOTNEWS again and think about how it applies to something like this. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Gmaxwell responded to you on his talkpage. When you add that situation to the STOCKS, please explain what happened, I am quite curious. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Thank you for reminding me. I had completely forgotten about my WP:STOCKS request. I've added the entry at Wikipedia:Village stocks#Harej and Gmaxwell for autoblocking the Wikiconference NYC 2009 if you're curious about it. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you know why and how he vandalized the English Wikipedia? I assume he created low quality articles and pretended to be a new user, but I am not sure why he thought that was a good idea at the time. I vaguely remember reading about an "experiment" where users on the English Wikipedia created sockpuppets, pretended to be new users and wrote shitty articles but I cannot find a link and Google is not helping me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. You might have to ask Gmaxwell directly. I have a feeling it was a practical joke if Kirill Lokshin was there as well. Mkdw ^talk 23:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
	Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not reticent about making a statement; I'm just not sure about where and when to post. I'd hate to jeopardize me "case" by getting zapped at the last minute for "unauthorized posting on an arbcom page".

But I tell you, I'm much more easy-going than I used to be. So, if I'm allowed to edit without a ban/restriction again, I shall do no more than plant seeds. If people disagree with my edits, I'll just go with the flow. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ed Poor: I'm not sure if you need to make a statement anymore since the motion will pass. I think if this were to occur again (hopefully it won't), when an amendment request affecting an individual, a statement in a subsection at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Ed Poor 2 should be made. As you can see, other editors have made statements in sections titled 'Statement by Beeblebrox" or "Statement by Thryduulf". A similar section and make a statement there. Typically requests to lift restrictions affect a person individually so it's always good for us to ensure the editor agrees with the request and affirms they will not revisit the situation that had the restriction implemented in the first place. Cheers, Mkdw ^talk 18:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it will occur again. My new approach is, if people revert a (perfectly good?) edit of mine, then there must be a good reason. And if I can't quickly get consensus on the talk page, then it was not something Wikipedia needs. You can take a look at what I just did at The Bell Curve. I won't be surprised if my entire two hours work is summarily reverted. But I won't kick up a fuss. Either it's clearly Wikipedia policy to present opposing views, or I'm barking up the wrong tree.

It's not like the old days when the project was 3 years old, we all knew each other, and more was better. I really need to go with the flow, and that's what I'm going to do. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How can I vote for you in Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates?

Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfair (talk • contribs) 17:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alfair: The Arbitration Committee Elections have already concluded. They took place in November and December 2016 and the results were posted on December 15, 2016 and officially announced on December 21, 2016. I was appointed to the committee for a two-year term. I appreciate your sentiment of support though! Mkdw ^talk 18:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I've been meaning to drop by since the election results were announced and say congrats. Thought this barnstar was more than deserved for all you have done here over the last 10+ years since we first bumped into one another. WJBscribe (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, I found myself thinking about this, and I see it's now 10 years to the day since my last comment on that page, so this seems a timely moment to say 'Hi'. With the benefit of hindsight, I think I was probably a little green myself to be giving editors advice back in Jan/Feb 2007 and there are a few points I would definitely argue with myself about these days ;-). The comment about % mainspace contributions makes me laugh given my dismal stats in that area these days. Still, glad you're still here in spite of some dubious early advice! WJBscribe (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you WJBscribe. It definitely seems like a life time ago. We may look back on those as the good ole days. Mkdw ^talk 06:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to... Women's History Month worldwide online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red
		March 2017 Featuring: "Art+Feminism" and "The Women You Have Never Met" Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello Mkdw, Realitease just recreated Rich Kids of Instagram (UK series) and Emir Bahadir (developer) both articles were deleted by you as G5 under their original title Rich Kids of Instagram and Emir Bahadir and I'm unable to find the investigation page so can you please look at it. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 16:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Rich Kids of Instagram and Emir Bahadir were created by socks of Jeremy112233. Realitease seems like an obvious DUCK. I've blocked them and deleted the articles. Mkdw ^talk 16:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2017 worldwide online editathons. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Psychology" "Book Artists" "CEE Countries"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) ----Rosiestep (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I'm not sure exactly what you meant, but I don't think it was "perfunctory".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for catching this Rich Farmbrough. I meant it had been dealt with in a perfunctory manner rather than "not". Mkdw ^talk 14:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mkdw. As an explanation for this fat finger (thumb) mistake, I offer this. Sorry about that! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 09:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@DoRD: WP:LEVEL2!!!! No worries. I certainly understand the frustrations of editing from a mobile device. Mkdw ^talk 16:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Anjhula_Mya_Singh_Bais that you deleted a moment ago has been recreated with the exact same contents by a sock. You should delete this article and make it creation protected. Thanks- Mar11 (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mar11. I saw the SPI feed on IRC and deleted the article. I had already salted it but looks like they had a auto-confirmed sleeper sock. I've salted it with sysop recreate and blocked both socks. I was actually in the process of tagging another sock puppet. Regards, Mkdw ^talk 05:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to recreate a clean article of this model Anjhula. She is popular in India and I can see lots of sources in google news about her. I think she passes WP:N. I will inform you after I have completed the draft about her, you will move it to namespace. Thanks. - Mar11 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you review this Draft:Anjhula Mya Singh Bais and move it to namespace? The page is protected so I can not move it myself. - Mar11 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mar11: I would feel more comfortable if the article was expanded. Given the NPOV and socking surrounding the article, I believe it would do the situation good and avoid further problems if the article was more complete. What makes her notable and why? So far the article only outlines a handful of facts about her but no real claims of notability. What makes her an international super model? Surely there must be more information about her career if she's so prominient. Mkdw ^talk 20:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I will search for more info about her. There are lots of references in google search about her, I haven't check all. Definitely I will find out why he is notable. And why there are so many mentions about her in news. - Mar11 (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think title coverage in mainstream media like Times of India and some others make her notable? Or I have to mention in the article that she is notable for "this or that" specifically? - Mar11 (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mar11: The issue here isn't about verifiable. You have found more than enough sources. I'm not asking for WP:BOMBARD but rather context about why this individual is notable. Please refer to WP:PERSON. Basically you have sources that support a simple statement that she's a model, actress, etc. Nothing in the draft actually talks substantively about why she is notable and thereby received coverage. What sets her apart? What is her credible claim to notability? I would have no idea why she's famous or accomplished based upon reading the draft. Mkdw ^talk 03:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

All I can foind in the sources that she is mostly notable as an International psychologist. She has been quoted in many articles as an int psychologist. I can not verify whether she has stopped or continuing her modeling career. I have expanded the article a little. if it is acceptable now please publish it, or else discard the draft. - Mar11 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to articles about women on Wikipedia. I thought I'd let you know about the women's football/soccer task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer (WOSO). If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathons. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Organizations" "Sports" "Pacific islanders"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wishing Mkdw a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Chris troutman. Mkdw ^talk 00:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What you said at WT:HA was extraordinarily kind, and I really appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It was well deserved. Mkdw ^talk 04:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:Nefertari.jpg "Met artwork by women" "LGBTQ women & Wiki Loves Pride" "Pre-20-century women"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Martine van Hamel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset has raised a few concerns on the article review, it should be possible to resolve them through minor adjustments to the article, but they will need to be addressed before the article can be passed. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made a few changes and left my comments on the review page. Mkdw ^talk 17:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The article Martine van Hamel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Martine van Hamel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg "Women in dance" "Women in music" "Women from India"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Might be worth noting the subject is propagating BS on Twitter themselves. There's quite a few more too... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I was considering writing up a WP:LTA profile on this situation but I haven't got around to it. I see there's been more activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chrisnadeau1973. /sigh Mkdw ^talk 17:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think there's probably more meat than specifically socking based on Twitter but yeah...just yeah. Nothing else I have to say about this is nice or appropriate for Wikipedia. :P CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(refactored) Due to new evidence (not discloused) I requesting unprotection and tags to be releases, for all user names, page protections, blogs, logs, also any articles with her name, company name (WTF Multimedia) and Foundations name (CSI Awareness) that you have placed on kris degioia I would like to respect the rules and not place all the tags for reasoning behind this request. I am acting in good faith, please respect this request. Truthandseek (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Acting in good faith does not constitute abusively using multiple accounts (especially after you said you weren't), block evasion, conflict of interest, and threats. I have provided you a more thorough response after you emailed me following your block. Further information can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krisdegioia. Regards, Mkdw ^talk 00:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Pinged you, and are contacting you on your talk page to notify you that another sockpuppet is attacking you once again. Discussion can be found here. WP:LTA seems apt at this stage. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Stormy clouds. That category already existed and was named after krisdegioia (talk · contribs). I was simply placing a descriptor tag but for some reason the editor seems to think I keep bringing it up. I ran a checkuser and it's undoubtedly them so I'm not surprised they've taken exception to a system in place that would be used to identify and keep track of all the accounts they create. Mkdw ^talk 00:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw your comment about User IDs on the Linley discussion from last month, so I thought I'd give you some background. The UserID feature got turned on somewhere in January 2002 and all of the active editors then registered. It got turned on while I was asleep (I'm in an Australian timezone) which is why my userID was 100. (And yes, six hours had gone by but I still came in at #100). If Linley's number is 111 then they were clearly around at that time, but I don't think they were "a regular", else I would remember them. There were only about 30-40 people editing the entire site, so you could easily get to know everyone. (I'm still in touch with some of them).

When the admin role became available (about a month later, Feb or Mar of 2002) Jimbo promoted a block of about 15-20 of us to admin, and all those accounts retained their admin rights when we moved to MediaWiki in 2003. Except for some admin-stripping that occurred due to some fairly outrageous events in 2004 (which led to the creation of ArbCom), all of those accounts retained admin up until the "inactivity" desysop that occurred in (when was it... 2011? 2012?).

Anyway, random useless trivia, but you seemed interested in the ID values, so I thought I'd share. Regards Manning (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	For still keeping your cool with all that delusional KD bullshit. Good job! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I re-added her to the Pittsburgh list and re-edited to her article to make it say she grew up in Pittsburgh. Here is another source[18] for it and I put it into her article.

FYI I have created well over 100 People from categories or Scientists, Writers, Sportspeople from categories. I just don't create those categories, I populate them too. Here is a Scientiss[19] and how about a Pennsylvania town article I created[20] just this week. Editors have come around to my talk page to thank me[21] for my categorizing work and Editor Alansohn may have steam coming out of his ears if you cared to mention my name to him due to my nominating at CFD People from categories he created. I've been very active at WP:CFD with nominating small community people from categories for merging. I've been doing People from editing for 5 years or more....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me! SunnyBoi (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to answer your series of questions to the parties, but doing so will eat into the word count I have mostly used up already. May I have permission not to count my answers to your questions toward word count? I will keep the total word count for all seven answers under 200 words if you can do that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to speak with the drafting Arbitrator about what is appropriate. Mkdw ^talk 03:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A subsection has been created in the workshop for replies. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Workshop#Questions from Mkdw. Mkdw ^talk 04:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: 1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

		Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Indigenous women" "Women in peace" "Canadian women"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

A new WiR initiative starting in August

		Introducing... WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Were you? Because if I missed meeting you that would really suck :( Legoktm (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Shoot, what a missed opportunity. I only learned you were there at the closing. Mkdw ^talk 23:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Hispanic and Latina Women" "Women in the Olympics" "Women from New Zealand"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

But I think this is Vote (X) for Change, a LTA. — fortunavelut luna 13:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I would say almost certainly. I looked up the IP they used and it runs back to Vote X for Change. The MO is also very similar. Mkdw ^talk 15:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

One of FP@S fanclub eh- and embarassingly close to me :o Thanks for the confirmation though, it's nice to be occasionally right! — fortunavelut luna 15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I really think I need to apologize to you personally for pressing so hard to get the Arthur Rubin request moved to an open case, since you are the Arb who seems to have drawn the short straw on it. I had no inking that TRM wasn't going to participate. In the future, before I take up a banner in that way, I guess I need to check with the principals to see if they're going to follow through. In any case, I do apologize.

I'm embarrassed, and don't know what to do now. I'm not a party to the case, and am fairly uninvolved except for commenting in the AN/I thread. Do I attempt to put together a neutral and dispassionate timeline of events and offer it as evidence? Is that allowable, or advisable? Or should I leave well enough alone? Your advice would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: No apology is necessary although I do appreciate the gesture. The case should have gone ahead without that guarantee. There had been some discussion about whether dispute resolution could proceed because it was filed by a third-party. It is often a requirement that a directly involved and affected party bring forward the grievance themselves. We do not observe the same requirement here on Wikipedia, for the time being, and as a result, we will run into systemic problems like this one.

The concerns about the Arthur Rubin case scope are certainly a contributing factor to the current situation. The expectation that the interactions and behaviours of both directly involved parties would not be evaluated, in any form of mediation or binding process, is almost exclusively a Wikipedia expectation. The impracticality of one-sided evidentiary evaluation being the main reason. Predictions about the community during the case are not being validated by the results, so far, or by what we saw at the case request. The initial scope was intentionally narrowed so that one party would be reviewed broadly on ADMINACCT and the other exclusively in their interactions with the other party.

As for your involvement, that is entirely up to you. If the parties involved are not willing to participate in the arbitration process we have, then I see very little point on drawing others in. Mkdw ^talk 23:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that kind response. Now that someone has provided a least a modicum of evidence, I feel a little better. I'll probably wait a little longer to decide if I should participate myself.

In American courts, judges can be asked to take "judicial notice" of something that's not formally presented as evidence. Can the Arbs do that as well? I mean, without a lot of formal evidence presented, can you take "arbitrational notice" of the AN/I discussion, and the interactions between Arthur Rubin and The Rambling Man which provoked it, and decide the case on that basis, or are you limited to what is put before you? I don't think I've even seen a similar situation in an arbitration case.

(Incidentally, the picture of the train which has broken through the wall at Montparnasse is one of my favorites.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the preliminary statements and the ANI discussion will be taken into consideration. I think we've had enough setbacks with this case and should not ignore any past efforts or statements in resolving this case. Mkdw ^talk 04:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Great! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I already posted it on AN on September 1, scroll up GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I missed it. And here I was trying to actually do something and be helpful. Mkdw ^talk 18:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. sorry yes, I wanted to endorse. I must have not read the listing carefully. AsadUK200 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)AsadUK200