User talk:Kukini/Archive15

Edit summaries, post/archive box

You're right, I have been sloppy at times by not including a summary for an edit, although I have made good summaries with other edits. Again your right, the post and archive box is better at the top, its easier for Users to post or look at the archives. Cwb61 03:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Horwich/Archive1

I tried to archive Talk:Horwich, but I've done something wrong. When I click on Enter the archives the first page is Talk:Horwich/Archive. On the top left of this page has:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Horwich

No problem so far. But when I click into 'archive 01' the User talk:Horwich/Archive1 page appears, but on the top left of this pages doesn't show the "< Talk:Horwich". I've looked at other page archives and all have the "< Talk:whatever". Could you look into this problem? I'm logging off now so there's no hurry to look into it or to reply. Cwb61 04:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting Horwich's archive page. It isn't large enough to be archived. If it does become too large in the future, I'll ask you to get it archived properly. Cwb61 15:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Theater of the Mind by Ludacris

You do realise that there are no proof of any tracks or even stupid rumors for the songs in Ludacris's Theater of the Mind, right? And I am wondering why you are even watching this page? Uh comment by Maniac_lonestar, I dont like how wikipedia works, i can even edit ur info page????? thats fucked up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maniac lonestar (talk • contribs) 08:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

re:RFA

I have answered your questions on my RFA, I hope it's okay to answer directly below your comment, but if not please feel free to drop me a line and I'll move it up. I hope I have answered your question, and please feel free to ask for clarification if need be :) SGGH 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I will be sure to take your comments to heart and work harder on interacting with IP vandals as you suggest :) thanks for the heads-up! SGGH 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the cute penguin gift! It's very sweet! lol! Thankyou! Sapient Vesta 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

with regards to borrowing it - sorry!! lol! I didn't mean to :( Oh dear! lol!Sapient Vesta 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Blah Blah Blah Got your lovey-dovey sad and lonely

.......already blocked for username violation - at least some people can see our point of long usernames! Good work with WP:RFA, just seen a couple of your votes and you've done great research Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Username suggestion

Where are we going to create this RFCN extra archive?! I'm in! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest naming it "Index_by_reason" (as distinct from "Index_by_name"), because "Institutional memory" is too general (and could even refer to the Archive). I'd also suggest that the date given after "Blocked"* or "Allowed" should link to the archive oldid and section of the decision. *And "Blocked" should read "Disallowed", which is the actual decision; sometimes it results in a name change rather than a block. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Email

...........coming your way! (I'm in bed an about to fall asleep but I'll reply when I wake up!) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

My first!!!! It was fun working on the WP:U Religious Figures policy. I hope it works! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And thanks also for the tools. Greatly appreciated!! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: A Thank You

No problem on the policy work. I was getting a headache with the discussions! Thanks for the IM page, that will be very very helpful. Although some may say otherwise, there are such a thing as precidence, even here on Wikipedia... it's called fairness! Thanks for your work on that IM page! Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea why there are so many strong reactions to the concept of "precedence" here? I have been curious for a while. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it has a lot to do with people wanting to change things on the fly... they feel that concepts like "Precedence" sound too much like lawyer terms. I really don't think some people fully understand the concept. If a decision against user X is made, and user Y does the same thing, precedence states that user Y should also have a decision against... its just a concept of fairness. But too many people here would rather have the authority to decide against user X and for user Y, thinking that "Oh, these are 'unrelated' although exactly the same, so we just come up with whatever fits the emotion of the time". A community without rules and precedence in decision, is a community in chaos. The faster people realize this, the better. Thanks for your help in creating the rule of precedence. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah...but let us not call it that. I would rather focus on what we need to do to continue developing an equitable and transparent approach on these matters. I found myself becoming inconsistent along with the crowd the other day. This sorta spooked me, so I adjusted my approach to look over the case history. Thus the new page in the project. I find that even those who say they don't believe in precedence here are for clarity in following history and historical decisions, while making their new judgments. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is more of just maintaining consistancy. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:68.230.195.100

I have no clue what your Ebonics message was about.

That last message was directed to Kukini, who was kind enough to advise me of a reversion to an article I know nothing about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:68.230.195.100 (talk • contribs)

Another username query

Hi again. What do you think of W1K1P3D14N (talk · contribs)? It violates the spirit of WP:U, but the "wikipedia" is in IRC format. I tend to think it's ok. I haven't contacted the user yet. Thoughts? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 07:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration

I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Kukini, thanks for supporting my RFA. It ended successfully. Cheers! SGGH 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Info

Can you please send me the requirements for becoming a Wiki-Admin Person. I'm intrested in the distant future and would like to know what I have to do! Thankx WackadooXanadu2 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What did i do wrong?

I fail to see what i did wrong when i edited the rugby fives artice to remove what is obviously just a copy and paste of the whole article without any formatting at all...it was basically a wall of text that had already been written 81.152.136.217 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: My Barnstar

Thanks! mattbr 15:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...

FYI...this is a public access wifi IP address.

I'm currently in an Islamic Civ. II class...looking up a few maps when I got a spamming message. Sorry, man..not me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.85.42 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexandria2031

Thank you very much for your message, I will be sure to do so!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandria2031 (talk • contribs)

Kubwa

i would realy like someone out their to enlighting me on how to edit a page..plss!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubwa (talk • contribs)

Edit user page

May you please edit my user page? I need to edit my because my user page is too ugly. I want a user page like yours please. Jet123 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, he edited water again

User:207.28.146.213 edited water again, I reverted it, but since he got his last warning could you block him? Klosterdev 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to edit two names

Hello Kukini, I would like to erase two names on a list that a friend put on as a joke. When I click on edit the names do not appear. What can I do? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natybottle (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Template Question

Greetings, Kukini!

I was looking at Boogiepanda's page here, and noticed your "Welcome" message. I have a similar one that's on my page, but if I want to welcome someone I have to go into "edit" mode, copy the code, and paste it into that person's page. There has to be an easier way! I'm assuming there's some kind of template that handles this, but I haven't been able to find it (or them). Can you help me?

Thanks for any assistance you can render.

Regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (who has set your page on his watchlist, so feel free to respond here)

Sorry

Sorry if you thought I was vandalizing on WP:AIV or if my intentions were bad. I had the wrong IP (I copied and pasted hastily). --24.136.230.38 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your vandalism warnings to User:128.210.84.35

His edit to Anaheim Ducks was technically legit, because the Ducks do use orange as the main team color (even if it's not the majority color on their uniforms). I have a bunch of Ducks merchandise and all of them (besides the jerseys) use orange dominantly. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you weren't out of line, but I think you should've explained the reversions to the user more clearly. The edit summary suggestion is definitely a good move, but it helps to specify exactly why the edits are being reverted. The message was a test1, yes, but I think a custom-written message would have been more helpful to him. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's guilty of that sooner or later, I think, to varying degrees. No big. (Although the Ducks edit with the orange is somewhat obscure, unless you're a Ducks fan like me; most people assume the team color is gold because of the jersey, but it's actually orange.) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

SLAM234

Kukini Please refrain from making inappropriate threats on my page. Any deletions or alterations I have made to ANY content have been solely to correct ERRORS, and nothing more. Suggesting sabatoge is WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE. You also neglected to reference specifically what deletion you were talking about. While I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, please respond more carefully next time, and consider the content of what you are reading. In response to your criticism however, I will from now on include a note as to what change I have made in the header. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by SLAM234 (talk • contribs)

I have never edited your user talk page, from what I can see. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 04:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Farpoint etc.

I plan on doing articles on both Farpoint and the other "red links" as soon as I can find the time, but you're probably right, the links should be added when there is something to link to.
Anyway, thank you for seeing the relevance of this subject. :o)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael riber jorgensen (talk • contribs)

User:BIG, South Park, and a mysterious audio clip

Hoping to get your opinion here to resolve what I believe to be a pair of purely subjective, unverifiable edits to Free Willzyx and The Snuke, two episodes of South Park. User:BIG believes that both episodes feature a clip of music from the old fighting game Darkstalkers (specifically 1997's Vampire Savior but that's neither here nor there). Upon reading this claim, I went ahead and re-watched both episodes in an attempt to "confirm" this tidbit. In my opinion, the music is so generic it could have come from anywhere - The Hunt for Red October (film), The Peacemaker (1997 film), basically, any piece of fiction involving sinister Russians. I removed both items and explained my logic to User:BIG but he is insistent and reinstated the claims. What is the best course of action here? Marking them as "citation needed" is meaningless, because unless the creators of South Park were to specifically identify the source of their background music, the claim cannot be "verified." It's subjective, and in my opinion, that makes it invalid for encyclopedic purposes. But I don't want to have to babysit these articles over these edits - there's no point in that. What would you suggest? Request for Comment or something? --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Been meaning to thank you for the kind welcome and information. I hope to be able to contribute to wikipedia as I use it often. Love2bebookish 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

24.218.139.157

STOP IT! Kukini, you are picking on me. I will be forced report you for inappropiate use of authority if you threaten to block me again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.139.157 (talk • contribs)

Stop Harassing Me!

YOU NEED TO STOP SENDING ME THIS MESSAGE -- AS MANY TIMES AS YOU SEND IT, I WILL STILL NOT HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT IT IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. STOP HARASSING ME.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.195.100 (talk • contribs)

Reply

To be honest with you, it's going to be knocked off my watchlist soon. People are trying to change RFCN who have never been involved in it, simply because they don't like it. To be perfectly honest, I think a lot comes down to people not understanding the username policy well enough. With regards to the Freaky4jesus, precendents are important if we're going to be fair to all users. There's AGF with some usernames, but policy is policy, it could insult someones beliefs, and that should be the end of it. Argghhh, I'm ranting now, but I think we have the same opinions on the matter. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"unreferenced"

The {{unreferenced}} page explains that placing of the template is the subject of disagreement; there are two options — in a "sources" section at the bottom of the page or the article's Talk page. At the top of the article isn't acceptable, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of edits to List of Texas Tech University people

Please do not revert additions because articles for the people have not yet been created. Some red links are allowed if future articles are likely. If you are concerned that the articles are not being created quickly enough, you may create them yourself. Also, unless the information is obviously untrue, use {{fact}} to request reference information (the tag was created for this purpose). Thanks! Keep up the good work. --Wordbuilder 18:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we disagree on this issue. I believe that it is not good practice to allow the listing of redlinked individuals as "notable" that are not at least referenced. Allowing such listings will allow far too many hoax individuals to be added as "notable." Thank you for your concern and comments. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I just looked at the page and am very happy to see all redlinked individuals have citations now. Wonderful work!!!--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point of view. I was a bit miffed at first (sorry if I sounded harsh!) since I would have had an easier time fixing had you just used the {{fact}} tag. Nevertheless, even though I had researched before adding, some contributors don't so your change makes sense. --Wordbuilder 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your work is great on that page! You would not believe how many other "notable" pages are not so well cared-for. Peace, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 05:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kukini. Keep up the good work and take care. --Wordbuilder 14:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Case in point: [1]. I really appreciate the work you are doing to make this list viable and valid. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You got me there. A quick Google search showed one page stating Jensen Ackles attended Tech but many that stated he only planned to attend. --Wordbuilder 16:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Henry Road

Hi Kukini,

I noticed you removed the speedy deletion tag from The Henry Road. Do you think the article should be kept or deleted? If you think it should be kept, I won't bother with AfD.

The companion article, Wagon pop, should probably stay or go together with The Henry Road.

Best regards,

Fg2 07:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WC Alumni

demanding citations is not what you did the first time around; you wikified names that clearly had info about their companies linked there. furthermore, i have deleted many non-notable entries already before you arrived....it seems you added to the list. lastly, names that already have entries generally have the documentation on the main page about them; what you are doing i would consider cluttering. ask yourself what is simpler, more pleasing to the eye, and more in the spirit of wikipedia....your version or mine. good day! WillC 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

First, the List of Washington College alumni now has citations requested, not demanded. Second, labeling other editors' work as "careless" is far from WP:civility, nor is is constructive. As for the issue of aesthetics, I find the List of Texas Tech University people article far more aesthetically pleasing and more in keeping with wikipedia's spirit. I believe that it is not good practice to allow the listing of redlinked or unlinked individuals as "notable" that are not at least referenced. Allowing such listings will allow far too many hoax individuals to be added as "notable." Finally, I have added no new individuals to the list, as you claim I have. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you are grasping by playing semantic games. Yes, you were careless by wikifying entries for Scott Newman and Bob Jackson. As one who regularly works on the page in question, I have several times had to revert them from linking to people with the same name with wikipedia entries who are not them. Feel free to look at my recent work on the list. I have been a leader in policing vanity entries and other undocumentable information. You and other zealous editors around wikipedia need to take the progression of editing archives and editing regulars there into account before condescendingly swooping in; it is obvious i'm not a rookie and that this particular wikipedia page is a work in progress if you note my recent activity there. WillC 19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The great majority of your edits are on 3 days, April 9th, 11th, and 12th. This is not exactly a super-long history of editing on a page. AND, most importantly, the page is owned by us all, not whomever has been editing on it most recently. Finally, the blanking of discussion on your talk page, instead of archiving the discussion does not make you out to look very experienced on wikipedia.Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 19:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

i've been monitoring/editing it and the main entry for months, but again april 9, 11, and 13 sound pretty recent to me. in any case, i have begun contacting other people among the "all of us" that own the site to find the documentation. i consider this episode over. WillC 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This editor has a continued pattern of blanking notices on her/his user talk page. Here is the most recent, where my notice on the talkpage was referred to as vandalisim [2]. I now am concerned about the intentions of this editor and will have to keep an eye on things on a more ongoing fashion. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts

Hmm yes, apparently he was "already aware of the tags".. I have requested that if that is the case he uses them, if he is going to take it upon himself to revert vandalism. Not entirely sure of the ins and outs of your differences with him, but I've suggested he just drops it.. I trust it is not in your interest to waste anymore time needlessly arguing, so I hope the pair of you can forget it and spend your time doing more productive things. Keep up the good work, LibLord 23:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, LibLord. I really have no personal agenda in this whatsoever. Just working to make sure that the lists of "notable" people are, in fact notable. My only issues are with the quality of our work on wikipedia. I note you have a similar focus and appreciate your comments to new users learning how to respond appropriately to vandals on wikipedia. I appreciate this in you as well as you clear and consistent level-headedness. Keep up the GREAT work! Best,--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 04:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hah how kind, I'm flattered! =) LibLord 11:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Might be better just to spank 'im.

He's been doing this for about three hours or so. Maybe a day-long block'll get his attention? HalfShadow 05:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as a cooling off period. Hope he does not make us sprotect the page as well. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)