User talk:Sam Korn/Archive9

Re: Mediation Committee

As the MedCom page says, you're more than welcome to rejoin at any time. Just pop your name on the active list, and grab an open case (or two, or three). Welcome back :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I approved your mediation-l subscription ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really

Well you are so arrogant. If you don't know with globalisation and a predominant culture that uses spanish as their languagues every other stuff like Quechua and aymara are dessapering for the good of god ^^. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.44.150 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Great Khali

I was trying to rename the page to The Great Khali's professional name.

---

--RandomGuy 9929 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Harlem mediation

Responding to the message you left on my talk page: The Harlem page is currently in the state that I prefer -- with footnotes by the facts that they are backing, so I have no complaints. You may want to contact Emerson7 directly to see if s/he still wants to see it changed. Uucp 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

i apologize for the delay...i guess i'm just not sure how this process works. i will continue with my objections comments on the harlem discussion page. --emerson7 | Talk 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

....below is a copy of what i just posted to the harlem discussion page. --emerson7 | Talk 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

since our last correspondence there have been several corrections returning the text back to my wp:foot guidelines edits and only a two remain.

2.2 The arrival of African Americans
His company, the Afro-American Realty Company, was almost single-handedly responsible for migration of blacks from their previous neighborhoods,^[6] the Tenderloin, San Juan Hill (now the site of Lincoln Center), and Hell's Kitchen in the west 40s and 50s.^[7][8] The move to northern Manhattan was driven in part by fears that anti-black riots such as those that had occurred in the Tenderloin in 1900^[9] and in San Juan Hill in 1905^[3] might recur. In addition, a number of tenements that had been occupied by blacks in the west 30s were destroyed at this time to make way for the construction of the original Penn Station.

2.4 Recent history
Finally, wealthier New Yorkers, having gentrified every other part of Manhattan and much of Brooklyn, had nowhere else to go. The number of housing units in Harlem increased 14% between 1990 and 2000^[26] and the rate of increase has been much more rapid in recent years. Property values in Central Harlem increased nearly 300% during the 1990s, while the rest of the City saw only a 12% increase.^[26]

in my understanding of wp:foot, and the 'chicago manual of style', these references should be located at the end of the nearest punctutation...in the this case, at the end of the sentence. although i sympathise, and have great respect for uupc's desire for 'intellectual honesty', if the reference tags are structured properly, with citations of page, paragraph, other relevant information, all ambiguity is clarified. the template:cite web, for example, has 22 fields designed for just that purpose. further, a complete explanation of the citation can be included with the tag to specify exactly what the editor intends.

though i completely understand the necessity for 'nearest punctuation clause', in my personal opinion, mid sentence tags make for difficult, distracted reading and should be completely avoided if possible. i favour the placement of properly formatted, well cited ref tags at the end of the sentence or thought. --emerson7 | Talk 17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hey Sam, just noticed there was activity at this talk page again. Good to see someone vigilantly rolling back things :)! (Would you believe the Twenty20 article included a sentence about "multiball" for a couple of months without anyone noticing? *sigh* ;) ) Sam Vimes | Address me 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I also want to welcome you back to activity on Wikipedia. I hope the batteries are refreshed and that you can rediscover some of the enjoyment you used to have here. Newyorkbrad 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back, both to Wikipedia and the MedCom; I look forward to meeting you in #wikipedia-mediation whenever our time zones allow so, in the future. Cheers, and best of luck, Daniel Bryant 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination

Your name is listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects - instructions for students so I welcome you to join the new WikiProject that covers classroom assignments. Regards, Durova^Charge! 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ashes urn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashes urn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK

Hi,

At some point you expressed an interest in supporting meta:Wikimedia UK. We're now ready to begin receiving applications from prospective members. If you would like to join, application forms and further information can be found at: http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/join. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, either via my user page at the English Wikipedia or by email (andrew.walker@wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks, Andreww 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Membership officer, Wikimedia UK)

EffK return

As your were involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK, could you please inform me whether this edit is line with point 5.3.1 of the Arbitration result, especially considering this issue addressed back then. Thanks for your time, Str1977 ^(talk) 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My name is Sam Korn

Hello is your name same Korn because that also is my name. Thats cool if we do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.116.234 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Oriental Orthodoxy

Hello Sam Korn, your earlier reversion of my alteration on the page Oriental Orthodoxy was unfounded, the current wording is inaccurate and potentially a POV issue. Please see the discussion page for Oriental Orthodoxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S0343463 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:CSD

Hi there and thanks for the message. I have corrected the ones I noticed listed in CSD. I will try to be more careful in future. Green Giant (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

I am allowed to delete off comments from my own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

atleast that's what I was told, well sort of redundent since I have made up a private account. Thanks for the head's up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What account?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian Killer

The editor is right, her character was a lesbian, and was a killer.... Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha, for sure. I almost did at first, too, and I figured that was what happened... thus the mild comment to you and no action on the page on my part. See you on the vandal patrol. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Page

Hi,

You recently deleted Liechtenstein_Institute_on_Self-Determination_at_Princeton_University without looking at the AfD

This log shows the deletion, please review the deletion and tell me what you think on my talk page.

Thanks,

-- The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with THO and kind of edit conflicted when I wanted to revert the blanking with an edit summary. This page definitely didn't qualify as G7, because at least 2 other editors have contributed content and the page creator doesn't own the page. --Oxymoron⁸³ 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Children of Scrotum (or Children of Bodom).

I just today (25th January 2008) went onto the article on what was Children of Bodom. However, I noticed that there was a red link where the image was, so I edited the page to see what the problem was. Well then I noticed that the picture was broken because somebody had been renaming various "Children of Bodom" titles on that page into "Children of Scrotum", which broke the image link.

Now I have looked at the other articles on Children of Bodom (such as their Discography), I have looked on Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives, and I have looked on Children of Bodom's official website (the first link when "Children of Bodom" are searched on Google). I have found absolutely no indication that Children of Bodom have changed their name to "Children of Scrotum", and given what that word actually means, I believe the edit from Bodom to Scrotum is blatant vandalism.

I did change it once, which restored the image as the link now worked with Children of Bodom in place instead of Children of Scrotum. However, subsequently, my changes were reverted and I was told to use the sandbox first. So I clicked to see what the sandbox was, and I was confronted with what appeared to be another vandalised page - sporting a big image of a man with a red beard that had been done in a program that looked like MicroSoft Paint - right in the middle of a sentence, with the single sentence on the page containing at least one typo and a reference to "I don't know who likes Hannah" or something along those lines. So, I still do not know what the sandbox is, so I tried the other suggestion made to me. I created an Edit Summary when I tried to edit the Children of Bodom page again, saying "I have read no information anywhere else to validate Children of Bodom's 'apparent' name change to "Children of Scrotum", so I am correcting what I believe is vandalism".

And I get another message, saying that I have vandalised the page, and that I should still use the sandbox. Well, as of now, I still do not know what the sandbox is thanks to a page that has absolutely no hint as to what the sandbox is, and I still am irritated that this band's page has been blatantly vandalised, unless someone can provide me with evidence that Children of Bodom have officially changed their name to "Children of Scrotum", however unlikely that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldEnglishman (talk • contribs) 20:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: It now appears, that their last name was apparently "InbreD", when in fact, they were formerly known as "IneartheD", as mentioned on Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives and previous versions of this article. The red link has been removed, despite the fact that it worked perfectly if the "Children of Scrotum" title was reversed back to "Children of Bodom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldEnglishman (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Funnyfumble5

Don't be too trigger happy with huggles, please ;). blanking = G7, not really vandalism here. Put yourself in the guy's place, receiving a warning every time he tries to fix the article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

cheetah

Sorry I was just trying to make a link title

dont worry it worked81.86.253.164 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the quick (less than 1 minute later) of the only vandalism that occured to the 1993 CIA shootings article. Yesterday was a very solemn day. It was the 15th anniversary of the event. It was featured on the main page (lower right). Now that the day has passed (by UTC), we can look back and see how nice people were not to vandalize the article on that day. Either that or the vandals weren't literate enough to pick on the article. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:84.55.114.217

I extended your block on the above user to 1 year. He has been blocked a number of times in the past. If you have a problem with this, let me know. Brianga (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

No problem. See General relativity and click through its hat note. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting take on it! No, I think Wikipedia being paperless is uniquely equipped to do both; I don't see a mutual exclusiveness. There's certainly a need for an accessible version for dullards like me and kids and a science-laden version is good too. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User Alliant

I wasn't sure what was going on there, so I thought I'd pass it up to those more experienced in these matters. I take it the page will be going then? Mjroots (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag I added to his user page, with an explanation in my edit summary. :-) Mjroots (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

You say you are considering nominating the page for MfD. If you really want to lessen disruption on Wikipedia, I seriously suggest you do not. The best possible realistic consequence is that someone would remove the tag and ignore you. Otherwise, you will find the crazy discussion has found another five pages to expand to. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you're probably right. Sigh. I know you're no longer with Arbcom, but I really think you should urge them to reconsider Paul August's motion to close out this case. From my perspective, there's no upside to keeping it open, and a lot of downside. *** Crotalus *** 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand why you say this. I'm not convinced, personally, that giving up is the solution. I don't quite know what is, but thankfully that isn't my job any more. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Jansa2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jansa2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pegasus «C¦T» 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had to delete the image because it was marked "for Wikipedia use only", per [1]. Pegasus «C¦T» 12:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rose Line

Hi, the term "Roseline" was invented by Dan Brown for his novel The Da Vinci Code and there is no earlier usage of the name in existence, unless you can find one. Also, the ray of light linked to the gnomon in the church of St Sulpice in Paris has nothing to do with a "Meridian". Wfgh66 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sources for Roseline

The sources that you are using for "Roseline" are spurious - Philip Coppens is a mystery buff and not a historical researcher. His books belong to the conspiracy theory bracket. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources relating to Da Vinci Code, Merovingians etc

You are using sources of an uncritical nature provided by people who are believers in the popular "mysteries" of Rennes-le-Chateau. The gnomon and the ray of light associated with it in the church of St Silpice has nothing to do with the Meridian, although that is how Dan Brown apparently described it in his novel. I am pretty sure that the name "RoseLine" did not exist before The Da Vinci Code because others have tried to find an earlier citation. I would be extremely interested in finding an earlier usage for the term "RoseLine" associated with the Meridian (or any other line) if someone were to find it. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The ray of light in St Sulpice church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89glise_Saint-Sulpice%2C_Paris

You can read here that the ray of light associated with the gnomon at the church of St Sulpice has nothing to do with the Paris Meridian, but with determining the time of the equinoxes and hence of Easter - quote: "At noon on the winter solstice (December 21), the ray of light touches the brass line on the obelisk. At noon on the equinoxes (March 21 and September 21), the ray touches an oval plate of copper in the floor near the altar." This is an accurate description.Wfgh66 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You're putting me out of business! Philip Trueman (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Great minds. . .

looks like we ec'd on the indef button for User:Wfgh66. Good call. Ronnotel (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your very good block on 151.198.170.29

Who has been grossly vandalizing the argon page also. Look, could we have this guy blocked for longer than 3 days, just to allow the rest of us to get work done? As far as I can see, NOTHING but vandalism has issued from this IP, EVER. So why are we coddling "it" when there are thousands of indefinitely long blocks per month issued against good faith nameusers who are not vandals, but are simply disagreeing with somebody? This whole block policy is so completely ass-backwards that it's not funny. People who obviously care about writing the right thing as to mouth off to a admin about something (often with good reason!) are banned. Whereas people who CLEARLY mean to destroy and disrupt the work by deleting stuff or writing obsenities, are blocked for 72 hours again and again and again. Madness! So please, don't 3-day block this guy the next time. Block for 3 times the time between his last vandalism and the one before. Then up from there. On the very long shot that this is a shared school IP, it's up to the guys on the other end to do something about the little delinquents, not you. SBHarris 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I do see what you are saying. It is practice not to issue long blocks to IP addresses because they are, in most cases, dynamic. You are also right that the vast majority of edits from the IP have been vandalism. If this IP comes up again, I would block for at least a week. It does not appear to be a school IP. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. But it's a fairly simple process to infer if an IP is dynamic: you look to see if EVERYTHING that issues from it is vandalism. If you have 50 cases going back for a year, it's not a dynamic IP, unless every single person using that ISP happens to be a wikivandal. In any case, this entire argument is moot, since when have pissed-off administrators, in defense of their vanity or power, ever cared about blocking IP's, or even whole ranges of IPs?? In the Wordbomb/Overstock fiasco, a whole dynamic IP range was blocked, effectively taking out the ISP Broadcom in Utah, denying Wikipedia access to a whole town, just to get at one guy. Why? Because this one guy who works for Overstock.com had made a wikipedia administrator mad by threatening to expose realworld administrator identities. The administrators care about themselves and their power far more than damage to the encyclopedia. You could erase 100 articles and write "JON is GAY!" and not get that response. You know what I'm saying is the truth. SBHarris 00:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Penis erection reverted images

Hello, Sam. You edited my correction to the subtitle of an image of Penis article. You can see the SAME image at the Erection article, with the correct subtitle. --JoaquinFerrero (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

my last edit: Unconstructive

Why ist that unconstructive? It is a Fact.

Why Vandalism? the Edit was neither unconstructive nor Vandalism.

The facts are well known in Germany.

You might want to follow the Link that is already on the webpage: http://www.polizei.bayern.de/content/7/0/1/3/schulz_eng.pdf

Read for Yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.169.236 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem resolved: Best wishes :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.169.236 (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Having grown up in the area, my associates and I do believe this represents an accurate portrayal of the demographic. Please refrain from editing topics to which you have no prior knowledge in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.143 (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[2] I haven't got a clue how to respond to this. Do I point you to WP:NPOV? WP:OR? WP:V? WP:RS? WP:AIV? Any suggestions? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wfgh66

Why did you remove the tag? The user's block log says they are still indef blocked. He has a new sock called User:Snowball8000 now spamming priory-of-sion.tripod.com in Pierre Plantard, which I was trying to rewrite based on reliable secondary sources. Charged in and even ignored an {{inuse}} template, causing edit conflicts, broke named refs, etc. I had to abandon my efforts due to multiple reverts by this user. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

no good deed goes unpunished. :) Ronnotel (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pussyman

While I have no personal objection to your deletion notice on this article, the claim that there are no "on line references" is a bit odd. I googled "Pussyman" and got over 4 million Ghits. There are no internal references on the page, it is true, but, it would not take much to add some from the 4,000,000. Trash is trash from my perspective, but I wouln't want to get in the way of someone else's hobby. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: CU

hahaha sorry! I didn't check the requester to be honest, I just wanted to point that out (ie. that if you don't get a confirmed you're screwed if the guy is smarter than the average idiot) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)