Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:20, 22 October 2011

Note: If you post me a message here, I'll respond here, so please put my talk page on your watchlist if you are expecting a response. I don't leave talkback thingies. Likewise if I leave a note on your talk page, I will watchlist your talk page for any replies.

• /Archive1 (December 2009 to April 2010)
• /Archive2 (April 2010 to May 2010)
• /Archive3 (May 2010 to June 2010)
• /Archive4 (June 2010 to July 2010)
• /Archive5 (July 2010 to September 2010)
• /Archive6 (September 2010 to October 2010)
• /Archive7 (October 2010 to November 2010)
• /Archive8 (December 2010)
• /Archive9 (January 2011)
• /Archive10 (February 2011 to March 2011)
• /Archive11 (April 2011 to May 2011)
• /Archive12 (June 2011 to August 2011)
• /Archive13 (September 2011)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/R Viswanathan

The closing statement was:

The result was no consensus. Reasonable minds often differ on whether sources are sufficient to establish a subject's notability. It's especially the case when there are many sources that mention or quote the subject but not so many that are actually about him. Here, reasonable minds differ quite evenly and there is no consensus either way.

How can reasonable minds be said to differ when we don't know what they think about the evidence?  None of the first three delete !voters reported any research, and these !votes were refuted during the AfD on this point.  Subsequent to these !votes, more than 40 references were discovered.  Only one delete !voter made a statement after this discovery.  This one !voter reported nothing was found on Google news, yet there are numerous sources on Google news, and I reported five of them at the AfD.  When challenged on this point, there was no explanation given.  So all delete !votes stand refuted for not having considered the evidence.  Please revert your closing to "keep".  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is so inconsequential that, with respect, I'm not inclined to give any further explanation for my close. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Given your position that the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" "is so inconsequential", then would you be ok with changing the result to "keep"?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Then it is not inconsequential, right?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing meaning and consequence. There was no consensus in the debate and I'm not changing it to "keep". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you are trying to end this conversation before it has started, which would start with your response to my first question.  We had a good conversation at WP:Articles for deletion/Australian Intervarsity Choral Societies Association.  I was the one that later recreated Australian Intervarsity Choral Societies Association as a redirect by writing a new subsection of InterVarsity Choral Festival (Australia).  Unscintillating (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to end it. I don't mean to be impolite, but I have limited time to engage in a totally inconsequential debate whether an AfD should have been closed as "keep" versus "no consensus". I'm just not doing it. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you don't mean to be impolite, and we have a good conversation behind us to confirm it.  I think the drag on this conversation is your insistence or implication that some of the choices that you make don't have consequences.  If your choice was truly inconsequential, I think you would have found a way out of this conversation that doesn't disrespect the work I did during the AfD in improving the encyclopedia and analyzing relevant guidelines and policies.  As per your statements, this will be my last post in this section without some feedback.  Perhaps you have some suggestions.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy RFC closure

I ask that you reconsider your close of the Pregnancy lead image proposal. It is faulty on several grounds, the primary consideration being Issue #2, where the photographer, the husband of the subject, has submitted OTRS permission to use the photo of his wife, with her knowledge and consent. If this is insufficient, which no one involved in the RFC has advanced, then please explain why. The RFC should have been closed as 'no consensus'. Dreadstar ☥ 16:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The summary of the OTRS ticket is that it gives permission for use, not that the subject of the photo has directly consented to its use. Having said that, I don't have the OTRS ticket. I have just added an important proviso to the close about the eventuality of proper consent being obtained. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you can't close it as conensus for change based on a technical issue into which you have no view and has not become an issue until right now, at closure. Please reverse the closure until we can confirm what, if anything, is necessary to show the consent of the subject. Dreadstar ☥ 17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it was an issue raised by a number of editors in support of the proposal that was not adequately dealt with and in combination with other issues caused there to be a consensus. See in particular Steven Walling and Viritidas' contributions and the others that relied on them. I'm not going to speak for OTRS here, but I would ordinarily seek not just the consent of the subject of the photograph but reasonable evidence that the subject of the photograph is indeed the person giving consent. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That was before there was an OTRS ticket, all arguments were based on that. Once the OTRS ticket was in place, there were no further objections. Until now. Otherwise, I would have requested extra OTRS permission weeks ago. I'm writing them now. I merely asked for a little time to verify if the current OTRS is ok or if we need more, and to obtain that extra permission if needed. Dreadstar ☥ 17:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And can you point me to the instructions on how to obtain and verify this 'personality rights' consent? I'm not seeing instructions on how to accomplish this and I want to make sure it's done right. Dreadstar ☥ 17:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not an accurate reflection at all. The OTRS diff is from 7 September. A number of the contributions raising concerns about consent post-dated that diff significantly. In any case, as to your question, WP:Image_use#Privacy_rights suggests the use of a "model release". But I can understand you wanting to get the terms of any such consent and supporting evidence "right" first. I'd suggest you contact OTRS yourself or one of the OTRS administrators listed at WP:VRT. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the one you pointed out was well before the OTRS ticket, , so I don't know that it's an inaccurate reflection at all. I don't see arguments that the OTRS ticket is insufficient. Dreadstar ☥ 17:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Viritidas' contribution, to take one example, was well after the OTRS ticket came in. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, even she is unclear on what is needed. At any rate, I agree that we'll investigate and I'm doing that now. Better late than never, I guess... :) Although I still think you should reverse your close and wait, the image has been there since 2006. Dreadstar ☥ 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I think it was a well thought out and measured response... but I would ask that you modify your last sentence... I think you should explicitly state what the proposal was for, to reiterate the conclusion.--- Balloonman 17:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and done. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I find that reiterating the conclusion helps to aleviate ambiguity later on... it also ensures that when somebody says "I support the proposal" that they understood the proposal.---Balloonman 17:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest boxing the entire discusison to include discussion not labelled "support/oppose," but the whole thing as it should have been weighed in your final decision... and preserved in that condition. Right now it is already WP:TLDR, let any future discussion start with a clean slate.---Balloonman 19:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm a bit hesitant shutting down more discussion than needs to be shut down, and it would be difficult to work out where to draw the lines. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, all this and I still don't know what the proposal entails. (I deliberately didn't read which side was up and which side was down), but I wanted to say I was extremely impressed with your writing in your close. It reveals a tempered, restrained, and sensible mindset and clearly communicated what was being decided, why, and was respectful to all sides. I think you might have managed to thread the needle.--Tznkai (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I guess we'll see if this outcome "works". --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see a direct release from the subject for this image either. Please explain the difference. Dreadstar ☥ 08:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Obviously the image is not of a naked person so concerns about consent are far less signifcant. It also appears that the photo has also been published on a US government website. I doubt very much that we have stronger privacy protections than government websites. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Drno

This user has been slow edit-warring over a reference in the article Nazir Razak. He has been continuing the work of User:Nazirrazak which is why I sense a connection between the two accounts and the subject. It has been exasperating to keep on reverting his unexplained removals of a source. Warnings on his talk page have gone unheeded. Please deal with him, thanks. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 14:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one month. Normally I'd suggest going to WP:AN3 to avoid accusations of picking your admin but this is more vandalism than edit-warring so I'm happy to do it myself. I'll watchlist the page in case he/she comes back with a different account. My fear is that the account actually is Nazor or someone close to him and he's removing incorrect content (not that the article is incorrect, but perhaps the source is). Still, he/she needs to tell us that and not edit-war! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unsure whether it should have been reported for edit-warring or vandalism so I just brought it to your attention. The source seems pretty harmless (it was a pat-on-the-back softball interview) which is what baffles me so much. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Might ask how broadly construed (I believe that is how it is termed) Is it just articles I am banned from are talk pages still allowed? I ask as I am currently in a mediation regarding Holodomor? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am just about to post it on your talk page... The short answer is that it is the whole lot. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Short and painless is always good, thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that was fast. Anyway, are Igny and TLAM still allowed to participate in the Holodomor mediation? Since that may - let me stress the *may* - have potential long run benefits perhaps it should be exempt from the topic ban? Volunteer Marek  22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I see no reason for there to be any exceptions to the topic bans. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Once again, "you're banning the wrong people". Igny, however much I disagree with him and however irritating I found his comment about the EEML (I AM the EEML, a mailing list of one!) is actually one of the good guys. In the sense that he actually tries to discuss things, brings sources to the table etc. (yes, yes, he can be stubborn and tentedious and even rude at times when frustrated, but this is sort of par for the course in this topic area...I was gonna close this parentheses but then realized that that was actually the main point...

Ok, look, this is a messy topic area where you will ALWAYS have disagreements. I would rather have disagreements with intelligent knowledgeable people, like Igny or Paul Siebert, than clueless vicious psychopaths, which is sort of the norm in this area. So please bring back people "I disagree with but respect" and try to figure out who the "people who are useless and just cause nothing but trouble" are next time. I'd give you some clues but there's some restrictions in place. Yes, yes, yes, I know it's hard and we all Eastern European sound alike and we bicker and oh my goodness it's such a pain to sort it out, but since you get paid the big bucks for being and admin... I mean ... it's your job, right?

The above is worded in a slightly obnoxious way. BUT. I wouldn't even bother posting it if I didn't think there was at least a chance that you would think about it. I actually have a ... more-than-average regard for your past admin actions at AE which is why I have bothered typing all them letters. If it was one of the other AE admins, I would not have even bothered.

Anyway, blah blah blah, I would like it if Igny particpated in the Holodmor mediation, since I want to know what he has to say, and if you're going to be all kafka about it, I'm just going to email him for his opinions. Which would be like "canvassing" except I'd be "canvassing" someone whom I know disagrees with me, but in this wacky world of Misplaced Pages, that too can be used against me. So heads up.  Volunteer Marek  08:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your unsolicited opinion. It flies in the face of the clear impression I have of Igny's editing behaviour based on the objective evidence discussed at the AE. Behaviours change. Maybe your opinion would have been well-founded a few months ago (for even a few weeks ago, check out the edit-warring on Holodomor, which would have been sanctionable in and of itself). But not, in my view, now. I won't re-litigate this further. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration requests for amendment

Hello, I have mentioned you in a Requests for Amendment at arbitration, you can find the discussion here. I have requested that the topic bans of TLAM and Igny be modified, but realise that these requests need to be made to ArbCom directly. Feel free to comment at RFAR of course. Thanks, Steven Zhang 05:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Amanda Knox

Good morning, Mkativerata. I was reading the above discussion again today and it struck me as an excellent candidate for a triumvirate close: contentious, fraught, numerically split, and very long indeed. So I thought I'd ping you and see if you agreed?—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I reckon it fulfils all those conditions. My only doubt is whether there's any dispute as to which way it could be closed. I can really see only one way myself, but I've participated in the discussion so perhaps my judgement is clouded. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that you and I agree on what the only proper close is—but there are certainly vocal and passionate editors on the other side.—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, while the discussion is contentious, I'm not sure that a triumvirate close is needed here. Based on the numbers and the strengths of arguments at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 3#Amanda Knox, there is an overwhelming consensus to overturn. Triumvirate closes should generally be reserved for when an outcome is unclear and the discussion can be closed either way. Cunard (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad

As an uninvolved admin, would you review User talk:Alpha Quadrant#Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad, regarding Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs)'s non-admin relist of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad? I believe that the criteria for relisting at WP:RELIST has not been met and that consensus at the AfD has been achieved. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see where AQ may have been coming from. But the problem with re-listing in these circumstances it that it jams up an admin who now might want to close it. If one neutral party has said the consensus isn't clear, it's very tough for another to come over the top and close it if there haven't been any more substantial contributions. And there may very well not be any more contributions to this debate in the next seven days: it is TLDR and no-one likes to jump into TLDR. So what is an admin to do in seven days time? That's why re-lists shouldn't be done as readily as they are. At the least, debates like this should be allowed to slip well off the last day of the log, to give as many patrolling admins as possible the opportunity to close them. It seems to me this was re-listed after the standard 168 hours, which is good, but it would have been better to give it more time on the last day of the log for an admin to close if the admin saw a consensus. Re-listing should actually be kind of a last resort.

I also agree with you that the statement "Discussions that have unclear consensus can be relisted" is not correct. Having said that, re-listing is very discretionary. There may very well have been admins who would have re-listed this, but had it been left to slip off the log I think it would have been closed and closed as "delete". --Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Judging by Alpha Quadrant's comments, it seems that he did not read the discussion.

1. He stated: "Currently there is two users (you and the nom) arguing deletion". – there are three users arguing for deletion. Myself, MER-C (talk · contribs), and DonCalo (talk · contribs).
2. He later wrote: "Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote is not clear consensus." – I think he meant to write "Two delete !votes", but he again repeated his earlier false statement that there were two—not three—delete votes. His comment also indicated that he is counting the votes and not assessing the argument.

My attempt at having Alpha Quadrant review his relist has been unsuccessful. He at first ignored my replies and then was unable to justify the relist. When admin The Bushranger (talk · contribs) made two questionable relists, he was willing to review his decisions (see User talk:The Bushranger). Because this was a non-admin relist, I think you as an uninvolved admin can override it. Spartaz (talk · contribs) overrode a non-admin close at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. And Sandstein (talk · contribs) reverted Alpha Quadrant's non-admin closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mariko Honda. Sandstein commented at User talk:Alpha Quadrant (permanent link), and he doesn't seem to have acknowledged the message.

Since the discussion ran for at least 168 hours (prior to the relist), it can be closed at any time. Would you either assess the consensus in the debate or restore it to the 2 October log for another admin to close? Cunard (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's (hopefully) not that I don't have the balls that Sandstein or Spartaz have, it's that as a general rule I only act upon procurements for admin assistance from involved editors on my talk page in uncontroversial circumstances. Even if I did, I'd probably say in this case that whatever my view of the merits of the re-listing, now that it has been done, it may be better to let it lie than unilaterally reversing it. I'd revert a dodgy NAC any day of the week, but re-lists like this do much less damage. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I've just been closing the various debates that Alpha Quadrant relisted. . So far, users seem to be quite happy with that. I'm a bit reluctant to do any more in case it starts to look personal, but I don't see any reason why either of you shouldn't simply close any debate in which you're uninvolved, irrespective of the relisting, if you think the consensus is clear.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly agree with what you did in those! --Mkativerata (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Mkativerata, letting the relist remain perpetuates the error and the perception that the relist was valid. I think a poor relist does as much damage as a poor NAC because the latter can be reviewed at DRV while the former cannot.

  S Marshall, had I been uninvolved in this AfD, I would have reverted Alpha Quadrant. I hope that as uninvolved editors, either you or Mkativerata will undo the relist. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, I can see your point. But the difficulty I have is that I have made comments before in other venues about the merits of re-listing. If I act on your request here it may be thought that my assistance was procured here because my views on such re-listings were known to you (which of course I'm 100% sure is not the case). Perhaps I'm more conservative than most, but it is a norm I've applied to myself for some time. Perhaps AQ will see the views that S Marshall and I have expressed here, and my own view that S Marshall's examples are even more egregiously off-base re-lists, and reconsider his call not to revert this re-list himself. Of course the other possibility is that a TPS, if I have any, might be inclined to consider acting. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I contacted you because you were the most recent admin to edit WP:AN. I understand your position that there may be accusations of impropriety if you were to undo the relist. S Marshall, would you undo it? Or one of the 109 TPS? Cunard (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Cunard, normally I would be delighted to do exactly as you ask. However, I'm concerned that I've unilaterally overruled Alpha Quadrant four times today already, and if I did it any more, I might appear to be victimising him. I feel that I need to back off now. (I don't normally stalk Mkativerata's talk page, but I just happened to have talked to him directly above. So there are 109 others!)—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• After thinking about this some more, I've spotted that Timotheus Canens seems to be online and I've drawn his attention to this discussion. He may feel able to act here.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think you might have misread the timestamps. Timotheus Canens' most recent edit was on 23:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC), over a day ago, so he might not be online.

  It's unfortunate that none of us can revert this inappropriate relist. If Alpha Quadrant continues to make poor decisions (like the four times you've overruled Alpha Quadrant, which I endorse) and does not heed editors' suggestions, perhaps an RfC/U will be necessary. Also note the ongoing discussion here with Kww (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oops. Tim's got a little green light at the top right of his talk page that says "online"; I looked at that, saw it was green and believed it. My mistake.

  I think we're a way short of an RFC/U on this user. He appears to be trying to edit in good faith, even though we differ from him in a matter of judgment, so I think the first port of call should be DRN.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Okay. I agree that an RfC/U would be premature. If he continues to make mistakes, a DRN report might be needed. But looking at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard, I find all of the listings to be articles, not problematic user conduct. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe WQA would be the right venue, I don't know. Something low-level, if it's necessary at all.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I was a away for about an hour, and I see that a lengthy discussion has started. I am reading it now. @S Marchall, I relisted because as stated in the debate, OTRS had received complaints from the subject of the article. I felt that it needed wider input. The other three that you linked had blanket !votes protesting the mass nomination. I closed some of these as debates as keep, but these particular discussions only had the blanked comments. I'll look and see what the other issues and reply shortly. Alpha_Quadrant 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that almost all the debates that ever make it to AfD need wider input. The outcome is, all too often, a lottery based on who shows up and !votes. The system's creaking and tottering under the sheer number of AfD nominations we get every single day, and it's fair to say that most AfDs are seriously underattended. But we can't just relist everything, because then what happens is we flood the next day with debates that nobody's interested in, which reduces the participation in that day's debates. Where it's reasonably possible to close an AfD, that AfD should be closed. Relisting is for when a reasoned close is not possible based on the debate before you.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as you said above, relisting should only be done when it isn't reasonable possible to close an AfD. I closed this debate as keep, as there were two editors with good keep arguments. (Contrary to Cunard's above claim, I do not simply count !votes). However, the nom asked me to reopen it, and I agreed that consensus could have been clearer, and I relisted it. Due to the nature of the Zachary Stone AfD, I relisted. If there hadn't been the concern from the subject, I would have closed it as keep. The other three that you closed I relisted because both the arguments for keeping or deleting the articles was weak. I felt that they needed wider input before closing one way or another. Alpha_Quadrant 01:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Because multiple editors have stated that your relist of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad is inappropriate, please revert it. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I closed it. @S Marshall: That little green light depended on a page that I was too lazy to update - it hasn't been updated since 2010 . T. Canens (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

iPhone 5

You do realize that linking iPhone 5 to the iPhone 4S is a violation of WP:V, since all reliable sources state that the 4S is not the iPhone 5. Calling it the iPhone 5 is Original research. Both WP:V and WP:OR are wikipedia core content policies and should not be violated.--JOJ 17:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an argument to be had elsewhere: the talk page or WP:RFD. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

TransporterMan (TALK) 18:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Essay on AE

I just wrote a very rough draft of what is intended as some advice on how to make one's case at AE. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey mate. Got a question for you about attribution—I know you frequently deal with copyright issues so I'm hoping the knowledge is basically the same. I've been accused of plagiarising this template to create another. Would you please confirm whether I have in fact made a copyright infringement and whether this tagging is warranted? Many thanks, Nightw 09:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear: parts of our terms of use speak of the article space but others don't. WP:CWW speaks of "pages" generally, so it would seem to cover all pages. So the other user might strictly have a point. But I think it is over the top to have a crack at someone for copying a brief template instruction of all things. I mean, really. We have actual plagiarism problems on this project. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I guess I probably should have just linked to the source template in my original edit summary. Yeah it seems I've gotten myself a bit of a supervisor. He's ended up on the wrong side of a DR process I instigated, so he's decided to take a sudden interest in my contribution history—this is just one fault he's found. Thanks again. Nightw 10:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

The Brisbane A-Grade Rugby League needs some attention re club colors, sorry. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Manly Colors (1950-2007).svg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Manly Colors (1950-2007).svg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Manly Colors (1950-2007).svg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Manly colours.svg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Manly colours.svg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Manly colours.svg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Manly Colors (2009-).svg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Manly Colors (2009-).svg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Manly Colors (2009-).svg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Team Colors

This article might need looking over as well, List_of_Queensland_rugby_league_team_squads

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That one looks ok, actually. The Wynnum-Manly colours are showing correctly. Another complicating factor is that two Queensland clubs, the Burleigh Bears and Mackay Sea Eagles, use Manly's colours and should link to the Manly file name. But I think that's all looking correct now. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It was the redlink for one of the teams I was concerned about, Goldcoast Chargers or something? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah... I'll see if I can have a look at that when I have some time tomorrow. It may need an AWB run. The Gold Coast team had multiple sets of colours in its brief and inglorious history... --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

• File:Norths Devils colours.PNG
• File:Norths Devils colours.png(as vector File:Norths Devils colours.svg)

Given what happened with the Manly rename, I figured I'd ask someone to clarify which teams these refer to as they aren't the same colors. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Also

*File:Toowoomba_Clydesdales_colours.PNG 
*File:Toowoomba_Clydesdales_colours.png

Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll have to do some research on this one. I'll put it on my to-do list. Thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Manly Colours

Just want to say a big thank you for your effort in cleaning up the Manly mess! Cheers Mattlore (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm surprised I managed to avoid the temptation of vandalising Manly's colours :) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Toast and Vegemite for you

	Vegeimite on toast for you.
	Just thought I'd leave some thanks for the work you did on sorting out the Manly colors issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I have vegemite on toast for breakfast every day, so you chose well! --Mkativerata (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fai-Fai Loa

Hey, I was going to be bold and move this but seeing as you've done some work on Kalifa Fai-Fai Loa lately I thought I'd run it by you first for a second opinion. Both the NZ media and the Cowboys official page use Faifai Loa spelling of his name. Any objection if I move it to that? Mattlore (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd definitely support that. As I was researching the article it struck me that the vast majority of sources say "Faifai Loa", especially in his native New Zealand. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Mattlore (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'll do an AWB run if you like (to change references in all other articles). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, Thanks, I don't have AWB as I refuse to use IE. Mattlore (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Close requests

Hi Mkativerata. As a frequent closer of contentious AfDs and DRVs, would you be able to help clear the RfC backlog at WP:AN? Talk:2005 Ahvaz unrest#Merge with Khūzestān Province. and Talk:Yadava#Proposal to merge articles Yadav , Ahir and Yadava are two merge discussions that have been on AN for a while. I have not been involved in either of these discussions. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cunard, I'd be happy to. I won't have the time for another 10 hours though, but I'll see how I go then. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. They've been open for weeks, so another 10 hours won't hurt. If you could close any of the other discussions I listed at AN (I have not participated in any of the RfCs currently listed there), I'd be grateful. If you don't have the time or inclination after closing the merge discussions, then don't worry about it. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done the Indian one, but when I read through the Iranian one I felt in a better position to !vote than to close the discussion. I'll have a look at AN for the other ones but I might not have much time left today. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the close! Cunard (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yadava merge discussion

Thanks for reviewing the merge discussion at Talk:Yadava. - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Tana

you said "Indeed, you'll see that the reference to Inked (magazine) is dated 2006, a year in which its wikipedia article appears to concede the magazine was not published" but magazine debut in 2004 per inked's wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETSJOE123 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the article also says "debuted in late 2004 and was published quarterly for one year" and "The magazine relaunched in October 2007", which appears to suggest a break in publication between 2005 and 2007. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"The magazine was purchased by Downtown Media Group in 2006" but that didn't specify when in 2006 it was purchased. I have that magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETSJOE123 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If it was first published in 2004, and published for one year, it must have stopped in 2005, right? In any case, the article on Inked (magazine) may very well be misleading or just plain wrong and you may very well be right: that's why I say in the deletion discussion that the "wikipedia article appears to concede the magazine was not published". --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No I have the 2006 spring issue. It could have been purchased in the summer of that year or even winter. Is there a way to upload a scanned copy?

I don't think there's any need to: what you should do is go to WP:Articles for deletion/Eddie Tana and make a note there where everyone in the deletion discussion can see it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Jay Weatherill DOB

I've left a message on the DOB-master's talk page. Timeshift (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It'd surely be on some public document somewhere (a candidate registration form, for instance). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Poll to see if people want to retain the status quo.

Hi Mkativerata. Thank you for closing Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Poll on extending ArbCom resolution for two years. Would you close the related discussion Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Poll to see if people want to retain the status quo.? I've unarchived it to allow for closure, which was requested at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Closure of page titles poll. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... is this poll meant to be a binding request for comment? The poll says it is "to test consensus" not to determine consensus and it doesn't seem to follow RfC format (discussions later on the page do). I wonder if it shouldn't just be closed, by anyone, with no result or closing statement. Sorry I don't mean to be pedantic, I'm just cautious about making a decision where one is not called for. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Sswonk requested a closure at the bottom of the poll, but you are right that the discussion doesn't seem to be binding. It also might have been superseded by Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Requested move: Republic of Ireland → Ireland (republic). Cunard (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy

First off, I'm not involved in the dispute and I couldn't care less which direction it goes. My question is more of a question about consensus. You stated that because there was "no consensus" in the previous RFC that the status quo should remain. When reading the RFC (and counting), I see 27 in favor of clothed image and 20 in favor of nude image. My question is, why does a "no consensus" result in the same as a "keep" where the minority point of view is retained? I understand that a no consensus is no consensus for action, but I don't see why that can be pointed to as consensus to keep or retain the nude photo either. Does my question make sense?--v/r - TP 15:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is well established that first, consensus is not determined by a head count, and secondly, subject to some exceptions (such as where there is not a stable status quo),a "no consensus" result causes the retention of the status quo. The words "majority" and "minority" have no place in the equation. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so back to the original question. Where does "no consensus" equal "consensus to keep"? I don't see why folks are calling for the close of a new RFC based on your close and from my perspective you appear to support it.--v/r - TP 21:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"No consensus" does not equate to a "consensus to keep". Anyone who is saying that is misguided. I would support a close of the new RfC not because there was a consensus in the last RfC, but because the new RfC is so soon after the old one and in a highly contentious discussion, that is not conducive of a productive outcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been a couple weeks.--v/r - TP 22:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of weeks is nothing. And it's actually only been a couple of days since the "no consensus" part of the close kicked in. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

sigh I still support a new discussion. I couldn't care one way or another on the images, I actually think a partially clothed would be preferable, but I feel like the folks supporting the nude image are trying to game the system and I feel like you're buying into it. Regardless, we're now arguing in three different places so we mine as well consolidate to the AN thread or on the talk page. I'm sure you're ready for the "New Message" link to stop popping up.--v/r - TP 22:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. :) --Mkativerata (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

AE Appeal

I have asked for the topic ban you applied to be modified so we may take part in the Holodomor mediation. here The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)