User:Kuru/archive-7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Alamo

Thanks for the citations you provided for Alamo Mission in San Antonio. - Bevo 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for starting it up and doing all the hard ones - sourcing modern trivia is pretty easy compared to sourcing the fairly nebulous world of Texas History. Kuru talk 02:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary ban of 194.165.170.4

Obviously the person deserved it.

However, it is a dynamic IP address for many thousands of BT Ireland customers. Such as myself who just happened to be allocated the address on this occasion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.165.170.4 (talk • contribs).

Hence the brief nature of the block, which appears to have expired 34 days ago. Kuru talk 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
That was basically pointless... As it is, why bother asking for an unblock when no one has edited (constructively) with that ip, except for this post. --Dark Falls talk 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for beating me at least 4 times to vandalism. Cheers! †Sir James Paul† 01:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks - you've beat me to several as well. Thanks for keeping the place clean.. :) Kuru talk 02:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User Page Vandalism

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my page and reverting it. You are quick, I saw it seconds after he did it and you still beat me to it :-) Trusilver 03:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just out of curiosity...

I wasn't sure whom to ask, or even how to search for this, but how did you decide on 31 hours for a block? I've seen the number elsewhere, but I can't find a reference and was just wondering. Jddphd 03:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A twenty-four hour block is too easy to internally time ("I'll just pick up tomorrow at the same time"). Seems to work on the short attention span crowd; no other reason. Kuru talk 03:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense - thanks Jddphd 03:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for being so fast at the AIV page tonight that I have to look back to see if you really are standing over my shoulder. And you've beaten me to the revert button more than a couple times. Trusilver 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! It's been an odd night for sure. Thank you for all the work you've done... Kuru talk 05:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meta77

hey dude leave my freaking page alone. we were working on it. Were going to put it back up so leave it alone. If you dont mess with the Red vs blue page leave ours alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.249.25 (talk • contribs).

And this is regarding what? Kuru talk 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
you deleting my teams "Post Grabbers" page. They were very proud of it and now there sad and messaging me about this. anyway, yea we were working on it. I mean look into something before you just delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.249.25 (talk • contribs).
I'm sorry your team is sad. Perhaps you can find a free web host or a myspace page for your movie? I'm afraid that we cannot host promotional material for an unreleased and non-notable fan movie here. Kuru talk 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Now im upset we were not trying to promote anything. We were makeing a page for the show. Red vs blue and other shows like it all have bloody wikipedia pages. We wanted to make one and ours got deleted. If i wanted i could cause a ster tonight. Im a bigger name on these kind of sites and game sites then you may realize.— 71.207.249.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

Look, Meta, I know you're upset. But the last thing we need is not being able to put a page up at all! ... if they can do that to us. UnRated One 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha its ok im good now. and no that cant stop someone from putting something up they only delete things. well just get the stuff and info together and make it again.— 71.207.249.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] re: Yili horse

Interestingly enough, it just dawned on me about an hour or so ago to have checked the history for a version of the Yili horse article without the violation. I will try to do better in the future. Cheers, --Aarktica 11:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Manta.com

Thanks, I will be sure to keep the link policy in mind more as I make additions. Deaksarm 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Deaksarm

[edit] about that

What was wrong with my edit or whatever. Does everything we put on here have to be 100% true or something Im new and dunno what im doing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BEYONKAJONES (talk • contribs).

Being true would be a wonderful start. Here's a great place to learn about our policies and how to edit: Wikipedia:Introduction. Kuru talk 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Miscavige

Thanks for reverting my edit on David Miscavige. I had seen some vandalism and, in my eagerness to try out reverting using popups, I reverted someone else's revert, thus vandalizing. By the time I caught it, you had it fixed. Thanks again. ZZ 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - I've done it myself a dozen times.  :) Kuru talk 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool... I think I'll give up on Popups for the time being, seeing that I apparently re-vandalized Nsync as well, which you again fixed - and were then reverted and re-reverted by someone else who did the same thing I did! It's good to know that it happens to others, too. Best, ZZ 02:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heron's turbine?

Well, Kuru, it depends on how you define a turbine, doesn't it. Would you call a rotary crop-sprayer a turbine? Heron's affair worked the same way, except with steam jets. Taqi al Din's and della Porta's device played the jet in a fixed direction on rotary blades, so it comes closer to a turbine except that it had no casing to concentrate the flow and must have wasted an awful lot of steam around the sides. Best wishes--John of Paris 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure. If you're referring to my participation in Steam engine, my changes were to remove the phrases "hello u!!" and "oli loves dong"; presumably uncontroversial edits. You may have me confused with another editor. Kuru talk 12:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

and dinga-dinga-ding-dong-ding - sorry about that--John of Paris 12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please could you find an admin to investigate a reported case of Sock Puppeteering

Please could you find an admin to investigate a reported case of Sock Puppeteering

The incident is here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/XAndreWx

Sprigot 08:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems fairly obvious, but since the user has already been blocked for the 3rr he was apparently trying to avoid, I'm not sure there's any point to any further action. I'm hoping he will stop trying to game his reverts on his return. Kuru talk 23:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm only citing verifiable, factual and objective information

I am a noob, what am I doing wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Commercehelper (talk • contribs).

Replied on editor's talk page. Kuru talk 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your opinion, please

Hello, I recently reverted several edits [1], [2] and [3] based on WP:EL policy. The editor since has created several graphics for these pages of good quality and has been making good edits. One thing I did notice is that the editor linked the commercial page to the graphic page as a reference. The web page is also directly displayed on the graphic. An example is [4]. Could I get your opinion on whether or not WP:EL has been violated in this situation? Thank you! Postoak 05:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Man, that's a really tough call. Easy part: I fully agree with your initial reversions - those were simple promotional links presented as such. Hard part: He's adding the data directly to the article in an on-topic way that does not overwhelm the article. The link stamped on the image itself (or an author's name, etc) is usually to be avoided, but I don't think it's painful in this case. Is the data useful to the article? I would probably disagree with such information for cities or towns, but those are basically subdivisions and regions in Houston, so the data may be specific enough to be of value. Since the editor is also making other positive edits, I would probably let it fly and just keep an eye on it. Kuru talk 02:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, will do. Thanks for your assistance. Postoak 02:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Do you mind commenting on my editor review please? Thanks! SLSB talk ER 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the rv

There's not much else to say really. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for reverting my talk page

Damn those vandals get pissed when you revert something! :) -- M2Ys4U (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. That one was just slightly bitter. Kuru talk 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

thank you for helping me out. i am fairly new to wikipedia and did not know about the Sandbox feature, and apologize for any unnecassary edits72.185.44.3 08:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mattee

Would it be acceptable to temporarily block User:Mattee so he/she will read his/her talk page? He/She is creating copyvios and removing speedy tags, though clearly in good faith, but seems not to listen. -WarthogDemon 00:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've sprotected the redirect for now - if that doesn't work, I'll set a short block to get his attention. Kuru talk 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. :) Hope I wasn't disruptive trying to fix things. -WarthogDemon 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  !!

How can anyone revert vandalism with you on the ball! Quick, aren't you? :P Marc Talk 01:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions for new Wiki editors

I was wondering why so many editors don't give a source for information they add to Wikipedia, and why so many stub articles have an external link section that was apparently created as a reference section. I think part of the answer is in Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial. I glanced through them, trying to view the information from a complete newcomer's perspective. I saw a few things that might be contributing to some problems in Wikipedia.

  • Introduction "anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." Lots of newcomers and anons make test edits on that page, and source/reference information is notably lacking from their edits. Not even a little note in parentheses saying "I got this from my history book". Sometimes an inline link, but rare. It might be worth seeing if a ==Notes and references== section with {{Reflist}} or <references/> can be maintained on that page as a reminder. Plus maybe a page header CITE YOUR SOURCES.
  • Learn more about editing Thinking like an eager new editor, I went straight to Read about how to create your first article. The main points tell me to be bold, but they don't tell me to cite my references. In the second bullet in the second section I glance at this:
Good research and citing your sources. Articles written out of thin air are better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying large amounts of the text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism.
My impression from that is that research and citations are purely optional, the most important thing is to write about what I know about. I can always leave the verification problem to someone else... that's "better than nothing." I figure I don't have to do any real research to contribute to Wikipedia, because I can just write about what I know about.
  • Explore Wikipedia is my next stop as an aspiring editor. I've already looked around Wikipedia a bit and seen the articles, but I'm curious about who writes Wikipedia. This is text-heavy, but I glance at the first couple of paragraphs...
Volunteers do not need any formal training before creating a new article or editing an existing article. The people who create and edit articles in Wikipedia come from countries all around the world and have a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Anyone who contributes to this encyclopedia is called a "Wikipedian".
It is Wikipedia policy to add to the encyclopedia only statements that are verifiable, and not to add original research. The Wikipedia style guide encourages editors to cite sources. Sometimes Wikipedians do not follow these policies because they forget or because they are not aware of the policy, and until citations are supplied, readers of the article cannot verify the content in question.
That's pretty boring. I want to WRITE. But I guess first I'd better glance at the...
  • Tutorial
  • Front page welcomes me to make edits
  • Editing explains Show preview and Edit summary Some of that might not make sense to me if I'd already created a Wikipedia username and started messing with my user preferences, but I get the drift.
  • Formatting Hmmm. Right. Good to know.
  • Wikipedia links I spot "When to link" and read "The easiest way to learn when to link is to look at Wikipedia articles for examples. If you're trying to decide whether to make a link or not, ask yourself "If I were reading this article, would the link be useful to me?" Usually link the first, and only the first, occurrence of a word/term in the article, that does not have an implictly understood definition." Being a new editor, I don't quite follow that last sentence. I barely notice the lead sentence "Linking Wikipedia articles together is very important. These easily-created links allow users to access information related to the article they're reading and greatly add to Wikipedia's utility." I notice I have to use 2 square brackets to link to another page. I never get as far as reading about categories.
  • External links is wonderfully clear and simple -- I can DO that!!
  • Talk pages. I'm not interested in talking right now, I just want to edit. But I glance at this.
  • Keep in mind. This sounds boring, but I click on it and glance at it. Editorial policies... Subject matter... Neutral point of view... blah blah blah... I never really notice another messaage, because it's pretty far down:
Citing sources
Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References". If any websites would be of particular interest to a reader of an article, they should be listed and linked to in an "External links" section, and books of particular interest should be listed in a "Further reading" section, but only if they were not used as sources for the article. Citations help our readers verify what you've written and find more information.

Carefully hidden away is something of major importance to the integity of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute."

Based on this introduction and tutorial for new editors, I'm not surprised that there are thousands of unsourced and poorly sourced articles in Wikipedia -- and many short articles and stubs with "External links" sections and no citations. Wikipedia is only as strong as its editors, and new editors are often guided by Wikipedia's Introduction and Tutorial. 65.78.213.45 03:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hello. Thank you for reverting vandalism done to my userpage. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 00:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, friend. Kuru talk 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion

Hello

Please can you explain why you have deleted my article on Online Parish Clerks (UK), when those for similar genealogy organisations have been allowed? An example of the latter is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shropshire_Family_History_Society

Cheers

Myra

Howdy, Myra. The article was tagged by another editor as advertising, per the notice on your talk page. After reviewing the article, I concurred with his/her assessment and deleted the article. It appeared the be a simple list of services written in the first person (we, us, etc.) and lacking any third party external coverage to establish notability. If you'd like, I'd be happy to place a copy of the article in your userspace so that you can continue to improve it; but the existing version is not in compliance with our guidelines. If you'd like me to do, please let me know; I'd be delighted to answer any other specific questions. Kuru talk 18:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] papertrading

hey you took down some good valid stuff for papertrading including stuff that i did even add?

why pray tell? a link to an educational site that is 100% free is totally on topic can't be inapproptiate, why don't you want people to have this information, (its free non commercial site, designed to teach peole, allow them to practice---thats why it was set up: free paper trading online!!!) i think people looking up papertrading would want to know this dont you????? patrick (zippymobile)

You're adding promotional links to your site, again, on topics that tangentially related or topics that do not need external links to 'examples'. Please open discussions on the appropriate talk pages of the articles if you insist; and please read WP:COI when you have an opportunity. Thanks. Kuru talk 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 70.169.31.108

here is a link to a reverted edit due to the edit summary i thought i would inform the blocking admin[5]

[edit] Block on User talk:86.14.3.247

The guy was starting to go after my user page. Thanks for the block.

--KNHaw (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, friend. Kuru talk 01:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic User talk message?

You recently reverted a page blank NASA.

You also placed this (Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to NASA . Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits.) on the user talk of the person that did this.

Was that an automatic message? If so how? If not, wow, you're quick! Mitchowen 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are scripts which allow you to automate rollbacks and placing templates on other editor's pages. The most useful one is Lupin's Navigation Popups, which allows you to revert certain edits easily (amongst other cool things). The other one I use is Kbh3rd's warning toolbox, which allows you to have one button placement of pre-defined messages for common vandals. Both of those links have decent directions on how to add the scripts to your user set up. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! Kuru talk 03:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about the deletion of page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_entry_scam

Hello! 01:59, 10 August 2007 Kuru (Talk | contribs) deleted "Data entry scam" (CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement from http://www.usejob.com/data_entry_scams.htm)

If there is a sentence, 'For anti-scam purpose, this article can be distributed to other places under no conditions.' at the webpage http://www.usejob.com/data_entry_scams.htm, can the page 'Data entry scam' be restored?

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Youngerleo (talk • contribs).

Regretfully, my understanding is that any non-free use condition, such as "for anti-scam purpose" places restrictions on the contribution and is incompatible with the GFDL license you agree to when you submit text. I'm also afraid that even if the copyright issue was resolved, there is still an article unsupported by any reliable sources and of questionable notability. Kuru talk 03:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about the deletion of the article: Butch Borchers

yes, it's about a person. A person who invented an extremely important type of air compressor that is used by millions. I recently conducted an interview with him and am trying to report my information. It's a legitimate part of automotive history. I DO NOT KNOW THIS MAN. I AM A RESEARCHER. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OrphenCB (talk • contribs).

You realize I can still see your first couple of attempts at sharing your 'research'? Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Kuru talk 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism of Build-Operate-Transfer

Why the hell did I receive a message that I vandalized it? While in fact, all that I added into it are truth. Philippines is really part of the program Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) and I just added it to its right place.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.105.139.62 (talk • contribs).

The edit I reverted and warned you for was blanking the entire article and replacing it with "OWNED". You can see the diff here. Kuru talk 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. Sorry for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.105.136.181 (talk • contribs).

[edit] User:Aatomic1

This editor that you blocked last night is using sockpuppets to evade their block and edit war. Please see the history of Birmingham pub bombings. Kind regards. 217.44.10.252 12:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems there are new editors doing exactly what this editor was blocked for could you have a look dont want to get in to an edit war with these new editors thanks. BigDunc 12:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been eleven changes made here[[6]] since this morning they are trying to get it blocked with the names of the dead included against consensus.BigDunc 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I am unable to react to this during the day; checking now. Kuru talk 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It would appear the article is now semi-protected, which will prevent him from using socks to continue to edit war for now. If he ages a few accounts and starts reverting with them, or if he immediately returns from his block and starts the same activity, please let me know. For now I've added Birmingham pub bombings to my watchlist. Kuru talk 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince2 and the anonymous spammer

Hi there Kuru, I saw the excellent work that you did on trying to remove the spam links from the external links section of the Prince2 article. I have tried to resurrect this effort and I have put the page out to RFC. Unfortunately only one user has commented and it is undoubtedly the anonymous spammer. Obviously there is no point doing an RFC if the anonymous spammer can post whatever anonymous comments he wants. You seem to be a far more experienced wikipedian than myself and was wondering if you had any ideas what to do? Wikikob 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that Wikikob finds it necessary to trouble you Kuru, but I cannot allow his abuse to pass without comment.
I am apparently "the anonymous spammer". A disgraceful allegation of course, name calling simply because I dared to disagree with him. In fact my comments following his were my first ever and I have no affiliation with any commercial entity in this field at all.
Contrary to his comments there are clearly a number of contributors supporting retention of those links, such as Stevo, PRINCEAndy and others. You probably recall this fact.
I would also draw your attention to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk.
Statements he made on there like "I am determined not to let him beat me" are of concern as they illustrate a mission other than to contribute to the quality of the page. The (short) edit history of Wikikob comprises almost entirely of deletions and no content input. This is not wrong in itself, but it is not usual for someone to engage in such a determined campaign with such a background.
Doesn't this strike you as strange? Well it did me, which is why I took a look and have taken the trouble to counter him. I find it hard to believe that a casual observer would register and behave like this straight off the bat. It does not make sense. It seems to me that he does have some other mission.
Hopefully the community here will flush this out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.110.218.226 (talk) 14:49, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
I have not looked at the PRINCE2 article in quite some time - I'll take a look again and read through the commentary when I get an opportunity. Kuru talk 14:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at all the commentary and links and have responded at Talk:PRINCE2. Kuru talk 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kuru, I am getting fed up with this anonymous user who keeps following me around and I hardly feel its worth bothering you with this but I have to counter assertions such as "the edit history of Wikikob comprises almost entirely of deletions and no content input" and that I am a recently registered user. The truth is that I registered as a user in October 2004 and have made substantial contributions to the Prince2 article. This is my first experience with a wikipedia troll and it just makes me wonder why wikipedia allows anonymous users to contribute. Why not ask everyone to register? Oh well, all part of my learning experience. Anyway, thanks for your input. Wikikob 08:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it. You're a professional and should have a thicker skin by now... :) As to anonymous edits; you might be stunned at how much of the encyclopedia is built through IP addresses. I've spent a lot of time on recent changes patrol, and the ratio of good edits to overt vandalism is about 10 to 1, with some of the edits being major. Yes, it's annoying to track down a persistent vandal with a rotating IP, but I'm happy to take the time out to do it if it saves the anonymous edit ability of the other 9 editors. :) Kuru talk 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Duncan

Hi there, as the Tim Duncan article is now undergoing FAC, and I've noticed you do edit the article from time to time, I was wondering what are your thoughts regarding the state/quality of the article? Thanks. Chensiyuan 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks spectacular; I actually read through a good portion of it last night. Y'all are doing your normal great job on the NBA articles; it's nice to see the Spurs get some development. Kuru talk 15:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Our pleasure! Chensiyuan 16:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Tutorial

Kuru, I think the Wikipedia tutorial needs to be fixed to explain how to cite references, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Can you help? --Foggy Morning 03:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting; I've never played around with the tutorial pages there before. Using the php style ref tags might be a little confusing for new users, though. They should probably be mentioned somewhere in there so that people at least know what they are when they see the code. Maybe a pointer to the mediawiki help page on them? Kuru talk 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The Mediawiki help page is pretty techy-babble -- I guess I say that because I don't understand it! :-) But I've picked up the drift about how <ref></ref> and {{Reflist}} and <references/> work to link citations to text in Wikipedia. That's not very complicated. And citation templates aren't too complicated once you get used to them, working on a basic level. (For me, not 100% correct, but I try to get the main info in place.)
Some experienced Wikipedia editors think that references are quotes, believe it or not. I checked the definitions in Financial ratio against a book I have and cited the source I used, and User:pgreenfinch thought I was creating a "quotefarm". I was just trying to give a source for the information I could confirm, and tag the other information as uncomfirmed or unsourced. Another experienced Wikipedia editor, User:gregalton seemed to support citing a reference for article text, but he doesn't usually cite references for his additions to Wikipedia. So I think that editors don't know how to do this, even experienced editors.
I don't think it's too complicated to replace the Wikipedia Tutorial explanation about External Links with an explanation about how to use ref tags and reflists to cite sources for text in Wikipedia. But I don't know how to edit the tutorial pages.
If there are some Wikipedia politics involved with this issue, I'm sorry if I'm rocking the boat. --Foggy Morning 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aatomic1

Could you please have a look at this, [7]. Despite this [8] and an ongoing mediation, this editor continues with edit warring. [9] [10] [11]. Thanks --Domer48 22:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's amazing. I've protected the page for now pending the conclusion of your mediation. Other comments on the article's talk page. Kuru talk 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Thank you for protecting Birmingham pub bombings, while I work on getting consensus. Dreamy \*/!$! 14:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Buffalo Watershed.png

Hi, you created this picture. Would it be possible for you to give it a bit more contrast, the blue is very light and difficult to see. --213.155.231.26 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC) (too lazy to login for this simple message, greetings anyway)

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the text is pretty crappy - I'll try to fire up the mapping material next time I get some time off. Kuru talk 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result: no violation)

Can I ask you to reconsider your decision? The contributor in question is gaming the system to the extreme, and WP:MEAT is akin to WP:SOCK in Wikipedia's books. I left an additional comment on the 3RR page article.

There wouldn't be a problem if the above contributor was promoting verifiable fact, but instead is agressively promoting a personal "theory" agenda in reverting the same. I have done much to get mediation in this, but in the meantime User:Hardouin is doing all he can to profit from the low traffic/level of knowledge of most English wiki contributors in these articles to promote personal agenda over fact. The facts are readily available (and even obvious), if you have the time to read the relevent talk page - in looking at this perhaps this user's agenda will be clearer: reverting to the same unverifiable terminology again and again on the same articles, and this for more than two years now - and yesterday's reverts were just more of the same. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Promenader's aggressive behavior and accusations

Hi Kuru. Just discovered Promenader's accusations today. This is not the first time this happens. This must be the 7th or 8th time this user accuses someone of being my sock-puppet and files 3RR complaints against me. Whenever someone agrees with me and disagrees with him, then it must necessarily be my sock-puppet! He even asked some admin to check if their was sock-puppetry once, but of course the admin couldn't find any sock-puppetry, yet this hasn't stopped Promenader from renewing accusations as you can see. I wonder if you know a way I could report Promenader's behavior. His harassment is reaching extremes. Whenever I edit Wikipedia he reverts my edits within hours with complete disregard for civility and Wikilove, then go on making accusations and starts fights. It has lasted for almost two years now. Two years of harassment! I have told admins before, but nobody has really inquired on Promenader's behavior so far. Do you know any admin that could check this? If you're interested I can give you a list of editors who have witnessed Promenader's behavior in the past two years and who will happily tell you about his behavior. Hardouin 09:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice that everything in the above is but an insinuative attempt at character assasination, and that nothing in the above concerns anything about disputed fact. I'm sorry that I am so insistant in my efforts to see that the concerned articles (those concerning Paris, as far as I'm concerned - and no further) remain verifiable, but the fact of the matter is very simple and accessible to all. As for my behaviour, I have never resorted to sock-puppetry (as User:Hardouin has), nor sought the aid of those not knowledgable in the subjects I am dealing to "back" my edits, nor partaken in behind-the-scenes e-mail campaigns to garner the favour of (France-ignorant) admins and contributors. As for civility: one can only maintain WP:FAITH for so long; User:Hardouin and I live in the same region, and I (as well as he) know that he is fully aware of the fact of what he writes, and this (hi)story has been going on for more than two years now for everything concerning low-traffic Paris articles. ～～～～ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePromenader (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC) - sorry, was working from a shift-jis-only IBM computer. THEPROMENADER 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re the eXile and WP:BLP

User:Dsol has been shopping his complaint around for a long time now, including with User:SlimVirgin and User:Brighterorange and nobody has yet taken him up on his proposal that the eXile article should include phrases about a named well known celebrity having 2 vaginas and a named well known reporter having a horse sperm creme pie shoved in his face. Please see SlimVirgin's removal of this tabloid information [13]

Please remember that WP:BLP states that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and that biographical info for LPs must be stated conservatively. Dsol might object that it is all quoted by reliable sources: a) not true, b) irrelevant,

a) the couple of sources he's managed to dig up are just saying that the eXile said "..." Quite a difference. They also say things like (approx) "The eXile visciously attacks innocent people and goes well beyond the bounds of decency." Without the qualifiers, the article is simply misleading.

b) irrelevant. The info as presented is still direct from a tabloid, still not conservatively presented, still misleading, and not needed in the article. On it's face it is completely against WP:BLP. Nobody at WP:BLPN will support him so he shops it elsewhere. Do please look at his claimed support by User:The Evil Spartan, and please be aware that he will misquote you too.

In short, I can't see anything to discuss with Dsol, he wants to include garbage in a Wikipedia article, and I'll revert it. If you want to decide this matter, I'll ask that you look closely at the article and what Dsol wants in there very carefully. Also please look at what other administrators have done.

Thanks in advance for your carefulness.

24.127.156.41 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't extensively argue with this anon's comments here because I've already adressed them at the BLP noticeboard page, and since it's better to keep discussion centralized anyway. I would only repeat that the 4 sources I cited are not merely repeating the eXile's claims, and do assert the incident as fact, e.g. the salon inteviewer also reported personally seeing photos of the incident, and one source even claimed to have fact-checked it with the NYT by phone. I think this anon's behavior goes well beyond requesting reliable sources into wilful censorship. I would encourage you to read the links if you have any doubts, and if possible explain to this anon that s/he should assume good faith, as at this point s/he "no longer sees" anything to discuss with me. Dsol 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with SV's actions as the material was presented at the time; the sources sucked and the allegations were presented as fact. Both the material, and the sources have changed since then. Honestly, we could probably do without the salacious details, but that's something you two should continue to discuss. You both seem like intelligent adults capable of finding some language that both illustrates the events and does so responsibly. Please continue the discussion at the BLP noticeboard before blindly reverting the material. Kuru talk 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birmingham Pub Bombings

Some Dumbot has unprotected Birmingham Pub Bombings Aatomic1 12:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [14]

Hi Kuru. I noticed that you hardblocked this user for having an inappropriete username, but that you used the {{Usernameblocked}}, instead of the {{Usernamehardblocked}} on their talk page. That's perfectly fine, but I think for hardblocking inappropriete usernames, the message would have been more clear with the other template. No worries, though.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - I hit the wrong button... :) Should be fixed now. Kuru talk 17:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked JBHSBandGeek

Thank you for addressing my problem. I actually do not remember posting anything about Disney. It's possible that someone logged on using my screen name. I'll change my password so that no one can edit anything under my name again. Thanks! (JBHSBandGeek 18:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] re 172.129.240.83 block

Thanks for your message at my talkpage. I have requested 172.129.240.83 clarify their reason for unblock on their talkpage. I don't see any point in lifting a block just so they can test how far they can push before getting muzzled again, but I don't mind a "goodwill" reduction in tariff if they make a reasonable case.

I am commenting here because it is late in the UK and I may well go offline before any response from the editor. If you are still online please feel free to amend the tariff as you see fit. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 00:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked, on the basis that a vandal hopefully reformed now is better than a revenging vandal in two days time. I'm off to bed forthwith, so I will request you supply the banhammer if they do go back to old practices. LessHeard vanU 00:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Understood - I'll check in on him from time to time. Kuru talk 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range blocks

Hi, I have my own Wiki, how do I perform a range block?

If you're curious why: [15] Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, I've yet to have to pull that trigger. You can find the mediawiki instructions on it here, though. Hope that helps... Kuru talk 02:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galileo Wiki

The facts concerning Galileo are exactly as I stated them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.216.68 (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean where you changed his name to "brandon casey" a year and a half ago? Sure, sparky. Kuru talk 13:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Block of CNNfanDotCom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I released the autoblock myself, but thanks for the note! —[[Animum | talk]] 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For beating me to a whole heck of a lot of reverts. Cheers! ;) Into The Fray T/C 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I stepped on your warnings a few times - sorry!  :) Kuru talk 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conan the Cimmerian

Hello! Please see my latest entry at the Conan the Barbarian discussion page. PointDread 20:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Noted, I've replied there. If no one starts up in a few weeks, let's make the move. Kuru talk 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outsourcing

Re: your deletion of my edit. I think an article on outsourcing should mention online outsourcing, including examples (as with the examples of traditional outsourcing companies, wich I deleted as I fail to see how they add to the article). It's a very rapidly growing area. I listed several and am researching others. I actually think online outsourcing deserves its own entry, particularly with regards to the area of social responsibility - in that it gives people in developing nations the opportunity to earn income performing useful services for people in the developed world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinm5 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A big spammy list of commercial external links combined with some uncited puffery about online outsourcing is not a constructive addition to the article. Concur with the removal of the list of 'example vendors' - I think I've made the same edit in the past. Kuru talk 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)