Maykiwi

Welcome!

Hello, Maykiwi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: For the Love of Spock (September 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:For the Love of Spock and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Maykiwi, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy

Apologies for the initial revert; it was afterwards that it occurred to me to keep listening to the video. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 21:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: For the Love of Spock (November 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:For the Love of Spock and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 09:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: For the Love of Spock has been accepted

For the Love of Spock, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

joe decker^talk 17:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:For the Love of Spock Poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:For the Love of Spock Poster.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kung Fu (1972 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Sullivan. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kung Fu (1972 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoffrey Lewis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kung Fu (1972 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Single.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Focus on supporting actor

Hi Maykiwi,

You have recently made an edit on Kung Fu: The Next Generation, when you added the cast you put a citation next to a single member of the supporting cast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kung_Fu:_The_Next_Generation&diff=1030110418&oldid=1021504212

This is not needed. Also, way back when I got into trouble for using IMDb as a citation.

Here is a list of approved and un-approved citations. IMDb is not approved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Thanks.Filmman3000 (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hyperbolic words

Hi Maykiwi,

You also did another mistake. It's one I did many times. Could you believe that I got reprimanded for using "passed away" instead of "died" in an instance.

Hence for Kung Fu: The Next Generation I changed "An epic fight ensues, in which the Caines overcome the evildoers." for "A fight ensues, in which the Caines overcome the criminals."

Thanks.Filmman3000 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

IMDb is not a good citation

Hi Maykiwi,

Please do not use imdb as a citation, it is not approved. Also, it looks super random when you put it next to a specific actor.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. I wish to ask you a favor. It is true that IMDb is not recommended, but it isn't a deprecated source; it won't make an article toxic. Regarding biographies is unusable because people themselves write their bios and, as it was originally (and still is) a way to get jobs, they tend to be highly self-laudatory. But, is there another source, a better or even an equivalent one, to know about the career of an actor, when he/she hasn't an article in Wikipedia to link with? So, here I ask you for a favor. I had to edit a disambiguation page because of Bill Fletcher (actor), who is a fine and prolific actor, but who never had the luck of someone starting a Wikipedia article about him. Would you do it? Or, can you find a source other than IMDb to link to his name? <https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0281950/> Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Filmman3000: Hello. I forgot that without the "reply" template there is no way you know I replied to you. The edition on the disambiguation page was swiftly reverted, because there can't be non-existing pages in disambiguation pages. So, as there is a redirect page from "Bill Fletcher" to "William Fletcher," his presence in Wikipedia is negated until someone starts his article. The request stands. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Go on article wizard after making a solid draft in your sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard

Start with what is available on AFI, TV Guide, and finally TCM. They are valid citations.

Hope this helps.Filmman3000 (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shane (American TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don McDougall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shane (American TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paramount.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Your edit to Homo Erectus (film) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Greetings. I see the problem. It is a problem, indeed. I have posted my doubts here

Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Help to correct a copyright issue, and provide information at the same time.

to see whether I can find a solution to it. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have added some comments there. Other people might comment too, it's hard to say.— Diannaa (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The undoing of Kung Fu.

Hello, Maykiwi. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you continue to deliberately add deprecated sources to Wikipedia, in support of essay-like content, you are likely to be blocked for disruption. David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for the welcome, I have been here for a while already :-)
May I know how am I combining sources to make them say something they didn't say? What would be that "something," exactly?
The most reliable sources available said the actor died, a few things about his body were officially said and reported, two autopsies were performed. A year later, The Associated Press said the Thai authorities hadn't released the results of their investigation, and that's correctly stated and sourced. Regarding the American autopsy, I searched everywhere for its results, found none, so, nothing is said. How am I doing "original research" exactly?
Everything else, the Tabloids and Mainstream media reaction, is what was informed to the public by the media, mainstream media, reliable sources. It is not me combining sources to make them say things if the reliable sources themselves cited The Smoking Gun, or a reporter who worked (maybe) for the National Enquirer as their sources (as shown in the quotes), or they quoted a pathologist who did not participate in the investigation (some reliable sources noticed that, it isn't my imagination), and they quoted two ladies who had divorced the deceased years before, instead of the official investigation, to determine AEA as the manner of death. It is merely stating facts, supported by sources. I am not saying that what the unreliable sources (tabloids) said was true in any way either, but showing what those sources said to the public, often done through mainstream media quoting them directly, accompanied with descriptions and notes clearly stating that they are unreliable sources.
Making allegations, I think, would be if I had stated in the article that Carradine's death was (let's say) a murder, and that there was a cover-up of the investigators and the tabloids to deliberately defame the deceased by making his death appear as AEA. There's nothing like that in the article. I merely compiled what a bunch of sources said, and occasionally they reported conspiracy theories. Speaking about conspiracy theories in a Wikipedia article is not the same thing as stating that conspiracies are real.
Well, we have a disagreement, but I insist, all what I have done has been referencing to reliable sources, and also to the sources they based their reporting on. I'm sorry you didn't like the results. The only "original" thing here is that the section goes against common knowledge.
Regarding the "essay" thing, if you read the Wikipedia article Essay, it includes formal and academic essays; Wikipedia is full of these kind of writings, they are the best articles. I am not "continually adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia," but merely reporting what mainstream media said, in one article, because that's what the reliable sources did: they used tabloids as sources, and they quoted them themselves; adding the citations to the original sources only states facts.
I see you have copy-pasted a form used with inexperienced editors. Adding the threat of blocking me, of using the power you have as an Administrator against a fellow Wikipedian without having given specific examples of wrongdoing or suggested improvements, after having deleted from the article everything that happened after June 4, 2009 piece by piece, as if offering no information at all were better than reliable sources you can't dispute, doesn't make you right, but edges abuse of power. If you can offer help to improve the article, specifically the official results of the investigations, presented by reliable media, please do. I wish there were articles from the reliable sources saying something like "we made a mistake by quoting gossip websites and tabloids as our sources" to cite them, but I have found none. I only wrote what they did and said, with references and plenty, plenty of quotes. If you block me for that, you would be going against the principles you say you are defending. If you don't want to write in detail what you find must be corrected, paragraph by paragraph, offer advice in a civil fashion, if you just delete the section leaving the article more incomplete than it was in 2009, if you limit yourself to derogatory adjectives and threats, we can go to arbitration. Or, you can read the section, calmly, and check the sources. Have you done it? I seriously doubt it. Maykiwi (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you put a question on my user page about why I reverted your changes to the David Carradine article. Those sort of questions should go on the article talk page, or a user talk page, and not a user page itself.

His death, and the media coverage of it, is clearly a topic you care about a lot but the content you've added includes synthesising a lot of sources together, constructing a narrative and drawing conclusions. I'd really encourage you to read the links @David Gerard provides above. On a separate point, aside from the sourcing and tone issues, the length of the content seems disproportionate, the "Death" section ended up almost as long as the rest of the article. Possibly your research might be suited to a personal blog?

To take one example, where you've got "Interestingly, the third-highest circulated British tabloid Daily Mail (which is considered a very unreliable source by Wikipedia) on that occasion followed along the same lines as The Associated Press. The article's comments show the media reporting's effect on public opinion about the case." This (plus the reference with extensive comment) is original research and commentary on your part. If you want to include this information you need a reliable source making these observations and drawing the connection between the article's comments and "the media reporting's effect on public opinion", and you would need to change the way the information is phrased to follow WP:WIKIVOICE. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Now we are talking. :-) You didn't have an user page, it was my attempt to communicate with you what created it; these technicalities are baffling to me.
All right, I see your point. The solution was simply telling me the problems you saw instead of deleting everything and leaving the article even worse; no information at all is no better than too much information. My problem now is not with you, because you gave interesting points to consider, but with David Gerard, who is an Administrator, gave no points to improve the section, and has threatened to block me if I do, basically, anything. The Death issue cannot be treated without at least mentioning that the investigation said this, and the media said something different, and they used tabloids as their sources. All that is based on very reliable sources: mainstream media themselves, which formed the public opinion. The passion is about what sources actually say.
The section's length is disproportionate because the biography is too short, an actor's professional biography is more than putting the filmography in paragraph form, and, it also has mistakes: for example, Around and Americana are the same movie. Not to speak about the colorful personal life. Everything should coalesce eventually, and the proportions balance. Compare with Margaret Mitchell's biography.
Could you tell me which conclusions I draw that the article shows? Other than the investigation didn't release results, which is supported by sources, and that the media filled the space with tabloid material they quoted verbatim according to themselves quoting it? I didn't intend to imply a cover-up, a conspiracy, a murder, a botched investigation, just put what the sources said it happened. There was no conclusion as far as sources go. Did I imply one inadvertently?
A solution would be uploading a trimmed version of the section until the end of the investigation. That's all supported by reliable sources, quoting Thai police and Dr. Baden. And then, readers would wonder why AEA is censored, what happened with the ex-wives, the Thai pathologist and the wig and fishnets Google always gives as a first result in certain searches. Can we really ignore the media issue? And, what about the tributes and funeral? Let's pretend as if the guy just disappeared? What would be your ideal version of the section?
Well, you gave me some advice, and that's something to work with. But, what do I do with Gerard? He doesn't give answers or advice and threatened me. I am seeking support in the first stage of mediation. I cannot do anything without knowing what Gerard has in mind, when he even deleted quotes in old reliable citations in another section, and I don't know what he expects the section to be.
I am copying this message to your Talk page, because I still don't get how this thing works. Sometimes I get notifications I have a message, sometimes I don't and find them by chance; it is not that I am ignoring people. Let's continue. Maykiwi (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Princess Sophie of Bavaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pamela Brown.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Original research - July 2024

Hi @Maykiwi,
On Agenda 47, I noticed you have been citing only primary sources. In order to establish which of the policies of Agenda 47 are notable and worth including in this encyclopedia, we should have multiple notable (and reliable) secondary sources describing these policies. Do not want you to spend too much time on something that might get reverted. Superb Owl (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. Most of the secondary sources regarding Trump's proposals are about Project 2025, which Trump recently disavowed. Agenda 47, which presents the official campaign proposals, has been barely talked about, so, the secondary sources are scarce, and sometimes erroneous. The website has no other order than the chronological one, without any search tool. Therefore, what I did was just extracting the ore. I grouped the propositions by subject, and made abstracts of their contents. Now it comes the (I hope, collaborative) work of polishing the writing and adding the secondary sources, which may appear now that the website's contents are (imperfectly) ordered thematically, and Project 2025 lost preeminence.
A question. While verifying the contents of the linked Wikipedia articles, I found sources that didn't reference Agenda 47, but by their subject either supported their assertions or refuted them. Would they be valid as secondary sources? Thanks.Maykiwi (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Greetings! It's a good question and one probably best answered on the talk page of the article. Superb Owl (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. I posted the question in the talk page. Now I have other questions :-)
How many opinions/votes would be necessary to reach a consensus on the matter?
I found a secondary source on the Education policy about college accreditation. Is that enough to take away the flag? Do I do it, or do you do it?
Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me double-check just since you're a bit newer to Wikipedia but generally you can take it off if you're confident that you addressed the issue (or just ask the talk page if you've sorted out the issue).

Consensus is not really described in that way - not sure how to explain it but we try to reach a compromise or by looking at Wikipedia's rules and guidelines come around to one person's side or, most of the time, end up in a better place than where any one person started :) Superb Owl (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Maykiwi, I finally removed all the text without secondary sources.
Agenda 47 has its own website, our role is to reflect the discussion of the newsworthy policies and not independently try and summarize his videos.
I strongly recommend you read up on the documentation I posted earlier on secondary sources and that other users have posted around notability as well. Superb Owl (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

More on Agenda 47

User:Maykiwi, I read your contribution today and your frustration at the lack of secondary sources. Maybe they're beginning to appear. e.g. Forbes July 18; USA Today. There are also older ones not referenced yet: AP News Nov 23 23, Barrons jun 30 23. I'll leave you to add them as I know little about it. Chris55 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited False or misleading statements by Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven Cheung.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agenda 47, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited False or misleading statements by Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agenda 47, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)