User talk:Mkativerata

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 wikipedia 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 {{

ygm

}} template.

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

This is to inform you that the Wikipedia 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

Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. --

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

Awesome Wikipedian 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 Wikipedia - 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 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Only Girl (In the World)/archive1.
Message added 11:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice 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 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/archive4.
Message added 10:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice 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

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? –

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
  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
  ]

]

My RfA

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]

You might be interested in this

https://en.wikipedia.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

]

Precious anniversary

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

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

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, @

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

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 disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia: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
  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. Wikipedia 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.
  [majestic titan] 08:06, 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.

[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 wikipedia. 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. —

^{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

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

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, 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 Wikipedia isn’t the people who swear at shit editing but, of course, the shit editing. —

Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 30 April 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 disruptive editing. 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 wikipedia 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: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

]