Jump to content

User talk:SW3 5DL/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

request

Hello, I'm working on the article Vassieux-en-Vercors and the info box is just enormous. I've looked at other pages and their info boxes are much slimmer. Ireland is one. Can we shrink this down to size so it's not compressing the page? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's from the width of the automatic map in Template:Infobox_French_commune. You might bring that up on the talk page there. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Gwen. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

HI, I'm back on briefly. Good luck with getting Mr. Grumpy to alter it! If I know Markussep rightly he'll refuse to make any ammendent to it and claim it is fine... Would love your help with Burma and photos!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, we'll see how it goes. I'm sorting Burma photos now, actually. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

America

It has to do with context. If someone says, "That's an American," it's most likely someone from the states. However, if one titles a written work Butterflies in America, many would think it might have to do with butterflies in continental North and South America: Butterflies in the Americas or Butterflies in the United States would be the spot on titles, to skirt any misunderstanding. Hence, the article shouldn't be renamed, the name of the country is the United States, anything else would be ambiguous. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I was just asking if there is a Wikipedia policy about it that says it must be so. I do see your point, but I wouldn't be confused by the two, and the redirect is there. Also, reading the lede would make it plain that it is slavery in America, and afterall, that is a huge part of American history as the country was built almost entirely with slave labour. The books I'm using as sources all say, "America," and it is common among scholars and Professors to say, "Slavery in America," as college courses are titled as such. And, as I mentioned, being that America was built by slave labour, I thought it a fitting title. Anyway, I'll bring it up on the talk page when I've finished rewriting the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Vassieux-en-Vercors

I think you're missing something. This edit "want pic smaller; more room for lede" made the image *larger*, not smaller. And the image belongs in the infobox. The infobox has 270 baked-in for image sizes and if you want to change that get consensus on the talk. Before you mess with things, again, please explain how 270 is so 'huge'. It's only a tad larger than is quite typical. Are you on a machine with really low res video? FYI, I'm seeing a lede that doesn't even reach as far right as the infobox. Jack Merridew 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Macbook.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks!

I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while and was greeted by such a pleasent surprise with your barnstar - Thank you very much. Please know that your fairness and rational thinking are appreciated as well. Happy Thanksgiving! Shoreranger (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Shoreranger. It was my pleasure. And thanks for the compliment. Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just saw it, (your pic of an Myanmar orphaned child)

What a lovely picture. So you where there in 2006; Please tell me more about it either here or by e-mail. Best, TMCk (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, mein Freund. Long time, no see. Hope all is well. On Myanmar, we try to go every year, except right after the cyclone they wouldn't let anybody in. I've put up more photos from 2006 on Wikicommons. I put them all under "Cities in Myanmar." I've lots more. Haven't even started sorting the other years.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that you had to welcome yourself at commons;). I did (had to do) the same thing at some foreign wiki as far as I remember... XD.
Anyhow, I see that you just uploaded those pictures recently so you probably see how it came to me as a surprise. While reading your response I've also checked my e-mail account (which I rarely check) and found your e-mails which I'll try to answer although it might take a few days. Hope you don't mind.About your latest e-mail, it seems to be a misunderstanding as it doesn't look as bad as you think but I'll tell you more per e-mail if the issue is still ongoing by the time of my response.TMCk (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
PS: I meant to say that if the latter issue comes up again...;) TMCk (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar.

Thanks for the barnstar, Its acually my first! Bonewah (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And may it be the first of many to come. Happy holidays. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Digiphi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

help wanted

Hi, I have a question. In listing an AfD, what is the category letter for Christianity and Catholic related articles? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a specific one for Chritianity/Catholic articles. The only place I found related AfDs in at cat=S which is "Category:AfD debates (Society topics)". Shearonink (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I did see that Christianity category on another AfD. Maybe they don't use it anymore. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
See also Category:AfD debates (Nominator unsure of category). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Gwen. Didn't know that was there.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, forgot to mention that Jclemens found what I was looking for. It's "Christianity related articles." Malke 2010 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity. Seems there's a weakness in how WP:AFD is written. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Thank you for taking the time to find that.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Marian articles

As you and I rightly noted, there were process problems on the deletion of the "Catholic views......." article. But I also noted some other things. One is a consensus (at least amongst the folks present) that there were too many closely related Marian articles. I also noted that I believe that you have both expertise and interest in coverage in this area. I lack expertise in this area, so please feel free to tell me to go pound sand, but is there any chance that you could suggest something to move the Marian article(s) as a whole onward an upward, even if that meant leaving the "Catholic views...." article behind? Just a thought, please ignore if I am out of line. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Catholic views is gone for six, but what I'd like to see is the articles get out of the editing isolation they seem to be in. A good way to do that might be to put up an RfC on the Wikiproject Catholicism page and send notices out to everybody who has ever edited those articles and tell them their input would be welcome. I don't think that would be seen as canvassing, but who knows. And then at some point someone, I think Paul Nyugen and Johnbod would be best, who could be moderators, like the mediation cabal editors. And then look at the list and decide on merge/delete, etc. The problem of course is getting the cooperation so that things go smoothly and it doesn't start to become one editor making all the decisions again. The more editors willing to participate, the more likely will be success. I was thinking of withdrawing the AfD's and making that suggestion. What do you think?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to confess that I'm not up to speed on the happenings in the related articles. Also on the people involved. The only active participant at the Catholic views... article debate that I seen a lot before long term is Maurader..... who I've seen a lot before and has always been solid. (even though he/she indirectly had an opposing view on my process point there) It sounds like anything that will get more people involved would be a plus, such as the RFC. That would be a proper forum, not canvassing. But I have an extra comment as a "let's roll, let's get it done" type person. But for a complex topic (e.g. architecture of a group of articles), you need more than lots of people, you need someone to make a good proposal. You seem to be knowledgable in this area and be interested in overall progress. Maybe you could make such a proposal. If you will forgive me, if you have any biases etc. from past or to-be-immediately ended battles, leave them behind when making a proposal. And ending any current battles (RFD's etc.) would simplify things immensely for this process....to the point of being a necessity, and so, IMHO, a good idea to say the least. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
An RfC proposal has to be worded properly and posted in the right place, etc. I'm thinking WikiProject Catholicism. For the AfD's, I don't see a proper procedure so I'm going to track down an admin to advise.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Arzel has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks Malke! Have a great Christmas and New Years. Arzel (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Thanks for the cookie! Happy Christmas and New Year's to you too. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Malke

Hey Malke,

I know it's a little early but, unfortunately, there are no computers where I'm heading. (Over the hills and through the woods at 80 to 120 MPH. WooHoo!)I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas (Nollaig Shona Dhuit) and a Happy New Year! Zaereth (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Malke

Hey Malke,

I know it's a little early but, unfortunately, there are no computers where I'm heading. (Over the hills and through the woods at 80 to 120 MPH. WooHoo!)I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas (Nollaig Shona Dhuit) and a Happy New Year! Zaereth (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, see you when you get back. Happy New Year. (Athbhliain faoi.) Malke 2010 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Message From Malke?

I began using Wikipedia to occasionally research information about things back when I was in school, and I still occasionally use it for personal insight to miscellaneous subjects I'm interested in at the time. I only know how to use Wikipedia for research purposes, and I've never even made an account. However, today while I was researching something, there was a link at the top of the page saying I had received a message. It appears as follows:

User talk:70.178.119.43 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search [edit] March 2010.

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia as you did to Rebecca Gayheart. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please note that Wikipedia administrators can block editors who engage in vandalism and other disruptive behavior. Thank you.Malke2010 04:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I stated, I'm not very versed in using Wikipedia. I'm not even quite sure if I'm sending you a message correctly. At the bottom of the message where it states "Malke", I assumed this meant you sent that message to me. If so, I'd like to inform you that you're incorrect because I've never edited any article, nor have I even been to Rebecca Gayheart's Wikipedia Article, nor do I even know or desire to know who she is. That being said, you must have confused my IP address with that of another user.

If I am, in fact, wrong about how I received this message, then I completely apologize for bothering you and thank you for taking the time to acknowledge my concern. Yet, if you did send me this message, this is my reply:

Please refrain from sending counterproductive* messages to users as you did to me. Your message appears to constitute an arrogant presumption and should be retracted. If you would like to ensure your presumptions are targeted at the correct user, please don't rely on IP addresses alone, for they can be confused; i.e. shared computers. Please note that I have never edited an article, so I must not have engaged in vandalism and other disruptive behavior while not editing the articles that I never edited. Therefore, Wikipedia administrators should not block me because I'm not an editor, but if they choose to anyway-- I'll survive by gaining information elsewhere. Thank you.

* "Counterproductive" is an example of a better choice word in this sentence because "unconstructive" isn't a word.

70.178.119.43 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Malke is not editing at the moment, but I can answer in her stead. She posted her message in March 2010 to another individual who had been allocated the ip you are using - not to you. The box below the message on your ip user talkpage clarifies the issue. You may even have a new ip address when you read this. There is very little chance of an admin blocking you for a warning made to this address almost a year ago - as we (I happen to be an admin) are fully aware that the individual receiving an old message is likely to be different from the one that incurred it. Relax, have some WP:Tea, and continue enjoying using the encyclopedia. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mark, thanks for commenting. That was hilarious. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry for leaving you guys hanging, somewhat, on the TPM issue. RL kind of collapsed on me and I've only just been dug out. No, I wasn't in jail. Digiphi (Talk) 02:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)-

XD, jail. I wouldn't have thought of that.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wendi Deng Murdoch

The credit for listing the proposed move actually goes to Ohconfucius who put my response to him in a new section. But I'm happy to fight the battle for a bit of common sense here. --AJHingston (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What do you mean when you say there's no such thing as the age of consent? Obviously the reason talking to these teens is illegal is because there underage, that's why I added the age of sexual consent comment. In most states if they were 16 or older it wouldn't be a problem. And Dateline stops at age 15. That's why I was clarifying that they're talking about young teens. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that the age of consent in most states is 18 I was wrong to say it was 16 in all states but in some states it is I've read the text of Indiana and Georgia's law and there is nothing in them that forbids having sex with someone 16 or 17 unless the person works at the minor's school or place of employment. I know that in Wisconsin, Wyoming, Pennsyvania, Tennesse, Maryland, and many other states its 18 I'm just saying there are exceptions. But even if the age of consent was 21 it still doesn't change the fact that the reason these people go to jail is because the minors are below the age of consent. If they were 18 or older they certainly wouldn't be going to jail. So the addition was appropriate. I'm not saying 16 is legal in all states. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Malke if you look at the To Catch a Predator it says the phrase "below the age of consent (12-15) which is exactly what I said. So what I added is exactly what was in the show's article. Its not incorrect. I have tried to discuss this with you and correct some of your incorrect views about the law but you won't listen. And it seems you didn't even read the article you showed me about the Georgia case. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The show's Wikipedia article is not correct. And we don't use other Wikipedia articles as a reference. Please revert your edits. You have no citations to back them up. As I told you on your talk page, several times now, there is no such thing as "age of consent" regarding sex in any of the statutes. It's misleading. Your edits are original research and now you've engaged in edit warring. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I used to think the age limit was 18 in every state and two of the users Legitimus and Flyer22 told me I was wrong and that a handful of states have it at 16 or 17. And the text of the laws seems to indicate that they are correct. Are you telling me their wrong? I'm confused, first Legitimus calls me a liar for saying its 18 in every state now you call me a liar for saying it isn't which is it, its almost as if wikipedia intentionally contradicts itself? --RJR3333 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone calling you a liar. I certainly did not. You seem unable to understand how the editing works on Wikipedia. You are putting in your opinion, as you talk page responses/comments illustrate. You seem to be convinced that such a thing as "age of consent" regarding sex exists in the United States. It does not. The statutes exist to protect children from sexual predators they do not exist to announce it's okay to have sex with children after a certain age.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok I think I understand what you're saying the term age of consent is not really the correct term but instead of focusing on what we call it lets focus on the main issue. I believe that in some states, for example Georgia, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, from reading these laws you are correct they don't say its ok to have sex with people after this age but since all they say is for example in Georgia anyone who has with anyone below 16 is guilty of pedophilia, if it does not say anything about a person after say 21 not being allowed to have sex with someone below 18, doesn't that by default make 16 legal, or are you saying its still illegal? Because according to Legitimus it is legal in some states and according to you it isn't, which is it? I'm not neccesarily saying I have an opinion whether it should be, I'm just asking if he was correct in his interpretation or not? You seem to be saying with anyone below 18 is pedophilia, but Legitimus said in some states the pedophilia laws define 16 as their limit. Again if its not banned in the law, that by default makes it legal. And notice I took down my edit and even the other person's edit citing numbers and age of consent so don't say I'm still edit warring. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Pedophilia refers to adults who have sex with pre-pubescent children. Sexual predators is the term often used for adults who have sex with pubescent children between the ages of 13 and 17. No, it does not make sex with someone age 16 legal by default. You misunderstand the laws. It is not legal in Georgia, or anywhere, for an adult to have sex with a teenager who is under the age of 18. You're reading the statutes wrong. You completely miss where the statutes distinguish between misdemeanor and felony, between an 18 year-old having sex with a 17 year-old, and a 50 year-old having sex with a 17 year-old. The laws in the United States exist to protect children from exploitation by adults 18 and up. They do not exist to announce to the world when it's okay to sexually exploit children. By custom and statute, Americans don't like children under the age of 18 to be having any sex with any body, but especially not with adults. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAges_of_consent_in_North_America&action=historysubmit&diff=432913071&oldid=432861517 I argued what you said to Legitimus and he claims what you said isn't true and that close in age exceptions aren't a factor in any law. And it seems to me like allowing a close in age exception is illogical, either a person is old enough to have sex or he isn't, that would be like allowing a 9 year old to have sex with a 10 old based on their closeness in age. But anyway are you saying Legitimus is wrong? Because if he is the article about age of consent in North America for sex needs to be changed because it doesn't mention what you said it makes it look like Indiana and a few other states simply set the age limit at 16. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Also you have not provided any statute that shows it is illegal in Indiana or Georgia for say, a 30 year old to have sex with a 16 year old. The article you showed about someone who was with a 15 year old, not 16, and he was 17 so it also illustrates that close in age exceptions are not a factor in Georgia law. So basically this is the point, either you are not telling the truth, or Legitimus and the wikipedia age of consent articles are lying, which is it? If you cannot provide evidence that there is a statute specifically forbidding that instead of your vague "by law and custom statement" whereas Legitimus text to the exact text of state and federal laws, why should I believe you over him? --RJR3333 (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Also I changed the 12-15 to 13-15 as you requested even though Chris Hansen has impersonated 12 year olds a few times so don't say I'm edit warring. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Age of consent is not well sourced and is not accurate. There is no such thing in the United States as "age of consent laws regarding sex" and I seriously doubt that they exist in any Western country except perhaps in Amsterdam where human trafficking in children flourishes. Many articles on Wikipedia are loaded with factual errors, poor or nonexistent sources, etc., in other words, original research. It is not exactly the first choice reference for most people. The 'close in age' gap you are referring to is when the state law uses the age difference to determine whether a felony or a misdemeanor is to be charged. An 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old: misdemeanor. A 50 year old having sex with a 17 year old: Felony. And with that, I'll close the discussion. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if what you said is true and its 18 in all countries then 18 is the age limit for sex. There's still an age of consent. But you still have not shown me where in Indiana or Georgia it says that. I've asked you for a source other than tradition and you have not provided one. And if its 18 in Georgia then why did the legislature consider raising it to 18 in 2005. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Also if you are right then why do you criticze my edits to the Hansen when I never stated in that article that 16 was legal but Legitimus and the other editors claim it is in the North America sex laws article and you haven't criticized them for it? Why is everyone on wikipedia criticizing me for both positions one of them has to be true I'm sorry?--RJR3333 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've explained, at length, the problem with the edits to the Hansen article. As to others criticizing you, you'll have to ask them for specifics. As to the other article on "North American sex laws" I've not read it nor have any interest in it. My suggestion for you would be to learn the basic rules on Wikipedia and make edits that are well sourced and not edits based on opinions and beliefs or on point of view. Also, you need to stay away from the George W. Bush article. Your edits there are vandalism. You are lucky that you have not been blocked for this latest bit: [1]. That's your second go round there. You've made lots of reverts and a vandalism tonight. Go read the rules. Hope this helps. Good night.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just one closing thought, if you're taking it upon yourself to take down my edit because you say all countries have an age limit for sex of 18 then you should be willing to research the issue to see if you're incorrect. By which I mean for you to say you're not interested in the article age of consent in North America for sex is kind of ridiculous. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Help please

I'd like to create an article on José Padilla the Honduran/U.S. immigrant. Right now his name redirects to the famous Supreme Court case Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. How can I un-direct it so I can put up the article? I think he's noteworthy enough to have his own article because of the landmark decision in his case and also to make a distinction from the several other Jose Padilla articles on Wikipedia. Appreciate the help. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure you have the details right. I think that "José Padilla" is the name of a disambig page and does not redirect.
But I think that there are a few redirect pages for that person. One is "José Padilla (born 1950)" which looks like it redirects to a redirect which redirects to Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. Also "Jose Padilla (Honduran)" redirects to Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. So your first step is to pick an article title, keeping the above in mind. After that I could help / would be happy to help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Okay, I think the best title would be José Padilla (Honduran). Malke 2010 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, if you mean/want exactly as you just wrote it, (with the gizmo over there "e" in "Jose"), that is a brand new title (with no redirect); you could just put that up as with any new article. Or, if you prefer "Jose Padilla (Honduran)" (without the gizmo over the "e" in Jose) that is a redirect, I could handle (only) once you are ready to put an article up, (or tell you how to do it). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, lose the gizmo! Jose Padilla (Honduran) Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
also, I tried using article wizard to make the article and it wouldn't take the name, so we have to undo the redirect first. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion: start it in user space and then we'll move it. I'd wait until it has a couple wp:notability-suitable references before we move it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that Jose Padilla (born 1950) that's him too. What do we do about that? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Suggest ignoring it for now. Later we'll redirect it to your new article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay. But apparently the correct style is to use the gizmo and redirect the name that doesn't have the gizmo. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
As noted, that's even simpler....that title does not exist, so you should be able to simply make a new article. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It turns out, we need admins for this. Two of them are working on right now. Thanks, North. Appreciate the help. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, signing off. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles Barkley still has game

[2].

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?ref=todayspaper


Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
– Lionel (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Charles Barkley still has game

[3].

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?ref=todayspaper


Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
– Lionel (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Here are some helpful links for DYK:

  • The rules - Important to read and understand before working on a DYK.
  • [rules] - Basically an FAQ or place to go when compliance with a rule is in question. Best to read over these as well.
  • Template:NewDYKnomination/guide - A good run-through on how to use the DYK template for when you are ready to nominate something.

Good luck! Toa Nidhiki05 23:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been wanting to do that. I've a few articles I think would be of interest. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

New-adult fiction

Can you explain what this is and provide some sources? I was verging on trying to come up with a speedy delete tag, but I guess it will have to go to AfD if you don't provide something. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, be sure to make it clear even what it is, and provide sources outside of St. Martin's Press. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You should probably source This age group is considered to be the lucrative 'cross-over' category of young-adult titles that appeal to both the young-adult market and to an adult audience. Is two paras enough for the DYK? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire

Hi Malke 2010! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:

  1. What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
  2. Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
  3. What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
  4. Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out. 

; ~~~
#My strengths
#Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
#:
#:
#:
#:
#Sources which I have
#:
#:
#Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
#:

Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

Done :) Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello SW3 5DL. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas!

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City
Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m. — National Archives in Kansas City
  • This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons.

    Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!

And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere:

Wichita
Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park
  • Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge!
St. Louis
Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center
  • Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!
Message delivered by Dominic·t 20:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger article

Hello. Could you review my contributions to the Margaret Sanger article to see if they were npov enough? --RJR3333 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken so long to answer. I haven't been around much and I've only just seen your post just now. You seem to be the only one editing there right now. I went through the article, it reads okay to me. It has sources, etc. I think it's fine. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How to appeal my block

I can't communicate with other users because I've been blocked from editing. I just made this account to contact you. I was RJR3333, I'm not making edits with this account just asking you, do you know any administrators who I could discuss my block with. I do agree that I should be blocked, but not as long as six months.--RomanPolanski15 (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 02:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

An RFAR has been filed

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, KillerChihuahua 05:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Stupid spartaz

[4] Please accept my apologies. I have a fat finger and a tiny tablet. Maybe looking at my watchlist on a kindle is actually an extremely stupid thing to do. I put your comment back. Sorry. Spartaz Humbug! 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question on Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund

Hello, Malke 2010! I'm Huon. I have replied to your question on the Articles for Creation Help Desk about Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund.
You can read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund. Huon (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually you have only moved the draft from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, not into the main articlespace. I'd strongly suggest improving the references first; otherwise the article might even be tagged for speedy deletion in the mainspace. Huon (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do it right now. Thanks Huon, I appreciate your taking the time to look it over. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! Malke 2010 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Marialis Cultus
Our Lady Derzhavnaya
Our Lady of Beauraing
John F. Keenan (State Senator)
Carsten Norgaard
Blue Scapular of the Immaculate Conception
GDDR5
Christotokos
The Private Affairs of Bel Ami
Deiparae Virginis Mariae
Gather.com
John McIntyre (bishop of Gippsland)
National Tea Party Federation
Antidicomarianite
Enterobacter
Crab stick
Ineffabilis Deus
Ždiar
Amy Kremer
Cleanup
Sandra Day O'Connor
Edachena Kunkan
PRINCE2
Merge
Roman Catholic theology
Complicity
Euphrasia of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Add Sources
Matthew Landy Steen
Heinrich Schliemann
Cotigao Wildlife Sanctuary
Wikify
Madrigal v. Quilligan
Double jeopardy
Douglas v. California
Expand
Habeas corpus in the United States
John Paul Stevens
Catholic Church and women

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democrat and Republican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete and salt

Delete of course means to simply delete the article as normal, but adding salt means:

My suggestion for that was based on the reverting of a number of editors who removed sources that were being misused and what appears to be an attempt to work around policies in this article for partisan bickering. I am of the opinion that these sorts of articles should not be recreated even if merged. The only problem with that is, if the article is merged, I am not sure if it can be salted as the article becomes a redirect but then it could just be locked (protected) in that manner I suppose.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I wondered about it. I was thinking of how meat gets salted and wondered if it meant this was a permanent deletion. Thanks for getting back. I think I like that idea. I'm going to go with that. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It is a reference to sowing fields with salt, a symbolic gesture, which has current tenure as a meme that they will then not grow anything. It was utilized by the Hittites and Assyrians, and purportedly by the Romans, and is mentioned in the Bible. When we "salt" an article, no future article can "grow" there. Is there an article which needs salting? KillerChihuahua 20:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that's a great explanation. Thanks. The article Amadscientist, and I agree with him, thinks should be salted is the Bush Derangement Syndrome. Seems to have no utility on Wikipedia, but it's survived six attempts to delete it. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it can't be salted until it is deleted, so let's see how the most recent Afd ends. KillerChihuahua 21:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It might survive to see a 7th AfD. That's hilarious. Some of the comments, although seriously stated, are hilarious, too. I can see this being on Urban Dictionary, but not Wikipedia. Although maybe I'm missing something. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the TPM Arb case

Although you have not said so specifically, it may be that your immediate attack on me when I reminded editors of civility was due to stress resulting from the continued toxic environment on the TPM article and talk page. You've stated you would prefer to edit TROUBLES articles because "the difference is night and day" due to editors being under a tighter constraint.[5] So my evidence may be more about the toxic environment rather than your actions, although those actions were less than stellar. Please feel free to link to this post of mine when you post your evidence. I'm not at all certain whether sanctions are indicated in your case; but I do think your actions on the TPM talk page were less than you are capable of. I'm not an Arb, but if you simply say words to the effect of "yeah, could have been more civil, will be in the future" I don't forsee any action being taken regarding your actions, and I think that would close the issue so far as I am concerned. KillerChihuahua 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You must be psychic, or we knew each other in another life! I'm just now working on that. I'll be posting it within the hour. (Diffs are a pain to get.) Malke 2010 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Diffs are indeed a bit of a pain to get, but an assertion without a diff is like peeing up a rope. KillerChihuahua 21:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
LOL, yes, but the boys can pee up a rope. And I doubt if the boy admins would have gotten that desysop bit on the AN/I, but I don't know that ArbCom would appreciate me saying that. On the diff thing, I'm going crazy trying to find a diff for the comment B. Wilkins made on the AN/I. Not the one about the KillerChinchilla, the one he made about what he thought should be done. I thought what he said was smart. Do you know the one I mean? Or was it on another page? Malke 2010 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you remember any more than that? I'll help you look, but it would be nice to have a wee bit more to go on than that. Are you certain it was BWilkins who made the post you're looking for? And regarding the boy/girl thing, I dunno, but I can guarantee no one would be joking about calling me a bitch like Arthur Rubin is currently doing if I were a guy. If men are strong, they're admired. If women are strong, they're called bitches. Bah. (And no, not by everyone or even the majority - but by enough to make it teh suk.) KillerChihuahua 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. That was out of bounds. I was very disappointed to see Arthur say that. Okay, on the diff, I think B. Wilkins was saying what he thought should be done with North. In reading it, I had the impression he was saying a block, which is what I thought should have been done. But I could see later on why you had not blocked him.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Malke 2010. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Tea Party movement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1118 words and 20 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk) 10:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nimuaq (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nimuaq, I corrected errors and developed the page further and went ahead and put it into article space about two weeks ago. I had not created an article in a while and wanted to use the article wizard because it also had the live chat. I apologize for not going back and letting reviewers know about that. Thanks for your time. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 17:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guerillero | My Talk 17:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

TPM ArbCom case Workshop

Hi, you added a proposed remedy to my section on the Workshop page.[6] I have moved it to your section. KillerChihuahua 21:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Feel free to move it to the appropriate spot. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

More on the Workshop

Hi, Malke! I'm a little bit confused about some comments you have made concerning me; maybe you can help me understand. Specifically, these statements at the TPm ArbCom pages have me concerned:

  • Topic bans must include Goethean and Xenophrenic -- Any imposition of topic bans must include the editors actively contributing on a regular basis to the problems on the article. March 25 edit

Here, you've stated that I "contribute on a regular basis to the problems on the article". I disagree with that, obviously, and your assertion actually takes me by surprise. Unfortunately, since you have not cited any evidence or provided substantiation, there is no way for me to address this accusation -- that comes off as a bit unfair. Could you please direct me to the contributions of mine upon which you are basing that charge?

  • Some editors have been regular, nearly daily, contributors for almost three years. This includes Goethean and Xenophrenic. Not just North8000. And Goethean's and Xenophrenic's arguments and edit wars today are the same ones they had back in 2010. The same sections, the same edits. Over and over. In the meantime, the article has not improved and working together to improve it doesn't seem to factor into talk page discussions. Banning one editor won't solve that. North8000 does not edit in a vacuum. March 25 edit

Nearly daily? I've edited the article on only 13 days over the past 7+ months (~220 days), and sporadically before that, usually when substantive discussion arises. I understand that your point was that I am a relatively regular contributor there, which is accurate, but "nearly daily" makes it sound as if I virtually live there -- but this is a minor quibble. My real objection is to your assertion that, "the article has not improved and working together to improve it doesn't seem to factor into talk page discussions. Banning one editor won't solve that." I can't speak for other editors, about which your criticism may be valid, but working together toward article improvement has always factored into my talk page discussions. Just a few of a great many examples:

As for treating the subjects of racism, homophobia and other bigotry, I liked the idea proposed above of establishing a sub-page somewhere, and collaboratively developing a comprehensive, encyclopedic section on the subject. If written properly, it could replace the whole section presently listing isolated incidents, and it might also replace a portion of the media bias content. It would serve to get rid of the laundry list, as well as stem the inclinations to edit to the two (highly inaccurate) extremes that the tea partiers are a bunch of racists and the tea partiers are not combatting an image problem. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's work on developing that encyclopedic treatment of the issue. Do that first, and you'll find the need for the present disjointed laundry list of examples and anecdotes will disappear, and we won't need them anymore. Removing them now without first properly addressing the whole issue is inappropriate, and might be misconstrued as leaving the article in a POV state. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I am encouraged to see your expression that you are pro-good article and against POV'ing the article; now let's see if we can put those good intentions into practice. See you in the discussion thread below. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Even editors with whom I frequently disagree have acknowledged that my goal is article improvement:

Xeno, sincerely, your post is quite impressive. I mean this sincerely that it gives me hope that you want a good process and a good article vs. just pov'ing. And, in context, it is a sincere relief that now I'm not sure what to think. What do you think about first trying the new thread at the bottom? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it must be that we're under a blue moon and the earth is off its axis because I actually agree with Xenophrenic. Malke2010 14:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I can cite numerous additional examples of my efforts toward article improvement, if needed, including one-on-one discussions toward that end with North8000 on his Talk page; outlines of reliable source identification, RfC development, etc. Can you see why your newest assertion has taken me by surprise? You are mostly correct when you say, "Xenophrenic's arguments and edit wars today are the same ones they had back in 2010", since even today I find myself arguing that article content needs to be supported by reliable sources, or arguing against the notion that one TP supporter's views are more or less relevant than another TP supporter's views. But I fail to see how you make the leap to "Banning one editor won't solve that." Solve what? What, specifically, prompts you to call for my banning? I noticed that you amended, almost as an afterthought, your above comment to include this:

What? Where did that come from? Just last month, didn't you comment about me, saying:

I wouldn't say he's tendentious. He's just determined. Nothing wrong with that. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have recently changed your mind and come to a different conclusion, I would appreciate it if you would indicate what actions of mine prompted this new charge against me; as of this moment, you have left it unsubstantiated. I've heard similar unsubstantiated charges from North8000, and briefly from Arthur Rubin, but after pressed for substantiation, North admitted that it was just a belief of his that might be "wrong", and that he would prefer to "leave behind and not discuss further", and Arthur couldn't substantiate it either. You were right when you observed that I am determined rather than tendentious; sometimes frustratingly so to editors trying to skirt Wikipedia policies or push agendas, but if you've had a recent change of heart, at least do me the courtesy of clueing me in on what prompted it.

  • KC, you could be seen as involved since you have not included Goethean and Xenophrenic. Please see evidence page re: Goethean. You moderated a dispute after Goethean contacted you. I looked that over. That seemed fine. But now, you don't seem to be seeing Goethean's incivility, WP:BATTLE, and WP:Own, Nor Xenophrenic's. Goethean has even admitted on ANI that his comment at the opening of a thread was wrong. It's not his first comment of that nature. Can you really interpret Goethean's comments to editors as civil? Can you really leave off a close examination of Goethean's comments and Xenophrenic's editing and still be an "uninvolved admin?" March 26

The above statement from you seems mostly about Goethean, since you reference a specific dispute involving him and not me, and you reference a specific admission from him and not me, and you mention a specific comment of his and not mine. But you did toss my name in there as well, again without substantiation. I would like to ask you for that substantiation. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Xen: It appears I did not find any evidence of problematic editing by you. I've done a strike through here: [7]. Let me know if I've missed any. My sincere apologies for the inconvenience. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Xen, apparently in searching the archives I came across two threads and for some reason attributed them to you. I confused them with something else entirely. When I was posting on the workshop, it's obvious now why I couldn't relocate them. It was terribly negligent of me not to stay on that and correct the error right then. Sincere apologies again. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Malke, it is greatly appreciated. After the current dust-up settles, and the finger-pointing, name-calling, demands for diffs, etc., dies down, maybe we can work on some serious article improvement. It's long overdue. Even when you are disagreeing with me, your usual level of civility doesn't go unnoticed and is certainly appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Xen. Remember this edit? The edit summaries say it all: [8]. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1993 Four Corners hantavirus outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Court cases

Please don't de-italicize the titles of articles on court cases, as you did at Miller v. California and Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc. See the second bullet point at WP:ITALIC. Deor (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


A Barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
This is twice now I've seen you able to take criticism and self-correct instead of getting defensive. That can be hard to do. Kudos. KillerChihuahua 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


and next time try starting off on the right foot instead, eh? KillerChihuahua 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Awww. . .Puppy, you're so nice! :-) Thank you! Malke 2010 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
And yes, and next time try starting off on the right foot instead, eh? KillerChihuahua 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC) lesson learned on that, eh! Malke 2010 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on User:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban for user:Arzel. Many of the issue fell outside of discussion on TPM. With such a large community consensus and with arbitration committee only dealing with issues directly related to the TPM, I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here. You are invited to endorse this and to take part in the WP:RFC/U. Casprings (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you say something at the ANI? I'm certain you did not mention anything at ArbCom except recently on the talk page. Why this now? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Struck for non neutral working.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at PKT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of New-adult fiction for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New-adult fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New-adult fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I have removed the "hangon" template you placed on this article - those are only used where speedy deletion has been proposed, which is not the case here. The deletion discussion will run, normally, for seven days. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

need to know

Need help for an article being considered for deletion. How do I contact the 'rescue squad?' and is there a template I can use for that? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Well, it depends on exactly why it's being considered for deleletion. What article is it? Revent (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
New-adult fiction and there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason. And someone essentially blanked the page after the nom. I restored the content. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. There are some links at the top of that page. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, I see now...Well, the 'rescue' is essentially the discussion on the articles for deletion thread...if you make your case with the interested people there, then you 'win'. You can ask other people you might think would be interested to weigh in, but you need to be careful about not WP:CANVASSING. Revent (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll ask contributors to the article. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumed

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. Comments such as "I think we should seriously consider Arthur's suggestion that we vote to ban Xenophrenic from this page, and I'd add we should vote on whether to topic ban him from Tea Party movement. It's obvious he is not here to edit in a collegial way, nor he is interested in neutral POV. His personal attacks, battles, and disruption are directly opposing the work here and hence, the work on the article", are unhelpful and provoke negative responses.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I left a suggestion on the discussion page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

SPA tags

The tags are not there to mark socks/meatpuppets - they give context to anyone wishing to add to/close the discussion. Please do not remove them again. I'm leaving on a trip, so I won't really be able to respond for the next few weeks, but remember that the more you cite WP:AGF, the less you are actually following WP:AGF (see Carbonite's law). Cheers, Ansh666 20:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • You seem oblivious to the fact that tagging these editors like that comes across as offensive and appears to be an attempt to add bias. It makes you look like you're standing in front of the article and waving off the admins from considering their contributions. I don't see any Wikipedia policy that says readers can't sign in and make a comment, nor is there a policy against what appears to be a single purpose account. We have lots of editors on Wikipedia who are revert only accounts and have been for years. I don't see anyone tagging all their edits. IMHO, tagging the editors like that adds bias. Their comments should have the same weight as any other editor's. Any editor can click on the contribs and make a judgement for themselves. But tagging them like that might well put off someone from reading their contribution and certainly it might cause them to discount it entirely. I find it offensive and akin to 'stacking the deck,' and certainly a failure to assume good faith. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between a SPA with 1000 edits and one with 3. Of course, from your perspective, I'm doing all of these things, but I honestly don't give a damn about the content of that page: I base all of my AfD commentary off policy ONLY, as do most ordinary participants. I'm sparing others the work of viewing the contribs of 3-4 IPs/accounts separately. It doesn't make their contributions any less valid to anyone without a previous bias. Also, there you go again with AGF. Anyhow, I'm actually going to go now, so later. Ansh666 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't come back to my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

New-adult fiction article

I saw your request in the Article Rescue Squadron talk page for people to examine this article. I did and decided to register a 'keep' vote. I did so, because I examined the article and many of the sources and I agree the subject should have its own page. Decided not to say anything on the Squadron talk page after someone made a comment about what I had said in another discussion. I always look at the subject's merits, or lack thereof, presented in each AfD discussion and vote my views. Bill Pollard (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great news. Well done you for taking the time to look it over. I've been working on rewriting the article with new sources. So much has happened with the subject since I started the article way back when that it really needs a good rewrite. Thanks for the support. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SW3_5DL/Archive_3&oldid=1308870200"