User talk:Mkativerata

This user left Wik.ipedia.Pro. Mkativerata has not edited Wik.ipedia.Pro since March 1, 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Am away for a while and only checking in intermittently.

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)
• /Archive14 (October 2011)
• /Archive15 (November 2011)
• /Archive16 (December 2011 to January 2012)
• /Archive17 (January 2012 to July 2014)
• /Archive18 (July 2014 to October 2014)

You currently appear to be engaged in an according to the reverts you have made on Najib Razak. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing , and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
reported other party to edit warning noticeboard Avono (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a lot like our old pal Roman888. "serial vandaliser" is a favorite expression of his. --Drmargi (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it's definitely him. It's just easier to roll back each edit than go through the tedious report-block-new sock-report-block cycle, right? Best to keep him on one account too. Protecting the page wasn't the right move either. I've been slowly improving that article for weeks and now I can't... --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The admin poo-poo'd my comment on the edit warring message board, too. This is ban evasion so the warning above is inappropriate; you might want to note that in your edit summary so you aren't blocked when you shouldn't be. I'm watching the page now, too. How do you want to handle this? If I'm reading this right, you're good to leave him alone on this one account for now. I'm happy to do what you prefer. --Drmargi (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

() I was just about to write another reply to you, having now seen the AN3 thread. "Open an SPI"? I mean, really... As if you don't have better things to do. From memory filing an SPI takes forever. The account should have been blocked on your request, the case being so clear. Although I reckon the best way to respond to this case, when neither blocking nor protection is going to be an appropriate medium-to-long-term solution (as we both know he's been socking for four years and won't go away) is to have multiple people watching the target articles, and roll back every single edit of the sock on sight. This article is of a sitting Prime Minister, so there should be (but aren't) multiple watchers anyway. Perhaps Avono and Bbb23 might volunteer? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fine, will put it in my watchlist Avono (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan to me. I'm watching him, and the PM's page. I also left a note on Bbb23's page suggesting minimal due diligence might be in order next time. This one ain't rocket science. But in truth, I can see the merit of keeping the one account active so we can keep Roman corralled. I haven't left a message outing him (my usual practice) on his talk page for just that reason. --Drmargi (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a message for Moonriddengirl. Hopefully she can take out the trash. --Drmargi (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion should be made and getting input from other wiki members, before any changes. Again you define in which ever you want because Wik.ipedia.Pro is not your POV for editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.74.4 (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your oppose was in the wrong place, fixed it for now [1], if I've inadvertently crossed a line feel free to revert. Regards, WCM_email 13:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I saw this, I was on my way here to lambast you for an obviously frivilous Oppose !vote... Moved it back, also: ha ha, very funny. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah apologies, red faced, I will be flagellating myself with a large wet trout etc. WCM_email 17:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I got as far as moving it and almost pressing save page before my joke detector kicked in. Sam Walton (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, this is an old prank and, WCM, if it makes you feel any better, someone always falls for it and usually much harder than you did (like writing a strong rebuttal of the 'oppose'). Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very kind nomination, you made my day. Mattlore (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me at all -- I genuinely couldn't think of anyone more deserving (and I could think of many who would be deserving!) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mkativerata. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that the Wik.ipedia.Pro Grammar Police have detected a split infinitive in one of your edits. This type of behavior gives the encyclopedia a bad name and will emphatically not be tolerated.  Philg88 ^♦talk 22:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. So if I get caught doing it again, I'll have to humbly submit myself to Arbcom? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed -:). I thought a little levity was in order after the last week's RfA dramas. Hopefully, you're next one will be free of such things. And yes, there's another grammar error in the foregoing sentence just for good measure. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 23:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mkat, I've been following the RfA for Czar, including some of the back-and-forth in the oppose section. Comments have been made about "badgering" of the "oppose" !voters, including yourself. Given that I was one of the commenters in that section, I hope that you did not perceive my comments as badgering you because that was certainly not my intent. I thought your concerns were worthy of being addressed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all... So far as I can tell, the criticism of "badgering" is criticism directed at one or two others, and not at you. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good. I value our working relationship. You're handy to have around, and I would hate to lose that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata, your oppose vote wasn't enough to prevent me supporting, but it was well researched and politely formulated. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mkativerata, I wanted to thank you for putting the time, effort, and detail into researching and writing about my AfD experience. It's certainly made my RfA better and I appreciate the feedback. If you are no longer following the page, I think you might appreciate my answers to Q5–7 (questions by Dirtlawyer1, prompted by your concerns, and about my breadth of editing experience). Have a happy Thanksgiving, and see you around. czar ⨹ 15:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Czar. Yes - I did see you responses to the questions, and thanks for taking the time to do that. I don't think my oppose ever had a chance of causing a pile-on—if it did, I might have done something different—but your answers ensured that would be the case. Anyway, I look forward to seeing you around (perhaps, if you are interesting in performing AfD closures, you might visit WP:DRV some time?) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wik.ipedia.Pro appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reezal Merican Naina Merican, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kepala Batas. 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) 09:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Mkativerata. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wik.ipedia.Pro for a long time to come. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mkativerata. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wik.ipedia.Pro for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kudpung - you too! --Mkativerata (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re this vote - it's being counted as a support, not an oppose, because you put it in the wrong section. See User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report (updated frequently) - no opposes are counted. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkat, aren't you joking? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've un-"fixed" it because I'm pretty sure you're clever enough to know what you're doing, but just revert me if I'm wrong. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry I just can't help myself. The candidates never seem to mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got a kick out of it myself. I have seen you play this game before; I felt honored that you played it at my RfA. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been identified as an Awesome Wik.ipedia.Pron on 11 February 2012.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well earned recognition -- then and now, Mkat. Glad to have you back. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you both - glad to be back :) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your extended comment on the ArbCom case. Sarek wasn't admonished for edit warring, but for deliberately focusing on a user, and engaging in edit wars with that user with the intent of getting them blocked. We have developed processes for dealing with problematic users. Suicide bombing is not an appropriate method for anyone to use. It is harmful to the project and to all users involved, including the suicide bomber. Sarek is still having to deal with the consequences of that. From various comments he has made, I think Sarek is now at a stage where he is unlikely to go rogue again, and I did briefly consider supporting, though I would like a little more evidence of emotional detachment (or, rather, evidence of appropriate tactics to deal with the emotional stress of editing Wik.ipedia.Pro - as there is inevitable emotional involvement). Looking at Sarek's unnecessary responses to some of the oppose comments, I'm not sure he is quite there yet. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. My intention isn't to second-guess the Arbcom findings; far from it. It is to take the evidence presented to show that he is a very competent editor. For me, competence is the most important trait in a candidate for administrator. I'm far more willing to forgive and forget non-malicious behavioural indiscretions than I am to turn a blind eye to incompetence. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mkativerata. You have new messages at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Featured article candidates/Only Girl (In the World)/archive1.
Message added 11:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I made some changes based on your comments, but I have questions about some others.  — ₳aron 11:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mkativerata. You have new messages at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Featured article candidates/City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/archive4.
Message added 10:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Earthh (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have any further concerns? The review seems to have stalled (for the fourth times), so your help would be very much appreciated.--Earthh (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'll re-visit the article over the weekend and try to force myself to arrive at a view. --Mkativerata (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the changes made on the Caracal article, please see my comment on the talk page. Drakenwolf (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Little India,Ipoh. Since you had some involvement with the Little India,Ipoh redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! --Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I re-nominated "Only Girl (In the World)" for FAC 8 days ago, but I haven't had any comments. As you commented in the previous one, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind re-reading and seeing if I have address your comments from the previous nomination. Thanks.  — ₳aron 10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comments nearly a month ago. Any chance you could follow up on your original comments and help get the article over the line to FA status? – PeeJay 23:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funniest RfA comment. Thanks ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Epic, Dude. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I liked the comment a lot, but I don't like the header here, because it reminds me of a dreadful loss, - I created de:Dreadstar yesterday, with thanks for support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't seen that either. Header improved :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure :) Of course, it's a serious point too: I have a great deal of sympathy with this. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think "pleasure" referred to an admin who protected an article in an edit war, was accused of abuse (because he had expressed an opinion) and left blocking himself. I seriously miss him and his explosions. - Would you dare to close Beethoven? I asked Opabinia regalis before, who declined - which made a lot of sense to me, but you already survived the moonlight (pictured) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, "pleasure" did not refer to that! I will have to decline the Beethoven invitation, I'm afraid; I just don't have the time to do a proper job on that kind of thing at the moment. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/User:Pukimkativerata

Not sure if that qualifies as an inappropriate username. Banedon (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's an old friend! I don't know what your Malay is like, but "puki" is, well, a rather rude word. Maybe an admin talk page stalker will block him: I couldn't be arsed filing another SPI!! --Mkativerata (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UAA report filed after they edited again. BethNaught (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I hope you're just taking a little time off to recharge the batteries. Still hoping to see you around. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Yes - just time off - not due to WP but being busy at work. Hopefully I can drop back in come the new year. I hope all is well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. January 1, 2016 is coming up fast. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago ...

bold decision
... you were recipient no. 9a of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years now! Happy 2019! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you here again. You may like this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message - I hope you are well! —Mkativerata (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am, only too many die. Did you check out Happy 2019 then? Click again, am I happy I wrote his article for birthday not funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

eight years now, - same for Volker David Kirchner, - I began a list, would like to add images ... - hope you are well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dato Param Cumaraswamy. Since you had some involvement with the Dato Param Cumaraswamy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just noting so that you know I've noticed: I haven't seen you around much for quite a while now. I hope everything is OK. Miss your votes at RfA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in, @Kudpung:. I hope you are well. The day job has been getting in the way for some time now, but maybe there will be light at the end of the tunnel soon! I've certainly not disappeared for good. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know everything is OK. See you around soon. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please stop your . If you continue to violate Wik.ipedia.Pro's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Trans-Pacific Partnership, you may be blocked from editing. -- Galestar (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 103.41.177.49 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know you've hit 3 reverts. You probably would do best to stop that. --Jayron32 03:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you're clearly a big-picture man eh --Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mkativerata. You've been talking a lot about cock-ups and fake news and the big picture, but never actually explained, in specific terms, your profound objections to this most reprehensible of ITN blurbs. Why not try to make things better instead of edit warring over the archival of a thread that should have ceased to be active days ago? You're far more likely to cause the item to be reworked or pulled by calmly explaining where we went wrong than simply cursing at us and accusing people of admin abuse. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Read Andrew D's comments, which the posting admin should have done. Then look around to see just how controversial among experts, and hedged by the paper's own authors, the claim that these are the oldest fossil is: [2], [3]. And yet, in our proud amateur voice we say "making them the oldest known fossils of life on Earth." This should never have been posted and most certainly not with a blurb in those terms. I should not need to explain this to experienced administrators. Thank you for being the first admin to engage with the substance. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's fair to fault the posting admin – ITN operates by consensus, and after more than a day of discussion, there was a strong consensus for posting and no objections having been posted in several hours. It's not as if Stephen took action during the middle of an active discussion that seemed poised to sway consensus. Having read the articles you linked, it does seem like the scientific community has put up some resistance to these claims. I'm genuinely not sure whether this sort of skepticism is typical in the wake of extraordinary discoveries or breakthroughs, regardless of their credibility or level of scientific rigor, or if the guys are quacks and we're helping them advertise their fringe theories. I do suspect that the latter is exceedingly unlikely for findings published in Nature, but if you think it's a legitimate risk, then discussion at WP:ERRORS would be warranted. Out of curiosity, if you knew the blurb had to stay, how would you reword or improve it? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your last question gets to another corker: the nomination itself uses caveats, including "which would make them the oldest fossils of life on Earth." Yet the posting admin unilaterally went for broke ([4]) despite all evidence to the contrary. This shouldn't need to go to WP:ERRORS. I oppose the posting in its entirety - not even the caveats are enough - so put it in ITN/C rather than WP:ERRORS. Post-posting opposes are a common practice. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Look. Wik.ipedia.Pro operates on collaboration and consensus. You already know that. WP:ERRORS is the place to have a discussion about main page items. I know that any action will take longer than you'd like, but that's by systemic design.
• Now, on your attacks on other editors. Never forget that we're all here for the same purpose. We're all working to contribute to the sum of all knowledge. But it's a lot harder to do that when someone is lobbing bombs all over the place. Please, a little collegial discourse can go a long way.
• And on a final administrative note, I or another admin will block you if you choose to revert over on ITNC again. Do note that you should be blocked already. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for , as you did at WP:ITNC. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed, fair call, it's just that unlike the numerous admins who have ignored my pleas for accuracy over many hours now, I'll put accuracy over 3rr and would do so again. We still have a fucked-up ITN item.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is, on my incredibly cursory look at the content dispute, a fair viewpoint to hold. But we don't go disrupting the whole place just to make a point. We have processes like ERRORS in place for situations like this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mkativerata. I've almost fallen for your joke support-opposes before, but this one actually looks like a genuine oppose (it would be easy to miss when those edits were made). Could you clarify a little if your vote is meant to be sarcastic? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could see it as a joke. Or you could see it as a semi-regular test of the levels of idiocy on Wik.ipedia.Pro. Quite high at the moment, it seems. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be seen as near-trolling. An interesting choice to present other editors with. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be beneficial to confirm whether it is a joke or not. Please note that at the top of an RfA the votes are tallied based on how many votes are in the section (the page can't detect what's actually written), and it says the same on the RfA page, so according to the tallies it's S80, O0, N0. If you are genuinely opposing the candidate, please move the vote to the oppose section, so that it can be tallied as an oppose. Thanks. Linguist^talk|contribs 14:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mkativerata. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right way to make this request, but after hearing this morning about the deportation of Jakiw Palij to Germany for prosecution, and discovering that every news outlet is covering the story, I was surprised to see that this man has no Wiki article. I discovered that he did have one, but it was deleted and a redirect put in its place. Since you are the editor that oversaw the deletion debate, I thought you would be the address to request that now that he has been deported, he is worthy of his own page. I think his history and life merits an article. I for one, and I am sure many others, would like to know more about this person whose deportation has been in the making for decades, and has finally been achieved. Let me know what you think. Here are some of the sources: here, here, and here. Thanks. Stregadellanonna (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, an Rfc has opened at Monarchy of Australia concerning the topic head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mkativerata. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MalaysiaFedDeleg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mkativerata,

Your edit summary on this revert of an edit of mine is unacceptable in tone and in content. Even assuming you knew that Faulkner's coming out was allegedly false (as suggested in this article), neither of your earlier edit summaries reverting other editors (yeah nah and Nope) actually indicate your objections, which I took to refer to sourcing. Do not ever address another editor (whether a fellow account-holding editor or an IP editor) in the terms you addressed to me, and please try to provide edit summaries that make clear to others your objection to an edit. As soon as I saw the edit summary from The Pope with a link to the article suggesting Faulkner's coming out was a hoax, I self-reverted, which shows that clear and civil comments are much more appropriate and effective. WP is a much nicer place when colleagues treat one another with politeness and consideration, and I hope that you will reflect on this and modify your approach.

Thank you,

EdChem (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t read this message it was too long I assume it’s a mea culpa for fucking up a blp in which case no worries. —-Mkativerata (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way, you clearly thought it was REALLY IMPORTANT that JF’s page URGENTLY record the fact of him being gay and the identity of his partner. Now you know that it’s all wrong and that he is straight, will you edit the page to record that fact? And in an equal hurry? Why not? —Mkativerata (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata, your unprovoked attack in this edit summary is unacceptable. Please speak decently to others, and give reasons when you revert them. I hope this message isn't too long to read. Bishonen | talk 18:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

no that was succinct - thank you. Succinct but stupid: the real problem with Wik.ipedia.Pro isn’t the people who swear at shit editing but, of course, the shit editing. —Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just informing you that I've completely cleared out the "top priority" portion of the case. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 22:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, that's great. That's a big one from memory. I hope the priority system kind of worked. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your . If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Bashir Ahmad Abdul Majid, you may be blocked from editing. You have more than enough experience here to know this - it is currently at AFD, it cannot be blanked or removed, which includes redirection. Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on your spirited defence of spam. Keep up the good work. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Bashir Ahmad Abdul Majid. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't keep spam however it is against the giant bolded template on the page to remove an AFD notice that is still active. Stop. Praxidicae (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also against Wik.ipedia.Pro policy -- far more important policy -- to insert spam, which you have done on three occasions. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'm a spammer, go file a report at WP:COIN or WP:ANI and stop edit warring. You may not blank, redirect or remove the AFD notice. Period. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are a spammer. You are just editing incompetently and getting in the way of spam removal. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then go file a report at ANI, because right now all you're doing is casting aspersions which is a personal attack. Either substantiate it or strike it. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure why you think it's bad form for a candidate to thank people. It cannot conceivably count as canvassing. And thanking opposers could appear insincere and sarcastic. Or would actually be insincere. In any case, I think it's a bit over the top and would gently invite you to remove the comment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not canvassing. But it also isn't a "thanks for doing something good for Wik.ipedia.Pro", because they would be sent to opposes, neutrals and neithers. So it's a "thanks for doing me a favour", which is ok in some contexts doesn't sit well with me in the RfA context. Having said that, precisely no-one has said that they share this reservation. The comment has been sent off to the talk page anyway for some unknown reason. Thanks for dropping me a note here rather than there (and that's not a "you did me a favour" thanks but a "the approach you took is the better approach for Wik.ipedia.Pro" thanks!). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you - saw your name pop up and thought I'd say hello. You might not remember me, I used to be known by a different name (Steve Zhang). Hope you're well! Steven Crossin 18:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Steven -- it's great to hear from you. I hope that you, too, are well. At the moment I seem to duck in here for a few weeks or so every couple of years. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It just dawned on me from your edit to Cameron Smith and the G'day above that you might be from the same neck of the woods as I am! Not enough of us around here! Steven Crossin 06:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, well, maybe one has to be Australian, or perhaps alternatively from select industrial towns in northern England, to understand why Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1998) and Cameron Smith aren't entirely comparable! --Mkativerata (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yup. I don't think I'll ever run for RFA, simply because there's no need (and also because the thing is frankly torture, I remember 2011) but even to this day it baffles me that some people don't understand that a majority vote does not necessarily equal consensus. I was encouraged to read that there was an RFC some time ago about non-admins closing discussions wasn't to be unilaterally reverted simply because the person isn't an admin. I've always felt I've been a decent judge of consensus but in the past the rule was always "unless consensus is so mind numbingly obvious that a complete moron would come to the same consensus that the result is X, don't close it" so glad that there's some leeway now. Steven Crossin 15:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry about that, and thanks for that... I always right-click copy/paste names to avoid spelling errors, and I must have pasted instead of copying. It's actually par for the course for me today - so far I've dropped and broken my coffee cup, tripped over a shelf in a supermarket and burst a bag of apples in a different shop - I must have caught a "clumsy virus" or something... Just call me Mr. Bean... -- Begoon 08:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no worries, and it is good to hear from you again. I’m sorry in particular to hear about the coffe cup! —Mkativerata (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have 6 more identical ones so I cared more about cleaning up the 200 pieces it shattered into than the fact that it was broken. The apples were more of a problem because I'd already paid for them and now they are bruised... Ah well, things can only get better... -- Begoon 09:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your RfC opinion here was surprisingly refreshing. In my opinion, opposed to what I've seen to a great extent on Wik.ipedia.Pro, you overcame your own biases and sided with policy. Because of your clarity, I hope that you might be open if I reach out to you for feedback every once in awhile regarding my own editing. Thank you --UberVegan🌾 16:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I appreciate the kind note. And yes, happy to field any questions. Don't take too many cues from me, though: [5]! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, but maybe with the blocks comes even more wisdom. Thanks! --UberVegan🌾 01:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, you've revertd my edit on that page. When he has come to Bangladesh for last time he had said that his grandfather was from a village of Chittagong. Later, it was found by Bangladeshi newspapers that his grandfather was from Moriomnogor Village of Chittagong. Malaysian Malaysiakini has said that he is Bangladeshi descent.

Probably it is a misunderstanding among Malaysian dailies. When his grandfather had come to Malaysia, Bangladesh was under Indian Subcontinent.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala is not in Bangladesh. All non-Bangladesh sources say his grandfather was from Kerala. That includes his biography. The Bangladesh sources must be wrong. You’re reverting against the vast majority of the reliable sources. Stop it. —Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have said "all Bangladeshi sources". Ok in Malaysiakini (Malaysia) and Dailyhunt (India) it was said that his grandfather was from Chittagong. And Chittagong is not India. If you have done again, it will be complained.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that malaysiakini link is not a news article. Stop editing on topics you know nothing about.—Mkativerata (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you’ve just broken WP:3RR. You’d better revert yourself to avoid a block.—Mkativerata (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the many sources you are reverting against. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] (somewhere in 'southern India' but Kerala uncertain), [11]. Are you saying they're all wrong? Including academic books? It's all very well for you to edit, but not to charge in on a well-settled biography of a serving head-of-government and push your ill-informed agenda against editors who have read all the sources and know what they're talking about. As I said, you have better self-revert your last revert, because you have made four effective reverts in 24 hours and could be heading for a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am repeating again Chittagong is situated in the southern Part of Bangladesh and Bangladesh was under Indian Subcontinent at that time. You are saying that all references of notable Bangladeshi dailies are false? He has said that his grandfather was from Chittagong, see in English on Malaysiakini. In that article, it was said that it will be a surprise news to Malaysian that he is of Bangladeshi descent. I have given 5 Bangla references (one is from Indian Dailyhuny)--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources other than your Bangladesh sources say he is from Kerala or southern India. That's the vast majority. Go and edit something you are competent to edit. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll outline the sources in a bit more detail:

• [12]. This is the leading biography on Mahathir, written by Barry Wain. He says in the linked page: "A forbear, most likely Mohamad's father Iskandar [Mahathir's grandfather], had emigrated from Southern India to begin a new life in Malaysia." Mahathir is then quoted as saying "Frankly, we don't know which part of India we came from."
• [13]. This is an academic history of modern Asia. It says: "Though through his father's side he could trace his origins to Kerala in Southern India..."
• [14]. An academic book on Malaysian foreign policy. It says "Mahathir's paternal grandfather of Kerala Indian descent..."
• [15]. New Straits Times, one of Malaysia's leading newspapers: "Dr Mahathir‘s grandfather, Iskandar, was brought to Malaya from the South Indian state of Kerala by the British East India Company to teach English to the royal Kedah household."

All of these sources state not only that Mahathir's grandfather is from India but from southern India or Kerala. That's why, for about a decade, our article has said Mahathir's paternal ancestry is partly Indian. Until you showed up today.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Bangladesh Pratidin (most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Shomoy (8th most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Kaler Kantho (3rd most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Janakantha, (6th most circulated newspaper in Bangladesh) Nayadiganta (15th most circulated newspaper in Bangladesh), Azadi (newspaper's sub editorial) it was mentioned about his Bangladeshi ancestors. Even in Malaysiakini and Dailyhunt (India) it was mentioned too. Chittagong was under Indian Subcontinent at that time. And it is in southern part too. He himself said his Bangladeshi ancestors (see Malaysiakini article). You have 2 sources about his clear Kerala link. I have more about clear Chittagong link. You have said, "Go and edit something you are competent to edit" it doesn't seem good to me. I didn't provide info without references.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagong is nowhere near southern India. I know you have some sources, but they amount to very little when stacked up to those I've set out above. It's not a matter of numbers; it's about quality. My sources are mostly academic and in one case is a biography based on interviews with Mahathir and his family. None of your sources are academic. Anyway. One possibility that will allow us both to have our way is just to say "Mahathir's father, Mohamad, was Malay but also had ancestors from the Indian subcontinent". The term "Indian subcontinent" is useful because it accords with the first source I listed above, that Mahathir has no idea where in India his ancestors were from. And it covers your sources because Bangladesh is part of the Indian subcontinent.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, it is the best option. He had once said he had no idea about his ancestor's home. Some researchers have found his Kerala link too. But in 2014 he had said about his Chittagong link when he had come in Bangladesh. My references are based on his speech in Bangladesh.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I have made that suggested edit. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...becoming an administrator? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the note, Atsme - I used to be one, but I couldn't do that to myself again, and, for a number of entirely valid reasons including recent block log, I would fail an RfA resoundingly! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh...the old haunting block log - User:Atsme/Blocking policy proposal - things aren't always what they seem. Your's would not have changed my mind. Common sense is not so common anymore, so when I see it, it's exciting...like watching the Super Bowl parade after your team wins. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, indeed: "edit-warring" and "disruptive editing" (I just checked your log; looks like mine) are what I like to think of as "honourable blocks". It's that extra revert because you cared too much, or because the other editor was so ridiculously wrong. I've always thought there to be one important missing element from our blocking policy: admins don't block editors for making bad edits --Mkativerata (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One I consider to be the unsurpassed winner of honorable block logs, and who would probably be a favorite at RfA - including admin votes...and mine!! 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mkativerata. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wik.ipedia.Pro Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 11:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mkativerata. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wik.ipedia.Pro Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 07:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. take care and enjoy what you do --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are now listed as missing, as we seek to recognize those editors who impacted the project and are no longer contributing. Should you ever return or simply don't want to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Please do not see this message as any sort of prod to your activity on wiki, as we all would hope to enjoy life after having edited here. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from member list

You have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Wik.ipedia.Pro Birthday Committee birthday list. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself.

Best wishes, Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]