User talk:Kuyabribri

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Open source javanism

Having done Javanese religion and mysticism at university I couldnt believe it when I saw it - I support your prod - it is amazing some of the random stuff we get at the Indonesian project that we see on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/IndonesiaSearchResult - cheers SatuSuro 15:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ramayana sites in Sri Lanka

I speedied this as a copyvio, you may now close the AFD. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 20:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

White Serbs

Thank you. I was too busy to nominate it for deletion, and it is better when articles aren't tagged for too long. -- Zz (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on keeping the Chris Arrowsmith article from deletion. Chris (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Ford

here are some references to Stuart Ford (Footballer)

Scarborough FC list players http://www.seadogsfans.co.uk/X21PlayerDbaseA-K.htm

http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=2595

http://www.gresleyfc.com/players/?id=2

I hope this helps

Stuart Ford history

Notsowiseowl (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you've demonstrated to me that he exists. There is still the issue of whether he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people). Please opine on that matter at the deletion discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Ford. Other contributors to the deletion discussion may not see the comments you leave here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

article title

Hi Kuyabribri, thanks for making me aware of that deletion. In fact, my ultimate aim is to change the title of Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) to a more neutral one. However, its habitual usage and some users' position on Wikipedia make it almost impossible. I happen to find a sentence in Wikipedia:Article titles (“Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common.”), could you please tell me if it might help me somehow, as I don't know well all wiki rules? Thank you.--LaGrandefr (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I only got involved in this because the original nominator incorrectly created an AfD discussion when RfD was the appropriate venue, and I intend to remain neutral in the discussion. That being said, in response to your question/concern, if you can demonstrate that there is some usage of the term "restoration of Tibet" to refer to this event, you should cite it in your "keep" argument. I've done a quick search on "Chinese restoration of Tibet" and "restoration of Tibet" and have only found this redirect on Wikipedia.

One comparison point I can think of offhand would be the various names for the American Civil War. Several POV names for this war such as War of Northern Aggression and War of the Rebellion exist as redirects to the fork article Naming the American Civil War, but in each of those cases there is reliable source evidence that each of these terms is used by some group to refer to the American Civil War.

Another comparison point I can think of would be the POV names for the Iraq War that exist as redirects, such as Iraqnam and Vietnam War II. In both of those cases a Google search shows that some group uses those terms to refer to that conflict.

I am not as well-versed in RfD as I am in AfD, so I don't really have any indication as to how am admin might judge this debate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never tried thinking of renaming Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951), knowing that it's practically an impossible mission, though the title is evidently over abiased. Chinese restoration of Tibet is created to balance a little the controversial title, and I don't think it's necessary to apply Wikipedia:OR on a redirect page. However, “Chinese restoration of Tibet” may still find its equivalence in Chinese sources, i.e. “西藏回归中国” or “中国收复西藏”, and we can then find plenty of usage.--LaGrandefr (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kuyabribri. You have new messages at C628's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

C628 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Its a malformed nomination

I do apologise I am still learning how to use AFD properly but it was an attempt at a nomination for deletion

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bobo (gorilla)

Hello! Your submission of Bobo (gorilla) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Marylanderz (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Woody Woodward

I think your suggestion that Woody Woodward (baseball) be moved to Woody Woodward is an excellent one. I'm sorry that we seem to be working at cross-purposes. I spent far too much time changing internal links from Woody Woodward to Woody Woodward (baseball manager), only to realize that the page had moved to Woody Woodward (baseball). D'oh! Cnilep (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Uninformative deletion summaries

Sorry, I'm trying to be clearer in my summaries these days.

It was a request for a pagemove (to remedy a miscapitalization); that was dealt with. DS (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Snurricane

Hey Kuyabribri--just wanted to thank you for stepping in on Snurricane and providing guidance as to the next step to take on getting the article evaluated... I'd been looking to see how to short-circuit the edit war over the prod tags, but AfD didn't come to mind for some reason. Thanks so much for pointing out the appropriate procedure--I'll be sure to keep it in mind for the future if any cases like this arise again! -- Tehae (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of App Store applications (Science)

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of App Store applications (Science), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of App Store applications (Science). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

{{130.76.64.16|[[WP:Block#Evasion of blocks|Block evasion]]: [[User:Jaredkunz30]] evading block.|Jayron32}}

• I've lowered the block so that registered users can still use the ip, you should be ok now but if it didn't work please post another unblock request. Sorry for the inconvenience. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD nomination of Silicone Power Battery

While you make some good points in the nomination, sources not being in English is not considered a valid deletion reason. While English sources are certainly preferred, they are not required. For future reference, Google Translate does a fairly good job with Chinese, you can usually at least get the general idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I pulled up those two sources and found they only mention the article subject in passing, so I still stand behind my prod. I'll try to remember Google Translate from now on. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

09 WS

Thanks for the Paterson update! As someone who has looked at that article a fair amount, think it's ready for another run at FAC? I addressed the issues raised in the last attempt, but it just sort of petered out, and it's since become a GA. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with going for another FA run. I'm currently in the process of doing some CE on the article. I'll probably have a little more to clean up on the Paterson section when I get back to it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Doom Troopers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doom Troopers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doom Troopers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

--Explodicle (T/C) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David C. Hëwitt

Kuyabribri - Thanks for the concern. At the time I relisted the article, I personally did not feel there was consensus, although a delete will probably be the outcome. Trust me, if nothing changes in a day or two, another admin will come along and delete it. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)