User talk:Kww

Archives at:

1. User talk:Kww/04022009
2. User talk:Kww/Archive05202009
3. User talk:Kww/Archive09072009
4. User talk:Kww/04012010
5. User talk:Kww/04232010
6. User talk:Kww/06052010
7. User talk:Kww/06182010
8. User talk:Kww/07182010
9. User talk:Kww/07242010
10. User talk:Kww/11012010
11. User talk:Kww/04142011
12. User talk:Kww/08252011
13. User talk:Kww/03122012
14. User talk:Kww/11032012
15. User talk:Kww/06092013
16. User talk:Kww/12072013

Charlie (November)

He still editing and attacking as 86.143.88.0 (talk · contribs). Thanks. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

He has juped to 86.160.8.72 (talk · contribs) per the typical warns he left. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Persistent, isn't he?

Overagainst has FAR'd Holloway and guess who jumped right in with promptness behind him? here.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Undoing

Hello Kww, I would request your input regarding this undoing at Do What U Want here. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Kww I have another query for you. I see that you have developed the singlechart template. I wanted to know that for the Irish charts, would it be possible for you to somehow have the week included as part of the reference title or outside it? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Coffee's talk page.
Message added 07:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Coffee // have a cup // essay // 07:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

DRV

Two things:

1. The DRV never had a chance of overturning the closure. I wouldn't have started it in the first place.
2. Cyclopia, Dream, and Warden like to attack me and other deletionists whenever possible, so you shouldn't give them any additional opportunities. Blaming me for that when you started the DRV in the first place is a bit incongruous. If you hadn't started the DRV, they wouldn't have come by and brought up completely irrelevant information.

In short, while I agree the close sucks, you shouldn't have started the DRV, and you shouldn't blame me for it degenerating pbp 17:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I never expected or requested an overturn to "delete", just a recognition that there wasn't a consensus to keep and that the prohibition on future discussion was unacceptable. I still think that's achievable. The best way to deal with Dream Focus and Colonel Warden is to ignore them. Most people do. It's only by paying attention to them that they gain any power.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

DRV

I particularly enjoyed your comment: "It's probably a little early to conclude the deletes finally have it". Reminds me of a fellow from the old neighborhood years ago who, after a fairly harsh beating, staggered to his feet and defiantly asked his opponent: "You had enough yet?". If after 7 failed AfD's you actually think things are going well for the deletionists, I have to wonder if you're just having a laugh. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Shang-A-Lang

Hello, Kww. I see you deleted Shang-A-Lang; could you please restore it to User:Launchballer/Shang-A-Lang because a quick check of "WhatLinksHere" shows that it is a Bay City Rollers song that made #2 on the UK Singles Chart and spawned a children's pop music TV series of the same name? Thank you.--Launchballer 11:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Launchballer, feel free to start a new article from scratch, but no, I won't restore that version of the article.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Lil Kim Birthday

Can you please find out when Lil Kim was born, her page originally said 1974 (according to a reference leading to the Federal Bureau of Prisons) but for some reason an editor changed it claiming she was born in 1976 (with no reference) so I'm asking for you to please look into it please. JACUBANHELADO (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

criteria

I'd welcome your thoughts on the criteria I proposed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Any reason for this revert[1]? Accidental? Deliberate? Fram (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Completely accidental.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Seemed out of character, but one never knows :-) Fram (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Renomination

Kww,

In case you didn't receive a notification of me pinging you on this talk page, I was hoping you could give some insight on whether it seems eligible to be renominated for GA status. I personally believe it should be (as is the person who first brought the matter up on the talk page) and requested input from you and admin @Acalamari:. He provided his thoughts and also recommended we gather your views. Can you please provide input on the page?

XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection of talk pages

I noticed you've protected the talk pages of some One Direction song articles (eg). Was this intentional? If so, why? Adabow (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was intentional, but only for a few days. All the One Direction articles came under attack and were protected by other admins. As soon as they did that, the vandals started in on the One Direction talk page. I did a three-day semi-protection on the talk pages as well to get it to end. A bit outside the ordinary, but it was a fairly determined and widespread attack.—Kww(talk) 13:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

I don't want to blow up my questions for you as arb candidate too much, also want to be fair and ask all candidates the same. I have an extra one for you: did you know that even a respected FA author is seeking compromise, trying to overcome old battles? The result of the discussion Identibox composer can be seen at Percy Grainger, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Knowingly making false statements"

Do not again make such an accusation.[2] You may find it fine to include details about the divorce and dating life of the mother of a missing teenager in the article about her daughter; I find no connection in the article for anything having anything to do with the mother's dating life and divorce and the disappearance of her daughter, and no reason established for it to be there. Whether her mother's divorce was "no fault" or not is unrelated, and no connection is made in the text. That you think it OK, and I think it not, to include off-topic personal information about a living person means we have a difference of opinion. It does not mean I am "knowingly making false statements". Once again, the article text never made any connection between the mother's divorce or dating life and anything else in the article, and there was no reason for the text being there. It adds to the anti-American, misogynistic slant of the article. Do not again make accusations that impugn my integrity and character. And by the way, your other antics on that article are being discussed at WP:ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again: you described it as a "slur" that "disparaged the mother of a dead girl" when you knew full-well that it is not a slur: it is a direct quote from Alabama state code, and the word "incompatible" cannot be read as disparaging someone. You are right on one point: we can have a valid disagreement as to whether the material belongs in the article. That's a reasonable and rational topic for debate. Your use of the word "slur" to describe the no-fault divorce language from the Alabama legal code is not a point of disagreement, it's an intentional misdescription of the text. As for my "antics": I'm quite tired of the misdescription of the article as misogynistic and anti-American when it is quite neutral. I'm well aware that you are getting no traction in an ANI discussion at this moment, and don't see that showing up in order for you to further malign me will be of any benefit to the project. I've not misused my administrative tools, and can defend every use I have made of my tools with respect to the article quite easily: I've never used administrative tools on Natalee Holloway or Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. My sole use of administrative tools was to protect Natalee Ann Holloway based on the the consensus at the move discussion to protect the redirect to the article. If you dig back in article history you will undoubtedly find block or two that I've issued against people vandalizing the article, and I'm confident that I will be able to defend myself against any accusations of wrongdoing in regard to those as well.—Kww(talk) 06:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed Newyorkbrad's talk page, and the BLP noticeboard where your claim that I "knowingly made false statements". There is no text substantiating your accusation in either place. You said on 17:42, 17 November 2013, "You knowingly made a false statement to him", and you have persisted in that characterization. That I do not believe an article needs to include irrelevant, off-topic information about the woman's marital and dating life, and that including that is negative, gratuitous, and revictimizes a victim is not "knowingly making false statements". And it is a view shared by enough people that the text has been removed from the article. Your attempt to justify the text on the basis of wording of local divorce law is still irrelevant: there is no reason established in the article for her divorce to be mentioned at all (no fault or otherwise), just as there was no basis for her dating life to be discussed, and anyone in their right mind is free to view that information as having a negative impact, and even more so when considered with the other selective information presented in that article about other living persons. The information created a BLP issue and read as a slur, yes, because there was no context or reason for that text to be included. I trust these issues will be corrected by the time the FAR resumes and a more balanced account representing all sources will be present in the article. I don't know how you can hold BLP issues in such low regard, particularly when victims are involved, but whatever your reasoning, you have been warned not to continue to falsely accuse me. There has been a pattern of intimidation and bullying and ownership and battleground group conduct visited upon every dispute resolution that has been approached about that article and by the same group of involved editors: I invite you to make the kind of gesture I made when I tried to help get the FAR under control, engage the ANI appropriately, and engage dispute resolution fora without intimidation and bullying tactics, so that work can proceed without this circus of intimidation and bullying whenever the article owners encounter disagreement. People will disagree with you at times; your reaction should not be to call them liars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The presence of your company is requested at ANI. Unwatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Stuffed as many ballot boxes as I could

Just saw your up for arbcom. You got my radio button click! Hope it goes well. --EEMIV (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Search and Destroy (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)

The sockpuppet was last reported on May 2012. I don't think that person is coming back, especially to ruin this article. But PC would suffice more than unprotection? --George Ho (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked several ItHysteria socks this year. Not all socks get reported through SPI.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A business is trying to edit it's own talk page to remove info

I am having a problem here with this article James McGibney. Edits are being done by a user named ViaView to repeatedly remove negative information from this article. Via View is, however, the name of the company that is owned by the subject of the article. I have repeatedly warned this user about conflicts of interest and in trying to whitewash the article. But the user keeps reverting the information and trying to delete it. Can you please block this user for violating Wikipedia's policy on bias and conflict of interest and revert the article back to the way I had it? thanks for your assistance! Also, can you do a check user to see how many other sox this user has?Dead Goldfish (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:BuddyBixby419

After getting a hate message in my E-Mail inbox, I decided to careless about User:BuddyBixby419, which was my old account.

Remember me? 76.117.166.209 (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC) (a.k.a.) User:BuddyBixby419

Help?

I just wanted to know if RIAA Certifications counts as awards as well for award pages. I was reading the List of awards and nominations received by Lil' Kim page and realized this and it was the only page to count RIAA certifications as 'Awards Won'. Just wanted to know if this should be added to other award pages for artists. JACUBANHELADO (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Featured article}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sportsgamaniacre (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive816#User:Sportsgamaniacre and repeated violations of WP:NFCC
• User_talk:Masem#Sportsgamaniacre.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

Can you please have word with this user, they are uploading files under false licenses and abusing non-free media. Their talk page is also littered with file deletion notices, warnings and I have reported this user to ANI and Im not sure what else I can do to stop the user. (They are mis-using non-free files, uploading under false licenses and refusing to discuss anything) Can you please help me? PS isnt it about time you archived your talk page? Werieth (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Plane (Magic: The Gathering) AfD

Hi. I'm approaching you because I know that you take a dim view of AfD keeps based on spurious or engineered WP:Copying within Wikipedia issues, such as the merging during WP:Articles for deletion/Silver Lake Village (Michigan) (2nd nomination). A user recommended speedy keep at WP:Articles for deletion/Plane (Magic: The Gathering) based on CWW, but with the attribution burden reversed. Following the comment would actually violate the guideline and related policy. I dropped the ball at the AfD, and the non-admin closer endorsed and expanded on the point in his closing statement, although merge was the likely outcome regardless. I didn't get any traction with either the participant or the closer. Would you be willing to take a look? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Forced switch to Lua Convert with bugs

As you might know, there is talk of switching, system-wide to the Lua version of Template:Convert, as Module:Convert, rather than first running a formal beta test, or limited roll-out among a few thousand pages. Interestingly, most known bugs in the Lua version are being left unfixed, purposely, with talk of fixing them later, after Lua is deployed system-wide. That attitude reminded me so much of the VE system-wide roll-out with known bugs (in July 2013), that I thought you would be interested to know how forcing software with bugs across the whole of Wikipedia is not just a mindset of the VE team. In fact, I suspect the fox-guarding-the-henhouse to push out buggy products, and ignore testing, is a primary reason why organizations have an independent testing branch which judges the "no-go" status of products; otherwise those who write the software seem unwilling to make changes unless shut-out from deploying whatever they can. I hope this information reduces the stigma about the VE team, as being typical S.O.P. when product developers are not restrained by quality-control restrictions, and totally ignore the customer base. Beyond the "sum of all knowledge" as a goal, working with Wikipedia reveals how numerous people act in very unwise ways. Things to ponder. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:Badthanks.PNG
• File:Visual-editor-singlechart.png
• File:Singlechart-Articleview.PNG

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Note

Hi Kww, just a heads up, but you've been mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Big Red Letters

Thanks. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Charlie (December)

He has been very active these days (like 86.185.230.163 (talk · contribs) or 86.160.51.235 (talk · contribs), probably there are more). His current IP is 86.145.68.56 (talk · contribs) per [3] or his trademarked [4]. I discovered him thanks to [5]. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson/Colonel Warden

Hi Kww. Andrew has agreed to use only one account from now on and to clarify the connection between the two on his userpages; since those were the conditions you set in your block message, I've unblocked him. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Your personalized abuse filter of me

After ridiculing you for the competency of it, did the other filter writers make you remove your absurd and self-amused filter of me, for all the incredible delays you inflicted on other editors? Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.2.150 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cloudchased

There was no way you could have known this, as it appears not to have been logged in the right places, but BASC did give Cloudchased permission to register and edit. As such, I've unblocked, and nudged those who sit on that subcommittee to get around to doing the paperwork on-wiki ASAP. Courcelles 20:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, I think that this is my fault. Sorry. Matty.007 21:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IPs

Kevin, if you're around and have a moment, take a look at Talk:Martha Nell Smith and the flurry of IPs. They all seem to be related to the same company. I can't take any action because I'm WP:INVOLVED. Take whatever action, if any, you think is appropriate. Thanks and Merry Xmas.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that the "company" is also the ISP itself. What is going on?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's confusing. I'm looking into it.—Kww(talk) 18:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Look like proxies to me. Blocks installed against three separate ranges.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much, Kevin.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like 207.207.21.83 (talk · contribs) is outside of the range.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not the only one. Plus, there is a proxy editing from a different range. See the history at User talk:Timtrent, although he doesn't actually mind the posts (finds them "amusing"). I just semi'ed my own talk page, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for continuously posting, Kevin, but just wanted to keep you up-to-date. Unlike Tim, I am not amused. Therefore, I've semi-protected Talk:Martha Nell Smith for 24 hours as an exception to involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What Bbb23 doesn't mention is that the IP editing was not disruptive but wholly productive. Bbb23 deletes anything an IP editor does, even if it takes that editor many hours to do so. He is on record saying that IP addresses should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Thus he creates conflict and ugliness when there is really Good Faith. If it remains Wikipedia policy to allow IP addresses to edit in good faith, then Bbb23 cannot act like a policeman and create discord. Again, look at what happened. An IP editor had spent substantial time editing (perhaps not exactly knowing all Wiki rules) but in great Good Faith. Then Bbb23 summarily deleted the work I would consider this disruptive and hostile behavior and somebody should remind Bbb23 that he should follow rules too. 31.6.30.153 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur and thank you 31 for directing me here. Blocking IP addresses is not the answer. The answer is to chastise editors who are prejudiced against IP editors. Blocking IP addresses is disruptive and unkind to innocent users. 209.99.2.187 (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

IP proxies -- see below, that Bbb23 posted on the Martha Nell Smith talk page. Why does he use the word "assault" when in fact the IP input has moved the page much further and it would have been pleasant without the rampant deletions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bbb23 is relentlessly NOT in Good Faith. Please don't block my IP address for writing this; I am doing nothing disruptive -- I am, rather, bringing disruptive acts by Bbb23 to your attention. 69.80.101.116 (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the IP proxies are continuing to assault this page and other pages at Wikipedia faster than they can be range blocked, I've semi-protected the talk page for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kevin. We received a request here to check a range that you blocked. Being the time of year it is, I haven't much time to review the situation above, so I would sincerely appreciate it if you could leave a summary at the quick CU request I linked. Thank you, and happy holidays ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

URGENT REQUEST

I noticed you reverted my edit to User talk:Friginator but I need that section removed and either moved to an archive of past discussions or even removed from Wikipedia if the archive can appear in google results. Please read this.

One section was from a year ago. I moved it to an archive of past discussions. Another reason is because it had some personal information such as my IP addresses on it and I couldn't handle it on there anymore. I want my info private and it's bothering me a lot. The section was called STOP STRIKING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or something. I was blocked indefinitely and used sock accounts. Although, I really can't help this. I want that section removed from the page and either moved to the archive or actually even removed from Wikipedia itself. I used some usernames of other people outside of this website and I don't want them to know. I tried to request a rename by email cause I was too nervous to allow my request to be publicly shown. This may be a sock IP but please, remove the section. I have a feeling they might find the thing on Google. I want my location private. Please. Please, remove it. I am extremely scared! 2600:1003:B01A:468C:9076:4A49:B3A4:29D9 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sweet Sound

Hello, Kww why did you delete the page "Sweet Sound" I thought the article was good enough for wikipedia being Start-class and all yours truly. (Bowieboyie (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC))

Discussion at User talk:Bowieboyie

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Bowieboyie.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Protection of Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Hi Kww, you indefinitely semi-protected Murfreesboro, Tennessee in 2010 after the pending changes trial ended. I'm not sure if you meant for it to be indefinite since when NuclearWarfare had protected it before it was set to expire in a year. Perhaps put it back on pending changes (since the page is low volume and low view) or just unprotect it and see how it goes? Regards, Crazynas ^t 01:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be busy in RL or otherwise so I've taken this to RFPP. Regards, Crazynas ^t 21:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Rocks in the Head (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Katz

The Iron Man: The Musical by Pete Townshend (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timothy White

White City: A Novel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Beat (band)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Certification table

Hi Kevin, is it fine to add SoundScan sales from reliable sources to the certification table, when an album or a single has not been certified yet using the nocert=yes template? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That's really a content decision, so my admin status doesn't count for anything on this question. It's a common practice, and the template is designed to handle it. I'm more concerned with the quality of the source for the sales than whether they are included.—Kww(talk) 05:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks buddy. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Block this Proxy

5.62.0.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Triggered Abuse Filter 30, see Special:AbuseLog/9778346. ///EuroCarGT 06:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Blanking article

Sorry, but that is not how WP:BRD works. First B, then R, then D. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you are an admin, why would you be supporting an editor twice blanking a sourced article? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, have we had dealings before? I see you are replying on the Talk page but my question is about your edits so I am asking here. I don't recognise your name as an active contributor to any of the relevant projects Bible / Languages / China, so do you mind if I ask how you even got to the article, and why you blanked it? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

TRPod's talk page is on my watchlist.—Kww(talk) 04:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but please don't blank sourced articles simply because an editor you know has blanked them twice and been reverted. There was/is three years of discussion on the mother article about those breakout articles, and only 1 of China's hundreds of languages is Chinese. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Msg

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at 174.3.125.23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Msg Again

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at 174.3.125.23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sources cited in Frozen (soundtrack)

Hi.

I noticed that you have made considerable revisions to the damages that Adamsmorkzaa had caused in This Is Me (Demi Lovato song). So I would like you to help revise this user's contributions in Frozen (soundtrack), as I only have limited knowledge in this area. Here's what this user had done that you can use as reference. He/She added the German tracklisting which is currently unsourced, several chart peak positions and the singles' chart performances (I find the two latter ones most doubtful).

I look forward to hearing from you. Please write on my talk page and warn this user if you consider his/her revisions as vandalism. Thanks.Quenhitran (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Edge of the Earth

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

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

Bubbling Under chart

Hi Kevin, I saw an user adding a position 53 in the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart column, corresponding to a debut of #3 in the Bubbling Under Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, in the Jay-Z discography article. However, if I recall correctly, the Bubbling Under is not an extension of the main 50 position R&B chart, rather its just a ranking of songs not attaining enough songs to enter the main chart and never did. Am I right and those positions are incorrect in the article? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Point the user at WP:Record charts if you have a conflict.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if the edit summary should suffice. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There is another thing I wanted to notify you. In the {{singlechart}} template for Hungary, the urls generated are for the mahasz.hu website, however, that website has migrated off to a new url. Could you please take a look since the week and the year given does not generate the archive url anymore. Also, can we have the year and week for the Irish singlechart as part of the title also? Like "Chart Track: Week 43, 2014" or something? The title simply does not give any indication whether the link is for a singles chart or album chart etc. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, I do not think you saw this query of mine. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

Kevin,

I noticed you removed "philanthropist" from the descriptions listed on the Selena Gomez article with the edit summary "WP:UNDUE". How exactly is that undue weight if there is a lengthy section on her article dedicated to her philanthropy? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That section needs a pretty dramatic trimming as well, XXSNUGGUMSXX. "Celebrity spokesperson for a charity" and "philanthropist" are distinct concepts.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked, a philanthropist is one who aims to help improve the lives of others. How would you describe the difference between those two descriptions? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A philanthropist is one who devotes himself to improving the lives of others.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It might take some more reviewing of sources and such, but at first glance of her persona and actions it seems fair use to describe her as a philanthropist, even if not as active in it as people like Bill Gates. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

New Knightrider21o-sock

Ledgend210o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Similar username, posted fancruft with fake references on 2013 Metro Manila Film Festival. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The exact same edits are now also being made by 112.210.63.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I just had to add this too, since it shows how "unsmart" the user is, copying the user page from the latest blocked sock, but forgetting to change the username at the top of it... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Decisions" (song)

Hello there! I have a question for you regarding the protection status of "Decisions". I had drafted an article in my sandbox for this namespace before realizing that it was fully protected, so I put in an edit request asking that my content be transferred over. However, there are still additions (adding non-free covers, appropriate music video screenshots, etc.) that I would not be able to keep in my sandbox because it would violate our fair-use policies. Rather than putting in edit requests for each little adjustment I would be making, and also taking into consideration that the user that had been causing sock-puppeting problems with Miley Cyrus articles a few months ago has been addressed, I was wondering if it would be possible to adjust the article's protection down to semi-protection for only registered users, given that there is more than enough content to supply an article for the song separate from Bergore's biography. Thanks for your time, WikiRedactor (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that I still think it is questionable to have an article about this song, as it does not appear to have charted or to have been independently covered by notable artists. Still, it isn't my role to use my administrative powers to enforce that view, so I brought your version over. Please add material that addresses my concerns or I will wind up redirecting it again or taking it to AFD.—Kww(talk) 00:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I look forward to expanding the article! WikiRedactor (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Today's Knightrider21o-sock

Y1o01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This diff is a give-away. Who else would immediately find one of the other socks and as their first edit make a test to see if it's possible to change the username at the top of the page, one of the things previous socks have been criticised for not being smart enough to do (see my comment three sections up on this page...). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• And here's the next one, with the same user page and user talk page (check the name in the Teahouse invitation, it's the name of a blocked earlier sock, Se7en21o...), adding name to list of members of "Today's articles for improvement", a give-away username, etc: Malus20o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Veera Ballala II

When will you re-enable PC2 per WP:IAR? Ronhjones lower it down recently from full-protection. --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider abusing my admin tools by applying a level of protection that the community has rejected. I wish other admins would be as considerate.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well... that's your decision, so I won't try to persuade. I was told that IAR may be used to enable PC2 under "unforeseen circumstances", NOT "foreseen" ones. In fact, Rupert Sheldrake will end up just fine with semi-protection and 1RR-enforcement if not for PC2. Looks unfair, but (with 1RR) that'll teach POV-pushers and Sheldrake fans a lesson not to mess with Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Hi, Kevin. 2.221.68.110 (talk · contribs) keeps persistently adding unconstructive information to album infoboxes, especially at Kelis articles. They have repeatedly performed this same edit in the past under different IP addresses such as 176.250.147.63 (talk · contribs), 90.209.26.149 (talk · contribs), and 2.221.91.149 (talk · contribs), causing several of these pages to be protected due to persistent sock puppetry. SnapSnap 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

About bad source

Can you elaborate on this edit? I don't get why the source is bad for the information added. Thanks --PeaceNT (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:PeaceNT: note the <ref>twitter chartnews</ref>" in the edit. The editor had tripped filter 529 and then changed his edits to obscure his sources rather than provide correct ones.—Kww(talk) 23:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I guess you did not have problems with the billboard source and the claim on best selling artist (see the lead). Am I correct? I wanted to re-add that bit. --PeaceNT (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As long as you verify the material directly against Billboard, no problem.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

BillboardID

Hey, i noticed you edited Template:BillboardID/W and i was wondering if you knew how to add an artist into the template. Koala15 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Koala15, it looks to me like you added Wrekonize correctly with this edit. I restored that version, and {{BillboardURLbyName}} expands to https://www.billboard.com/artist/wrekonize/chart-history/ just as it should. What did you think was wrong? The Billboard page is pretty empty, but the template can't force Billboard to keep their site up to date.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was wrong because on the page i was using it for in the source it says "illegal name entered", as you can see here The War Within (Wrekonize album). Koala15 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever was causing that seems to have cleared. Might have been some kind of caching error.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Advising mediation

I see your ongoing conflict with overagainst about disappearance of Natalee Holloway in many venues. I realize your good-faith comments about the matter, but bickering and edit warring must stop now. File a report at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I want to file it, but I wasn't participating in your battles. I was just kind about the dispute. Copied with tweaks from other page. --George Ho (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If Overagainst holds to his pledge to stop chipping away at the article, then the dispute will be largely resolved, George Ho. Your own contribution by placing tags has only encouraged him, so I hope that has come to an end. Note that I have actually rewritten the section, changed attributions, and outlined additional sources in an effort to resolve the underlying issues that caused those tags to be placed in the first place. It's hard to describe that as "edit warring".—Kww(talk) 00:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Overagainst re-tagged it as "primary sources". I've done no further involvement since you removed the "undue" one. I am staying away from the article for now, but I will get back to the article at the end of February for FA review. --George Ho (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Motion proposed on WP:OFFICE RFAR

For your information, an arbitrator has proposed a motion concerning you. AGK [•] 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Insert boring YGM header here

Hello, Kww. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Range block

See WP:AN#Range block needed again for disruptive IP where I just raised this. I've rev/del'd a couple of edit summaries at Animal welfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

sorry

Sorry that the committee seems compelled to throw you under the bus for a reasonable action that should have simply been reverted with minimal fuss and a professional explanation. That said, despite your success with the VE thing, picking a fight with WMF is a losing proposition. At this point, best to just let it go. Arbcom admonishments always struck me as a somewhat juvenile "stern talking to," so it really shouldn't matter in the long run. NE Ent 21:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he's quite under the bus just yet, all we are really saying is that the approach he took was not the correct one. At least that's all I'm saying. At worst the bus ran over his toe. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite all you're saying, Beeb. You're also saying "that 'incorrect approach' is strike one and strike two, next one is strike three". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

And the point that seems lost on everybody is that the mantra "office actions don't have to follow policy" is being misapplied in this case, although I'm going to give up arguing that on the case page. Those that say that are absolutely right in one sense: Philippe is immune to any form of discipline or sanction for applying PC2 to articles. He could apply PC2 to hundreds of articles citing "office action" and not a thing could be done to him. However, as administrators, we are responsible for maintaining Wikipedia in a state that conforms to both the community consensus and the needs of the office. As Philippe has now indicated that full protection would not violate any agreements with outside parties, that still appears to me to be full protection in this case. Of course, it would be better if he would indicate that PC1 or semi-protection would do, but he hasn't said that. I'm not about to go doing that: admonishment or not, it would be a WP:WHEEL violation.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Kww, you should discuss an admin action with people beforehand if it can be reasonably expected to upset them and there is no emergency. If, as you say, you had no clue it would annoy Philippe, you are not fit to be using admin tools. Your action was, though, in my opinion, entirely appropriate. So, thanks for what you did, but trout for how you did it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Did Philippe know consensus favours not using PC2? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say, Anthonyhcole. I assumed it fell into one of two cases: either he knew, and had misclicked when attempting to apply PC1; or he did not know, and his application of PC2 was an honest error that he would correct when it was brought to his attention. I put this in much the same class of thing as finding that an admin has misspelled an article title while processing a move or had neglected to delete an article talk page when deleting an article. That the policy violation was intentional struck me as being such a remote possibility that I didn't consider it seriously. With errors like this, I proceed to fix them and frequently don't notify anyone. The recent restoration of PC2 was certainly done with full knowledge that it is proscribed by policy.—Kww(talk) 19:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think he's a good community liaison? As second-in-charge of WMF, what kind of a job do you think he's doing? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Charlie (January)

Has returned as 86.145.155.201 (talk · contribs). thanks. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 00:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Kww is admonished for knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation, and is warned that he is subject to summary desysopping if he does this again. Because the request for arbitration filed by Kww seeks review of Office actions, it is outside the purview of the Arbitration Committee and accordingly the request is declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 00:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

VEVO Certified

Could you please stop deleting the VEVO Certified Video Awards on Page: Taylor Swift they are physical awards like the rest, thank you. R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikripley (talk • contribs) 04:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This topic has been covered numerous times.. They are PHYSICAL Awards in fact it's not a CHART at all! Vevo, the company which has made its existence off official music video posts on YouTube, began rewarding "'Vevo Certified Awards"' to music videos on July 11, 2012. The award is given to those music videos, which have garnered 100 million views. And Here is an Image of the AWARD: http://www.inspiredbronze.com/assets/slider/Custom-Trophies-in-Bronze-or-Pewter/VEVO-CERTIFIED-NEW.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikripley (talk • contribs) 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So then clearly you know nothing about it because the TOTAL View Count comes from YOUTUBE not VEVO so not much advertising going on there, these are physical awards and it's audited by both YouTube and Vevo and IT'S NOT A CHART! There is NO CHART! Love when people edit a page for the first time and then latch on like it's their own, this award is on all artits who have recieved it that puts the award and the fans in the majority not one person who decides they don't like it. You better go erase all the others than like the YouTube awards and World Music Awards who are a sham etc.. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikripley (talk • contribs) 05:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC drafts and Rabhola SPI

Hi, I notice that you protected Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spastic Society of Gurgaon (SSOG) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Rajesh Bhola, leaving a link to the SPI, which no longer has any open reports. Perhaps the protection is no longer needed. —rybec 01:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Only one block evading editor has ever tried to create anything pertaining to Rajesh Bhola.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There's another draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rajesh Bhola. These are cluttering Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Are they needed as evidence for the SPI? —rybec 03:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

On behalf of just me

I don't know where Demiurge1000 got the idea their role is to speak "on behalf of the community." [6] On behalf of MY cabal, while We may not agree entirely with your viewpoints, We respect your efforts in presenting them in a mature and responsible manner. (Well, at least I do, I don't really think the dog knows whats going on on Wikipedia.) NE Ent 12:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As a child, whenever I said that "we" needed to do something, my mother would look at me and ask "Do you have a mouse in your pocket?"—Kww(talk) 14:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	On behalf of animals everywhere. Thanks Kevin. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You guys really should block and ban Quintus, he's ruined so many Clan articles on wiki, it's really sad. It's getting to the point to where there are no valid Scottish Clan articles on wiki, why do you allow this to go on? He refers to one main source and that source is completely inaccurate and downright blasphemous. Please, stop him, he's ruining it for this and future generations by using a completely bogus source and destroying every clan's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.124.107 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleanstart?

Cleanstart only applies if any of their existing accounts are not currently blocked or under sanction. You seem to be suggesting someone evade their current block DP 16:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A properly executed clean start is available to all editors. Anyone that executes a correct and proper clean start is never caught. I certainly don't advocate block evasion, but, as a practical matter, if someone edits completely non-disruptively and no one has any reason to believe that he ever was disruptive, there's no reason to take action.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for all your administrative work, which undoubtedly makes Wikipedia a better place to edit, and a better encyclopedia. Go Phightins! 03:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As someone with whom I have had words

Your opinion is requested at WT:Talk page guidelines#Greetings and closings. --Lexein (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts

Hi Kww. Having read over RAP's unblock appeal and subsequent reply to Dangerous Panda I'm minded to let him back into the community again. I've turned down a previous request on this block, but at this stage feel he warrants another chance, albeit under observation. Would you object to me lifting the block? Yunshui 雲‍水 14:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think he needs more than observation. If you could find someone willing to actively mentor and supervise him, I could probably be agreeable.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it some consideration. I've asked RAP whether there's anyone he'd prefer as a mentor (I'd volunteer, but I've got rather a lot on my plate at the moment), so we'll see who he suggests. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've now unblocked him, subject to 1RR restrictions and the overseership of MichaelQSchmidt. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Certification Table Entry

Hi Kevin, how can we use the certification template and then reuse the reference from it in other parts of an article's prose? I used refname=<reference name> but that does not work like the {{singlechart}} template. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Look at the documentation for "salesref" and "certref".—Kww(talk) 13:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That talks about using new source, not how to use the reference generated from the template in other places. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Chopra.nitin96

Hi can you take a look at the contributions of Chopra.nitin96 (talk · contribs)? Has been going on adding gross unsourced content in the Linkin Park related articles, even amounting to fabricating huge amount of sources. I had to revert all the changes. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thank you for contributing to the discussion on this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UNESCO_IJD_TMIJ.jpg

I had originally thought that this image would be appropriate because it showed which organizations partnered to create the celebrated date. I did not mean for it to be decorative and promotional as much as I meant it to be informative in a visual way.

Perhaps you think that I should try to remove this image and move it onto the International Jazz Day page? (Found here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Jazz_Day) So it is more relevant to the article it appears in?

Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated as this whole process is still relatively new to me and is a bit overwhelming at times.

Thanks Kevin

BK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett Kinsella (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Rajesh Bhola

Hello there Kww. If you are done with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Rajesh Bhola (and the SPI being archived leads me to believe that you are), can you please delete this draft as a CSD:G13 abandoned draft or a CSD:G5 as the case may be? Thanks so much in advance. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive

Hi Kww. Can you please tell me how I can re-open the above sockpuppet/meatpuppet case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive. I have added new evidence which has come to light since July 2013 and added it to the notes on this archived case. Thank you for your help.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:888johan

I strongly suspect that 888johan is a sockpuppet of Wilson888 not only because of the resemblance of the username, but because 888johan is posting links to a site called "Reportland" which is not an approved chart and is linking its Facebook for its "certifications". Erick (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion again 186.93.227.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Erick (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

archive.is

Kww, you know the status of MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2013#archive.is? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The filtering was turned off by someone that hadn't thought the problem through properly. I've reenabled it and broadened it, so that it is now difficult for anyone to add a link to archive.is. I think I'm just going to recommend a brute-force removal of all archiving that points there. I haven't come up with any good solutions that are less intrusive.—Kww(talk) 13:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the brute-force. Alert me when the number of links in mainspace approaches zero - blacklisting is then the way to go to keep it out. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

EEng

I've been dealing with an editor who has a blatant and self-disclosed COI on the Phineas Gage article. The editor, EEng, self discloses his real life identity on his userpage with an explicit link to a diff and claim. The editor is Lena of "Macmillan & Lena", the dominate source with a clear POV: attacking other Gage researchers. Also an issue are inconclusive details being presented as fact. The matter is a bit complex, but a COIN was opened and a COI was noted by several editors. EEng exhibits strong OWN issues, fighting over simple MOS changes and calling such editors "MOS Nazis" While there is some issue with EEng refactoring comments, its degraded to EEng simply refusing to acknowledge a major error made by Macmillan (the senior researcher) with a note. In reading the source, I and several other reliable sources have mirrored it and EEng doesn't want this prominent and influential error noted. As a result he's repeatedly said I am "a hopeless incompetent or a troll".[7][8] EEng has been warned for WP:NPA many times including this outright personal attack that almost got him blocked.[9] EEng should not be editing the article or calling other editors trolls. Another admin, John, was previously involved and I decided to pick you as an uninvolved admin from our discussion at User_talk:John#Gage_and_EEng. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback - from N4

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at N4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of unusual deaths

Your argument is insanely ridiculous. Dying of an heart attack during the premier screening of a movie made out of your own book, after yelling out your disaproval, is something you would not immediately categorize under "unusual"? I don't know where you live, but in the world I live in, people don't usually die that way, hence unusual death.

Also your argument "only a categorization in a reliable source as being unusual matters" is quite ludicrous, not only because of the reason above, because also within the page "List of unusal deaths" this has not been the standard. I have already given you the example of Gouverneur Morris, whose death the source does not categorize as "unusual" as well. His deaths is merely described in the source given, as is in the source I gave to the death of Boris Vian. What you are asking (the "categorization in a reliable source as being unusual matters") is your personal standard/opinion and as you yourself pointed out, such personal opinions do not matter.

In conclusion, I gave three sources of the way in which Boris Vian died (after firstly not citing responsibly and I apologize for that), putting the obvious fact, that he died in an unusal fashion up for discusion is not reasonable. It would not only waste mine and your time (as you already have wasted a lot of that), but also the time of other editors. But if you want, we can also discuss if the world is round and revolves around the sun. Cheers, --JanRobin (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: As I know explained on the page edit, it is not the heart attack, which makes his death unusal, but how it occured. Please read up on this already as unusal established death: 1923: Frank Hayes, a jockey at Belmont Park, New York, died of a heart attack (sic!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanRobin (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, don't waste my time and as I said, the entire page has not been edited in that fashion, multiple of the "unusual deaths" are not cited by cited with "multiple" sources, neither are they called "unusual" in the sources themselves, so please go ahead and edit out all these deaths - you know what? I'll help you and start with the ones I gave as an example above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanRobin (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so you are editing the page acording to your taste step by step so no one will notice? Don't you think that is a little hipocritical? Does it really improve the page? --JanRobin (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

So you are in fact not looking for improvement, but for the page to be removed, with that opinion, how can any of your edits be of constructive criticisim? --JanRobin (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep doing what you're doin' Kww. The minute someone tries to argue that "ironic circumstances" is the same as "unusual method of death", it's time to delete the whole damned thing. Calling the above example "unusual" is original research out the whazoo DP 20:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Dbunkley6

Remember me? Dbunkley6. I am very upset that you blocked me from editing on my old wikipedia account. I think that it was very wrong. I am asking you very politely to please unblock me and allow me to edit on my old account. Dbunkley8 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Mariavolt (talk · contribs)

Hi Kevin. The above user's edits seem very similar to me. She keeps on adding fake information about sales to articles. I've already warned her, but she doesn't seem to stop. Can you do something? ごだい (会話) 16:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I Love Rock 'n' Roll

I don't know why you keep deleting the Arrows label image from the article when the image has been released by RAK into the public domain. Granted OTRS has not yet confirmed it, even after 3 months, but you can rest assured that if they determine that it is NOT PD, they will delete the image and a bot will delete the link to it. Furthermore, even if the image was not PD, its inclusion would be valid under fair use, just like all the other copyrighted images in the article. Before reverting it again, please either cite under what authority you are doing so, or submit an RFC to clarify the policy. Robman94 (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Edit-warring for a probable copyright violation is not the same as edit-warring for a blatant copyright violation. Rather than edit-war with an image that has been labeled as PD since November, it has to be proved it is in the PD since then. Removing it from the article won't solve the problem. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kww reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: ). Thank you. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick question about a record chart

So the National-Report website doesn't work with the Wayback Machine or Webcitation making verifiability a problem. However, the official Twitter page for National-Report posts the weekly chart for the Top 5. Is this acceptable? Erick (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can show that it's actually the National Report and not a pretender, I don't see a problem.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it links from the homepage. Erick (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

BASC and WP:BLOCK

[10]: No, they can't. AGK [•] 14:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Ryoga Godai

Shut up bitch. I'm gonna keep editing her discography page because those sales are factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariavolt (talk • contribs) on 15:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You are the paradigm of professionalism, good sir. AGK [•] 22:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OpenCart

Hi. I am attempting to create an article on OpenCart, but I see that it is protected after being deleted twice. The most recent delete was in 2010, and OpenCart seems to be one of the more notable ecommerce applications these days, more so than many with articles listed at Comparison of shopping cart software. It is listed as joint second most popular at The Top Four eCommerce Platforms as Chosen by You, is listed by Paypal, listed 2nd in 7 of the Best Free Open source Ecommerce Platforms Scored and also on Top 6 open source PHP eCommerce platforms and amongst the best of the pack Open Source E-Commerce Shopping Carts – Best Of.

Can you unprotect the page so that I can create the article? It's a bit of a glaring omission right now, and it should survive any further nominations for deletion. Thanks. Greenman (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that any of those sources would qualify under WP:RS, Greenman.—Kww(talk) 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts is edit warring again

Hey there

I've noticed that Rusted AutoParts is someone that you blocked recently for edit warring. He is now doing the same thing again, labelling my edits on the Fast & Furious 7 article as "unsatisfying", "sloppy" and "undesirable", and reverting my edits so that he can have his way, and all of my hard work that I put a lot of time into is undone. Because he was on his "last chance" before, and because he is really giving me grief about this, can I ask (without really meaning to dob) that you block him again for edit warring? I've read the reasons for why he has been blocked previously, and the circumstances now are the same.

I am trying to act out of good faith here, but I've had enough of him. If you help me by blocking him, at least I can edit the article and several others in peace without him undoing everything I do and criticizing it. As I said, the circumstances of before when he was blocked for six months and now are the same (I don't understand why the block was lifted at all, let alone after such a short time). As you were the one who blocked him before, can you please help?

With kind regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

? I was not edit warring at all. And I wasn't reverting what I want, it's what benefits the article. You were adding a lot of unnecessary detail, as well as stripping the article of it's sources. Rusted AutoParts 16:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass creation

Hi, in that recently-closed ANI discussion, you said "The last time the topic was specifically discussed, the consensus was 2:1 that a geodata item and a census entry was insufficient sourcing to create an article.". Can you show a link to that discussion? It might be useful in an AfD discussion. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (Geographic locations)/Archive 1#Using an Atlas as a source for notability. Note that Carlossuarez46 is completely cognizant of the discussion, as he participated by supporting the losing side.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User Talk Page Comments

Hey, Kww,
I understand all about WP:DENY but I'd prefer it if you let me choose whether or not to delete comments on my own talk page. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Charlie (February)

He's back. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Artpop#Critical reception

Kevin, I think you should see this ASAP and maybe intervene. Too much of personal attacks and dirt throwing is going on between editors and its sick. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Rahul Sharma

Hello there, The page for Indian voice actor, Rahul Sharma has been deleted. There is some certain information that would have made the source somewhat useful. I was wondering if that page can be restored back before it was deleted. Please let me know if you can. Thank you.
-- BlueMario1016 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. What source do you plan on adding?—Kww(talk) 02:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Rollback?

I'm assuming that this is a misclick? T. Canens (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, T. Canens.—Kww(talk) 14:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Massive edit war at List of WWE personnel

I'd like to alert your attention to this. Rusted AutoParts 01:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've just blocked three of the editors involved. The fourth escaped a block and get a "be careful" message as they haven't edited that page in a few hours and never did cross the 3RR line so I'm assuming they realised what they did and stepped away so it won't protect wikipedia to block them. Dpmuk (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artist

We seem to have an editor, Rodericksilly who simply won't stop edit-warring. My attempts are failing to get him discuss on the talk page or on his talk where I left him messages. Can you take a look please. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, the full protection has expired, but the previous indefinite semi-protection hasn't reinstated on its own. Can you reinstate it please. IPs have already begun disrupting the list. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:24.112.187.219

Smells like A Nobody, yes? Also looks to be used for linkspamming. Perhaps a shared IP? You're much more experienced in sockpuppets and A Nobody than I am.... do you think this is block evasion? ThemFromSpace 17:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked.—Kww(talk) 18:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Incensed IP edit warring at 2015 in film. Also is verbally abusing other editors and making threats of rape.

here. Rusted AutoParts 03:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Was blocked. Returned and started doing it again. Rusted AutoParts 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Pink discography

Kevin, the certifications at the Singles' section aren't yet posted next to the titles. We don't know whether it is 6x Platinum, it could be 7x Platinum. Should we not wait?--Harout72 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know what you are looking at, Harout72. The text clearly reads

P!nk Feat. Nate Ruess  Just Give Me A Reason  SME  6x PLATINUM

What ambiguity is there in that?—Kww(talk) 22:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, the Firefox doesn't show any of the certifications on the Singles' section. They all are there when viewed on Explorer. Very strange, and I've been waiting for ARIA to post the singles certifications for days.--Harout72 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I use Firefox myself, Harout72. You've got a caching problem.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the problem, you're right it was a cache problem, cleared the history and worked. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

IP hopper from Amazon

Hi Kww. I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm having a lot of trouble getting anybody to look at this. There's a disruptive IP-hopper posting from the Amazon Technologies ISP, that I'm convinced is a single person. Or at most two.. some of the edits are from Ashburn, Virginia and others from Washington, Seattle. I don't know if a single individual could do that. Anyway, here's Ashburn:

54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

54.224.53.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

And here's Washington:

54.197.5.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

54.205.248.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

54.204.117.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

54.196.70.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

54.204.179.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

54.205.7.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

54.80.71.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I would really like to block them, as one user is feeling very harassed, but obviously it's a huge range, or rather two huge ranges (?). I've seen people suggest that "maybe something can be done with filters", which takes me right out of my tiny competence zone with range blocks. I understand you're the go-to guy. Can you help, please? Bishonen | talk 11:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Those are webhosts, not valid entry points. I could filter them, but there's no valid reason to be using dynamic webhosts to edit from.—Kww(talk) 13:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not often that I block 200 billion IP addresses in one morning. Maybe all those things they say about me on Wikipediocracy are true after all.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow..! 200 billion thanks! Bishonen | talk 14:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Thank you both, most profusely, for fixing this problem! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Buggs. Thank you ever so much. We are deeply appreciative of how well this has helped. I for one consider the matter closed. 54.213.95.118 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a troll or two survive.[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I unblocked 54.240.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), as that one's not actually a webhost range. (The Amazon people helpfully publish a list of all their webhost ranges at [12]). T. Canens (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they do. And WHOIS publishes an accurate one that indicates that 54.240.0.0/16 most certainly is a webhost range, T. Canens. Please reblock it.—Kww(talk) 14:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For this particular range, I have it on very good authority that this isn't used by their webhosting service, but in fact is used by Amazon's corporate network. T. Canens (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Simply having on good authority isn't particularly helpful in cases like this. Hard evidence is better when large scale vandalism such as this is the issue, surely discussing with Kww first would of been better. What damage was imminently being done that required an immediate unblock rather than discussing.Blethering Scot 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that T. Canens is getting his information from Amazon directly, Blethering. I picked up this particular range as a part of a sweep of Amazon ranges after the disruption started, not because of vandalism coming from this specific range.—Kww(talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, just wouldn't of killed him to discuss and explain first rather than after.Blethering Scot 19:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is direct information. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding reverts

The problem is a longstanding one with that admin, and the matter is currently being discussed here. vzaak 00:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Filter 554

??. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

atrl.net/forums tripped it, Black Kite. A whole forum dedicated to pirated copies of sales charts.—Kww(talk) 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just occurred to me that Melonkelon would probably appreciate a ping as well.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll remove the atrl.net ref and I'll change the dates again. Melonkelon (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

Excuse me but could you please stop doing full reverts on Sakis Rouvas. By doing so you also reverted other new edits (formatting, updating) that were not contentious, which I happened to work hard on. I don't know how you could possibly feel that the grammar in the new version is better, it's not, it makes my eyes hurt. In a lot of places it is clear that it has not been written by a native English speaker as it tries to use Greek conventions. A lot of the formatting is wrong such as wrong formats for song/film titles, putting parts of sentences in brackets where it is not needed, creating poor flow, emphasis at wrong moments. The writing is very basic/elementary and on top of that it really does nothing for the neutrality either way. This isn't simple English wikipedia. ie "Since his early childhood he had difficulty in school, particularly in reading and writing. Working during the day, Rouvas went to school at night with his mother (who had not finished secondary school)."[6] is not better than the previous, which stated she also was finishing up at the time, it makes it sound really dumb. Also it appears other non-contentious sourced information seems to be missing. Also many of the sentences have been changed to convey a different meaning/POV from the original source in Greek, which is a no-no!!!! Ex: "Rouvas' appearance in Eurovision was a turning point in his career; his public perception changed from media-produced celebrity to notable pop artist" for one changes the entire meaning of the source which translates to over-exposed, not media-produced and "to possibly the most notable artist in pop" quote. Another instance is in the vocal section which changed the POV of the sources, making it seem as though they conclude that most people prefer to watch than listen, when the point of the sources was going in a different direction. A lot of things have been manipulated in translation.

BTW everything within the lead is sourced in the article by reliable sources. When I first wrote it it was an early draft completely summarizing the topic but with some trimming and reworking to be made, but unfortunately myself and the other edits that used to work on these pages haven't been very active lately. If you or anyone has a problem with some of the wording I have no problem with tweaks but it needs to be within the standard, not this current mess. Also I would kindly ask that you please selectively edit next time rather than doing a full revert, as I said you also deleted non-contentious information. Or at least write in the talk or message me what you would specifically like changed so I can get to it. Thank you. GreekStar12 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

Firstly, I think you are being a little rude and would politely ask if you could change your tone, calling someone's work "absolutely terrible" "stop writing an ad campaign and write an encyclopedia article" is uncalled for and makes one big sweeping generalization, as you probably haven't even looked through the article fully judging by the fact you approve of this elementary school version.

1) He is the most commercially successful entertainer of ALL TIME in the Hellenics, that's not an opinion it's a sourced fact that's been analyzed to death in papers. 2) Word it how you want but his performance style, artistry, personal has often caused controversy of social or even religious proportions. 3) His albums Kati Apo Mena and 21 were considered a stepping stone artistically and began an era of higher critical acceptance, and swept all the awards shows, also sourced. Absolutely no mention of the artistic development in the current one. 4) His non musical ventures were also well received critically and commercially, also sourced. Where's that info? 5) For most of his career he was known more for his appearance than anything else, SOURCED, so its downright irresponsible not to state it as a representative characteristic. Worded one way or another, all of the above is representative and needs to be included.

I can give you many examples of featured articles that include a lot of what you consider "terrible": 1) about being one of the most attractive celebrities: Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan "is often cited by media as 'the most beautiful woman in the world'" and so on. Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Michael Jackson and so on contain lots of statements about influence: "Regarded as one of the most significant cultural icons of the 20th century", " His energized interpretations of songs and sexually provocative performance style, combined with a singularly potent mix of influences across color lines that coincided with the dawn of the Civil Rights Movement, made him enormously popular—and controversial.", "Presley is one of the most celebrated musicians of the 20th century. Commercially successful in many genres, including pop, blues and gospel, he is the best-selling solo artist in the history of recorded music,[5][6][7][8] " All of that on Elvis.

"The Beatles were an English rock band that formed in Liverpool, in 1960. With John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, they became widely regarded as the greatest and most influential act of the rock era.[1] "often incorporating classical elements in innovative ways. In the early 1960s, their enormous popularity first emerged as "Beatlemania", but as their songwriting grew in sophistication they came to be perceived as an embodiment of the ideals shared by the era's sociocultural revolutions." ... Guess FA loves terrible works.

"In the early 1980s, Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music. The music videos for his songs, including those of "Beat It", "Billie Jean", and "Thriller", were credited with breaking down racial barriers and with transforming the medium into an art form and promotional tool. The popularity of these videos helped to bring the then-relatively-new television channel MTV to fame. With videos such as "Black or White" and "Scream", he continued to innovate the medium throughout the 1990s, as well as forging a reputation as a touring solo artist. Through stage and video performances, Jackson popularized a number of complicated dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk, to which he gave the name. His distinctive sound and style has influenced numerous hip hop, post-disco, contemporary R&B, pop, and rock artists." On the flip side Celine Dion's article talks about the negative reception of her musical works.

Again if there was somewhere you didn't like in the wording you could have just changed that instead of attacking the whole article with this grammar and formatting atrocity, not to mention deleting non-contentious info, that's just lazy editing. But I guess a couple of lines you disliked are more important than the other user actually changing the meaning and misrepresenting the material in the sources. GreekStar12 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

Excuse me, but what have you done to the lead???? Apart from taking out superlatives and critical/cultural assessments, you've also deleted legitimate career moves/timeline/event information that was sourced and told readers who the artist is, info about genres and artistic style, sourced info about awards and Forbes rankings. Forget about the reception you've actually omitted 15 years from his career!!! This version is not representative at all. Not to mention it's not NPOV!!!! Now all you have left is the controversy about his military service, giving extreme undue weight in the lead and negative POV. Also the thing about his last two albums is misleading, the decline was more publicity-wise/cultural not commercial and the rise was more so critical. The stuff in the lead now isn't even accurate (based on prose) and not supported by the sources. It's like your editing blindly without reading the article or sources. I'm very disappointed in your behaviour, especially as an admin. It's a joke. You can't just make such destructive edits to get to me. GreekStar12 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A little favor...

Hello there! I remember a month or so ago you merged the history from my sandbox into Decisions (song); I recently created an article for Porsha Williams from The Real Housewives of Atlanta, and was wondering if you would be able to merge the history from my sandbox into the actual namespace. (Also, if there is a formal process/forum for handling requests like this, please let me know!) Thank you, WikiRedactor (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Beating Heart (song)

Some unregistered user insists on adding unsourced and incorrect information to Beating Heart (song). Since their IP address changes pretty much every time they perform an edit, I wonder if it would be possible to semi-protect the page. SnapSnap 22:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

Hey I was just wondering why you undid all of the edits I made on the Selena Gomez page. You said that you wanted to keep it chronological & that they categories shouldn't be separated like that but if that's the case then why does almost every page have separate categories for career, artistry, personal life, etc.? I think it makes everything easier to find and I kept the citations for all of the information. Can I get some feedback on this? Thanks Divine618 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Naming of audio samples

Hi Kww! Can you re-name the files in Category:Megadeth audio samples with the title being "Megadeth - song name" in order to maintain consistency? Also, a couple of samples there have older versions that aren't needed anymore, so you might delete them as well. See you and have a nice day.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dude, is it that complicated to get the older version of File:Symphony of Destruction clip.ogg deleted and rename the audios as pointed above?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive Irish chart

Hi Kww, quick question – I wanted to know what the latest status was for using archive Irish charts using the Singlechart template. I've seen this query Template_talk:Singlechart#Irish_charts from 2012 in which you said you were going to look into switching over from GFK-Chart Track which only has archives dating back to 2000) to irishcharts.ie – was this ever done or are we still stuck with no direct link to an archive chart before 2000? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Awards of Britney Spears

Look I understand the situation, but it is too! You can not delete the entire career of the Princess of POP! What if you restore it all and put the template that several people are working on the article and references missing? So at least, and warns that things are missing, but please do not delete all ...--SergiSmiler (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing man, if you're so convinced of is clear that I can not do anything .... I really hallucinating with you many times ... well .... I still maintain that what you are doing is a huge mistake, you can not delete the career of Britney Spears just because references are missing! You just have to indicate missing them and then people start looking! The BritArmy not stay if DALYs stop in time ... but anyway ... I hope you to think ....--SergiSmiler (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Your revert

Kww,

I saw you reverted me on the discretionary sanction area. Don't worry, I won't touch your revert, however, I wanted to explain my revert to you. I reverted because the sanction is no longer valid. While it was valid, it served as as constant reminder that I was indeed banned from certain articles. It's no longer needed, and it's continuing presence would "mark me with a scarlett letter". I would ask that you revert your revert and pull my name back out as I had done. No one would involved would forget or be fooled by my name not being there, and that's not even the intent. My ban is on record, and removing my name would not change the fact that I was banned, and would be served with harsher penalties should I go back and cause disruption on the articles in question. You follow ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hannah Montana (season 4)‎

That particular user has a habit of making inappropriate, OR based changes. In any case, the original source that was used in the article was the Disney release,[13] which is considered authoritative. Unfortunately that reference, which was removed in this revision is now dead. That doesn't make it any less valid. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicole Wray discography

Hello. We appreciate your contribution(s) to article Nicole Wray discography. I have reverted your edits in good faith for the following reason. Your revision seems to cause the page to become outdated. Furthermore, many discography pages ([14], [15], [16]) do not have sources to show that an album/single/etc. was released. I thought it was completely unnecessary to provide in this case. Please kindly refrain making any further disruptive revisions. To show good faith, I have reverted your edits but added sources to humor you. Thank you! Indiafriend (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: WP:BURDEN

Do you have some personal grudge against this singer? I have look through the page's history and the related pages' history. You have done a lot of revision when those pages were updated. I am asking you to please cease and desist. Disruptive editing is not appreciated. Furthermore, the mixtape was released. I can source it with websites from Google, but it would hold up to your rules as "reliable". Indiafriend (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. It shouldn't be done lightly, but in this case it is. It is strange that you are removing new information from the page when you know that it is true. A source is not necessary when the albums are sitting on iTunes or other stores. I'm 100% positive that you were aware of this before I began updating the page but you continued to be disruptive time and time again on those pages. Apparently, you have some personal bias against the singer as you have participated in revisions and request of deletion(s) on the related pages. I have also added those pages to my watchlist. Once again, please refrain from making disruptive edits. Indiafriend (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And just be certain that you do not remove an editor's productive edits. If you need a source, please add a "Source Needed" tag. Constant revisions are unnecessary and eventually become disruptive. Indiafriend (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Quack. C679 16:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

WP: Canvassing

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Indiafriend (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your input is invited on this round of FDC proposals!

Hello! I'm reaching out to you on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee to request your input on the four proposals that have been submitted to the FDC in this round. The FDC reviews these proposals on behalf of the Wikimedia movement, as it is movement money that they spend, and in order to review them effectively we need to understand your perspective on them, and to ensure that any questions you have about them have been appropriately answered. The proposals are linked to from meta:Grants:APG/Proposals/Community/Review#Proposals_for_review. Please provide your feedback through the talk pages for each proposal.

In particular, please take a close look at the Wikimedia Foundation's draft annual plan. As they have a projected budget of over $60 million (including the grants that they will provide to other movement entities), their plans need extra scrutiny by the community to make sure that they are spending the movement's money effectively.

We will also send you a message to ask you for your input in future rounds of the FDC. If you don't want to receive such messages, then please say so below.

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Mrs. Brown's Boys D'Movie

It is unfair and very hurtful to threaten me. My edits have always been in good faith, not that I ever get any credit for that. Just people pulling me down and not being clear about the issue they have with my edit. I would appreciate it if instead you would help me and explain to me exactly where I'm failing in rules regarding copyright and plagiarism and how I'm supposed to write a plotline based on one source without breaking those rules or WP:OR. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, it's only a teaser. I'm willing to wait until the film is released to write a better plot section. I'm still unclear why you are saying "You cannot take every word from a web page", "quoting verbatim" and "As a direct quote". None of this is true. I genuinely did my best to avoid any of this. I have since read WP:PARAPHRASE and found that perhaps my wording was too closely paraphrased and perhaps there is no way to avoid this while so little is known of the plot. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why the hassle?

Why the hassle to CFCF? He simply did the right thing and needed a local IPBE to get around a local block. He already had a global IPBE, and that was discussed with local CU before being implemented. It shouldn't be that hard for a user to get help from an admin who went to that user's talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No one hassled him, billinghurst. He sent me an e-mail questioning the block problem, and I answered on his talk page. Since I can't see the ticket, don't know why IPBE wasn't given here, and can't conceive of a good reason that someone needs to be using Powerhouse anonymous VPN services to access Wikipedia, I pointed him at the person that granted the IPBE in the first place.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

This is a note to let you know, Kww that the article, Miley Cyrus which you are a major contributor to has become a FA nomineee. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Shane Cyrus, it seems a shame that someone that does nothing but vandalism reversions would wind up as the number 3 editor at the article. Seems to be the same with most of these Disney starlets.—Kww(talk) 05:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Standard capitalization"

Well, if not the catholic Church to be an authority on its own name, then who is it to be? You? Who made you the authority on capitalization? Who gave you this power to say "the way I want is right, regardless of the official position".

I demand an explanation on why you undone my changes. NemesisFY (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What any particular church body believes to be correct is irrelevant, NemesisFY. The vast majority of sources call it the "Catholic Church", the "Roman Catholic Church", or the "Holy Roman Catholic Church".—Kww(talk) 22:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

RE: Miley Cyrus awards

Thanks for the source, but I do not understand what you mean, you want me to finish you complete references or LadyLotus not tell?--SergiSmiler (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hard block on 148.87.19.206

Is the hard block needed on 148.87.19.206 (talk)? It is impacting NapoliRoma (talk · contribs) who appears to be unrelated. I'd like to propose softening it unless you suspect there's a sock farm here as well. Kuru (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Softened.—Kww(talk) 00:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Awesome; closed out the unblock request. Kuru (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. Dare I ask what was going on here? It's a big company, but if someone needs a clown hammer taken to them, I could do my best to see what I could do.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling organizations in Australia

The person redirecting the page is User:Justa Punk, who has repeatedly admitted to using sockpuppets to push his point of view about the lack of notability of Australian professional wrestling organizations, and has promised to continue creating sockpuppets to do so. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justa Punk. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD frustration

Regarding how you felt about Calvin's arguments back here, just wanna say I know how you feel. As it turns out, Status ignored notability guidelines here and made points going against WP:CRYSTAL. I was quite surprised (and frustrated) to see how much all the evidence pointing to lack of notability was dismissed. Feel free to comment there if you'd like. Seems like (partial) Deja vu. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: You keep placing any arguments that I make into essays, and now you're saying I was making a crystal argument? The songs are already out. I said there was enough information available to have a satisfactory stand-alone article. I then said if they become singles, even more information could become available, so there is a chance that they could be expanded beyond a stub at some point in the future. It is in my opinion (which I am entitled to) that they do pass WP:GNG, and for some reason, you just can't seem to accept that. You can disagree with someone all you want, but there is absolutely no need to badger them about it. And now you're trying to get poor Kww involved, for what reason? As I said, if the closing admin does not like my reason, then they can feel free to discard it when determining whether or not to delete the articles. — Status (talk · contribs) 06:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I know how Kww felt with the Mariah Carey album AfD. He is free to comment/not comment. What frustrated me is how WP:GNG was incorrectly cited. Your arguments I gave those responses to because they are regarded as weak arguments. Article length isn't the only thing to consider. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is

Kevin, if memory serves me right you were also involved, a while ago, with the User:Rotlink mess. There's a discussion at AN right now; please see "Archive.is headache". Drmies (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mitrabarun

Can you help us here? User:Mitrabarun, who you blocked, appears to claim you created User:MitrabarunMitra to discredit him. He won't give up, and as the blocking admin, I'd appreciate it if you could perhaps remove talk page access or something similar so he will stop. User talk:Mitrabarun is where he keeps acting up, especially under the last few unblock notices. Thank you, Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 18:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your ping

Hi there, got your ping. Am I correct in understanding that the blocked user whose page you posted on was alleging that another account had been created to give the appearance of his socking and/or to otherwise harass him? Thought I'd bring it over here to get a better grip on the situation before diving in. Best, Risker (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Risker, the basic situation is that the user chose to lie using his real name, got blocked for it, and now seems to be paying the price in real life. He's grasping at straws and telling yet more lies in an effort to get the account renamed. I won't stretch policy to help, but I know that you are more lenient that I am in these cases.—Kww(talk) 23:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

He claimed an enemy of his had made it and to just "check the logs" and since you were the blocking admin I think he assumed you made User:MitrabarunMitra. I'm honestly sick of it. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko's edit filter 608

I like what you did with the edit filter and how you restricted posting to AN. Its pretty broad though and stops a lot of legitimate edits. Plus, every time you all change it, someone sends me the code. Should I post it here for everyone to see how stupid and overreaching it is? Its not going to stop me from posting and all this nonsense of trying to manage my invalid and abusive ban is pointless and a waste of a lot of people time. Kumioko 172.56.2.154 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kww - Normally I would deleted the edits of a banned user on sight, especially one who exhibits no honor and no shame, but it seems to me that the information above could well be useful to whoever is in charge of the edit filter - I don't know who that is. If K's claim above that someone sends him the code whenever it's changed is true -- it's hard to tell since he's an inveterate liar and clearly is not totally in control of his perception of the world and his place in it -- then, if it's possible, it might be worthwhile to limit who can access the filter to a very small number of trusted people. I know nothing of filter codes, or of the security surrounding it, so please forgive me if I'm pointing out the obvious. BMK (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect he's bluffing, BMK. It's possible that we have an admin that has gone suffiently rogue to be forwarding him the details of the edit filter, but I doubt it. Despite his protestations, it actually hasn't blocked anyone but him.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Kww, BMK, rest assured that Kumioko is lying about this. I won't go into too many details per WP:BEANS, but I am positive this is not true. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  I am tempted to post one of the copies, but for your info, there have in fact been three different admins that sent me the filter at least once in the past. Its too bad if you don't believe me, I don't care, I don't have any respect for any of you anymore than you have respect for me If you cannot respect policy for admins then I don't care about it either. And BTW your edit filter doesn't really do much about my editing either obviously. Its just an abuse of the a tool to prevent me from commenting about abusive admins. Typical. Kumioko 172.56.2.146 (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok since I can't edit the comment about my sockpuppet investigation I'll put it here. Sorry KWW, your filter is just too good for me to circumvent, I had no choice. Clearly BMK's comments don't matter to anyone since he isn't blocked and I haven't seen a talk page message so fine, if he can be allowed to throw insults and make comments about peoples family, then I have no reason not to take the gloves off. When you guys start enforcing policy against admins and shitheads like BMK, then I'll be glad to stop. I wished I didn't have to keep creating accounts and IP's but since you want to play this childish game of blocks and reverts I can too. Kumioko172.56.3.107 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Kww - Someone might want to take a look at this edit by Kumioko, which was able to get through to User talk:Doc9871 when he couldn't get through to User talk:Writ Keeper -- just in case it might be useful for tweaking the filter. BMK (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Black listing or XLINKbot

Is it possible to get the this blacklisted or just have it removed by XLinkBot? Even though you've blocked the user who kept linking this, this is still being sourced by other users and IPs. Erick (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The blocked Duke

Did you see his post about AGK at Jimbo's talk page? My response ruffled a couple of feathers (I just said it was discourteous not to notify AGK). I don't know if you want to say anything there about him being a sock. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you should unblock the Duke, post haste, per WP:INVOLVED. Raise an SPI if you wish, but blocking someone who opposes your bot request is not a good idea. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

I'll stand behind the any reasonable admin would have done the same clause. There's no way that's a legitimate account.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, Rich, I will remind you that undisclosed alternates are not permitted to take place in any community discussions. It doesn't matter who they are or what their edits are.—Kww(talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's news to me. WP:SOCK says

“ Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections ”

Which is relatively tightly framed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

I'll dig through and find out who changed the policy text, Rich. The underlying Arbcom decision is far broader:"Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."—Kww(talk) 21:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom does not set policy nor make precedent, their "principles" are generally based in policy, but reasonably often they are just made up . All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

Tabloids

Greetings, Ol' chap! Edit wars are brewing over at I Am... Sasha Fierce. Can you take a look and weigh in on the talk page discussion? Apparently, folks are trying to pass tabloids (Daily Mail) as acceptable journalism on a GA level article. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Petergriffin9901, your last remark in this message "presents the topic [of discussion] in a non-neutral manner." (WP:CANVASSING). Dan56 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Educate yourself, Dan. This isn't a topic up for discussion. There is no where for it to sway. Placing a tabloid such as the [[Daily Mail] in a GA Class article is unacceptable. End of story. This is me requesting administrative assistance to explain it to the uneducated and fool-hearty.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Take this specific quote to WP:RSN and get a consensus as to its suitability. The Daily Mail is certainly borderline in terms of reliability, but in terms of such a trivial matter as characterizing the reviews of a Beyonce album it isn't blatantly unacceptable. I note that the album didn't fare well at Metacritic: it's at the bottom end of favorable, and the second highest review describes it as "a dance disc that can be played without gastric distress by any purchaser who isn't picky about diva gangstaism or videophone porn".—Kww(talk) 02:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That's why I think using the metacritic score and their "generally mixed reviews" statement as far more suitable than quoting the Daily Mail.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What "generally mixed reviews" statement? A score of 62 at Metacritic falls in their "Generally favorable reviews" range ([17]). Dan56 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

My error. I still think that's the acceptable thing to have. If you disagree, find credible sources that back your statements, not one tabloid article.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What "statements"? Dan56 (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Dan... I don't care what word you find to describe its critical commentary. I agree with you that lukewarm is appropriate. That's not the issue. I cannot allow a source like the Daily Mail be used for journalism; especially on a GA article. I could honestly care less about what word you use as long as its backed by a credible source. Is that so much to ask?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Lengthy 3RR complaint in which you commented

Hello Kww. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:QuackGuru reported by User:Jayaguru-Shishya (Result: ). This is probably going to drift into the archives with no action unless some admin will take an interest. Since you've already commented there, perhaps you understand the issues? I am thinking of closing with a one-month full protection of Chiropractic, Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture. This would be intended to force dicussion, and would allow changes via editprotect. Do you have any comment on that idea? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is currently at ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_is_not_moving_on_and_he_is_continuing_his_battleground_behaviour. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

SergiSmiler

New account to do the same thing? [18]

Also I'd like to apologize about the Justin Timberlake awards thing. I get what you mean. I will work on sourcing the article and getting it back up soon(ish). — Status (talk · contribs) 01:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You can be kinder with your corrections of other editors

…in particular, gentler in language (using standard warning templates, or following their lead vis-a-vis collegiality), and citing WP policies as applicable. Blocks, and threats of blocks, are last resorts in modifying editor behaviour here, are they not? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to disguise the fact that I will block someone on the next infraction, and I firmly believe in not using templates when warning editors.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, most recent correction had nothing to do with 3RR instead was incorrectly suggesting that the 3RR was based on advancing a pseudoscientific POV as opposed to reporting what was believed to be a 3RR issue. Since Kww is making the claim, I would like to see the evidence that supports that claim. This is the third time, all by different editors, who have commented on Kww's language and interpretation of the events. DVMt (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR report closed

Greetings! You left me a message at my Talk Page concerning the 3RR report that I filed earlier. You said:

This is to inform you that an edit-warring noticeboard report in which you were involved has been closed. It is to further notify you that at the next sign of edit-warring on any pseudoscience related articles, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely.—Kww(talk) 03:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

.

I don't quite understand. Since when I have been the one edit warring here? I filed the complaint against QuackGuru, and the diffs show that he was the one making constant reverts even despite of his warnings by other administrators. If you look at my editing history at Chiropractic, Traditional Chinese medicine, or Acupuncture, you can't find any edit warring behaviour there from my side.

How come I am the one being warned here? 1) I haven't been involved in any edit war, 2) I reported a user that actually did, 3) user QuackGuru hasn't received any warning from you even the diffs demonstrated his edit warring behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I am not sure if you have my page on your Watchlist, but I just replied to your message there. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! Could you please provide me the diffs for my supposed "furthering of pseudoscientific POVs" at the administrative noticeboards, as you claimed at my Talk Page? As I have already explained before, there is absolutely no POV pushing from my side at the 3RR report I filed, and therefore I think it'd be fair that you take another look at it and pull back the warning you gave me. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, you involved yourself into a WP:ANI -case[19] filed by user QuackGuru (who was the very subject of my 3RR report). He accused me of following him to other articles. You concluded the report for QuackGuru giving me a warning, even despite of the facts that:

• User QuackGuru never provided any proof of me "following him to other articles"
• I asked QuackGuru to provide a complete list of supposed articles I have been following him to. QuackGuru refused to answer.
• You didn't provide any proof, diffs or explanations for your warning based on QuackGuru's allegations.

So far, it seems that you gave me another warning without any evidence displayed. I don't feel like I've been treated farily here, and that's why I am kindly asking you to take another look at it again. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya, you falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule.[20][21] and you made a bogus 3RR report. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:QuackGuru_reported_by_User:Jayaguru-Shishya_.28Result:_DvMT_and_Jayaguru-Shishya_warned.29. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_is_not_moving_on_and_he_is_continuing_his_battleground_behaviour. Do you agree you made a mistake? Do you agree you will stop following me to other articles? If you don't agree to stop following me then I think a topic ban for pseudoscience related articles is appropriate. I asked you before to stop following me. See User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive 1#Please stop following me to other articles and undoing my edits. You first edit to both articles[22][23] was to revert my edit. See WP:HOUND. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Falsely, how? The diffs are provided at the report.

Please provide a complete list of the supposed articles I have been following you to. So far, you have refused to provide such list. We are editing Chiropractic, Traditional Chinese medicine and Acupuncture in common at the time.

You have not agreed to collaborate even though my several requests, latest: [24]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You are still refusing to except you made a bogus 3RR report. I provided evidence you are following me. It has become apparent you are not here to build encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, could you please provide me the diffs Kww, as requested above. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Help

I used {{Singlechart}} for an artist, and the template repeatedly returned an error Illegal name entered. I can't figure out why, and this error doesn't seem to be documented. Could you help me on this?

The artist involved is Kristen Bell, here on Billboard. And the article involved is Do You Want to Build a Snowman? Thanks in advance. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 06:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This should have fixed it, Quenhitran.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 16:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Genre warrior

Hello Kww, an editor doesn't want to stop changing genres to suit his/her own point of view. He/She also attacked me on my own talk page, calling me a vandal and accusing me using multiple IP adresses to revert him/her (NB : the IP adress you can see on this link doesn't belong to me, someone else simply decided to revert this user before I've got the time to do so). I warned this editor on his/her talk page but I think it is not enough. Should I do something else ? Or can you take a look at him/her please ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem here, Synthwave.94, is that I don't see that your edits are any better sourced than his. If you think your genres are better than his, provide sources to back them up. If you can show me an editor reverting sourced changes to install his personal opinion, I will take action.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me ? I never intended changing genres without any source at all ! I simply noticed an user was altering genres to suit his/her own point of view, that's it ! Here's an example. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That one is a simple removal: you removed an unsourced genre and left an unsourced genre in it's place. Here, however, you changed one unsourced on to another unsourced one]]. Like you did here, too. Provide sources for what you leave in or add, and I will get excited. Otherwise, it's just two editors arguing about whose opinion is better.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh ? I simply corrected a link, I didn't alter any genre at all. I did the same thing at Firework and I was thanked for this. Changing a link and changing a genre is different. I changed a link ; The Real One Returns changed genres without any explanation (see I Was Here for example). Are you able to see the difference between these two edits ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Puppeting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ricflairsbutt

There is another obvious sock account. QuackGuru (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kshilts

There is another throw away account. QuackGuru (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Klocek

Hello, Kww. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HGilbert (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

DVMt

After I added the template to the chiropractic page on May 20, 2014 DVMt deleted the very same template on May 21, 2014 I added to the fringe theories. The motivation for deleting the template from the fringe theories was because I added the template to the chiropractic page. This shows DVMt has a battleground mentality. DVMt accused me of adding two templates to the fringe theories but I only added one. There was no specific rationale argument to delete the templates.

User:Adam Cuerden restored the template I originally added and added a {{third-party-inline}} template.

DVMt deleted a template that was added to the page back in December 2011 and deleted the template User:Adam Cuerden restored. This shows DVMt was blindly deleting the {{Unbalanced}} template that was in the article for a number of years. QuackGuru (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DVMt claims "The specific context of removing the templates at the fringe page is that they were problematic as seen at this discussion here [25]."[26] The {{Bias source}} template I originally added no longer exists. I created a new and different template. There was no discussion for removing "two templates" at the fringe page. The discussion is about only one template but DVMt removed two templates. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a {{db-copyvio}} in the newly created sandbox. It looks like a cut and paste from the website Quackwatch. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_June_3#User:DVMt.2Fsandbox. Even sandboxes should not have copyright violations. See User:DVMt/sandbox. Now the copyright violation was added to the chiropractic talk page. What should be done about this? QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No, QuackGuru, the material in DVMt's sandbox does not qualify as a copyright violation. It could be made a little clearer as to what parts are quotes and what parts are DVMt's analysis of that material, but the attribution is reasonably clear and the usage of the material is to provide commentary on it.—Kww(talk) 20:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over WP:FAKEARTICLE

See diff. The edit summary suggest he thinks the fake article littered with mass OR and mass MEDRS violations is an improvement over the well developed chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Now User:Jayaguru-Shishya is making pointy comments on my talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The first link you provided, it's still under discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox

Therefore, it would be violating to remove it until the dispute has been discussed. Why are you reporting such a claim?

You just got banned for the so called pointy comments on your talk page. Here is the message from administrator John[27]

Hi there Quackguru. I have blocked your account for one week for disruptive editing. Your edits to electronic cigarette are either riddled with error or too one-sided. When you come back I want you to take a lot more care, consider avoiding areas where you have very strong views, and (especially) remember that editing here is a collaborative process (meaning we have to work together) and a privilege (which can be withdrawn). If you wish to appeal against this block you may do so by posting {{unblock|your reason here}}, but you should review WP:GAB first. Best wishes and good luck. --John (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

.

You even dared to remove it from yout Talk Page, until the very administrator John restored it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=610687333

Do not remove it again, okay? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Also he refused to collaborate, a proposal which I made on his Talk Page before his ban even[28]. He just deleted it. He clearly is here not to collaborate. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I originally reverted a new account that only made one edit to Wikipedia. I added in-text attribution as a compromise. I'm saving this diff. User:Jayaguru-Shishya is deleting sourced text without any consensus and without any good reason. I don't see any discussion on the talk page to delete the text. What should be done about this? QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned in the edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong, but hasn't there been 7 editors who have approved of this edit (Herbxue, Dougmcdonell, Jayaguru-Shishya, 2044.174.12.10, Jytdog, Bumm13). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#mediaviewer/File:Consensus_Flowchart.svg"

So far, there have been 7 different editors who had no complaints about the edit (correct if I am wrong). Please see the consensus flowchart linked in the edit summary. Why did you revert something approved by so many editors? Have you learnt anything from your most recent ban? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I will examine the list to see if any legitimate editors have supported removal of the text, Jayaguru-Shishya.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Also for John and Tiptoety good to know. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya, please show where 7 editors approved of your edit. Please also show where was the discussion on the talk page for consensus to delete the text. You haven't shown you got consensus to delete the text and you still have not given any reason to delete the text. I added in-text attribution as a compromise for the text at TCM. I added in-text attribution which fixed any concerns about the text. In-text attribution was also done at acupuncture as a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is still claiming 7 editors approved of his edit. This is getting out of hand. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the policy and here is your revert against 7 different edits per previous policy. It seems you keep continuing the same behaviour right after your most recent ban. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, your list of seven editors is obviously false, as it includes editors that do not exist and editors that have not commented on the issue. Examine your list, correct it and correct the count, or stop using it. The next claim of "seven supporters" that you make without providing an actual list of seven supporters will result in you being blocked.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am pertaining to WP:Consensus Flowchart. Since the revert QuackGuru made over the edit of Bexgro, you can easily see from the Revision history that how many users have kept editing the article remaining User Bexgro's edit. This includes that ip-address editor and me as well. If you liked to leave myself and that ip-address (okay for me) out of calculations, there are still many editors who were just fine with the edit. And as I stated in my edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong,...". So what's the problem here?

Please show me the diffs where QuackGuru has tried to resolve this with other users? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you are attempting to deceive people by conflating "seven people edited the article" with "seven people agreed with the removal of this material". Again, count the people that have actively stated support for the change and replace your claim of seven with the result, Jayaguru-Shishya.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not attempting to deceive anyone, that's ridiculous. User QuackGuru has been the one making accusations against me[29]. Again, like the chart over WP:CON demonstrates, the last version remained unchanged and got edited by several other contributors before QuackGuru reverted it. And as I made it pefectly clear in my edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong...", or like I already stated here: "So far, there have been 7 different editors who had no complaints about the edit (correct if I am wrong)...". If one disagrees, can he/she at least correct me? I am open to correct my statements if I am wrong, naturally. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You claimed you have consensus but it seems you did not have a consensus to delete the text in the first place. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been attempting to correct you, Jayaguru-Shishya, using the time-honoured technique of making someone examine an issue until they see where they have gone wrong. It's one of the ways that I use to distinguish good-faith editors from others. Do you truly not see how, for example, an editor like Bumm13 that focuses on making corrections to transliterations and linking is not expressing an opinion on your change? That 204.174.12.10's opinion on shark-fin soup is not a comment about your change? That McSly's reversion is a negative opinion on the change? That QuackGuru's edits are a negative opinion of your change? In short, the only other editor that made any statement in favour of the change was Herbxue? Hardly the seven to one consensus you are using to justify your edits.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Kww. I start to understand that we have been looking this from totally different perspectives, but I do get your point now. This is what I am concerned about:

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. (WP:CON)

I understand now that you are pointing out to different motives behind the edits of each user that I were pertaining to. In my understanding, though, WP:CON only speaks about implicit and invisible process of consensus; the motive of edit does not matter as long as the edit is not disputed. This is what I see to be Bexgro's case.

Well, this is my understanding on WP:CON, but I don't really see why QuackGuru couldn't try discussing the issue first at the article Talk Page? I even stated very clearly in my edit summary: "...Revert this if I'm wrong..."[30], and that already happened by Jim1138[31]. I am not seeking for any trouble and in my opinion, everything is okay at the article already. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of consensus is wrong. Certainly, there is a concept of silent consensus: an edit that lasts for months on an actively edited article can be presumed to have some level of consensus. Not a very strong one if no one has been actively supporting it, but yes, it's there. An edit that has been around for a couple of days while a couple of editors actively removed it cannot be said to have any level of consensus at all. —Kww(talk) 19:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the snarky edit summary

I appreciate your pulling me up for this edit summary. I think I read your comment more harshly than it was intended. Thanks for explaining. --John (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prem Raj Pushpakaran

As you are literate in coding, your assistance would be helpful. Currently, when AfCs are XfDd, like in the link above, the template assumes it is a talk page. It shouldn't, as AfCs are articles in talkspace. Therefore, would you be so kind as to edit Template:User-links and create an if statement so that it recognises AfCs and thus behaves as though it is an article? (It would need to ask if the first 37 characters equal "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/", I know there is an expression for that but I don't know what that is.)Launchballer 18:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be more careful

The reputation that is most effected when a false accession is made is your own. In saying early in the discussion about DVmt, that "It is impossible to review your edit history without noting your chronic edit-warring over chiropractic topics as well as the multiple times you have used sockpuppets in efforts to further your goals", you made a claim of sock puppetry that you later retracted. This site makes such false accession far too easy; even so, anyone who does so is clearly marked in the community at large by doing so. And one must always be more careful in accusing ones that we disagree with, or find distasteful, wouldn't you agree? Best wishes to you here, but I hope never to see another such serious accusation turn out to be mistaken. (No RSVP necessary, but if so, please reply here. I will mark and watch.) Cheers. Le Prof [failed to sign earlier, so signing now, belatedly] Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See comment regarding your stridency

I likely, case by case, will come to the very same conclusions that you do, but I will not, a priori, dis-allow anyone from bringing a citation-based sentence of text into the Wikipedia, perceived pseudoscience or no. Stridency such as yours, while to some extent keeping science focused on the most likely explanations, has also led to huge failures and crises in modern science (e.g., the sidelining of the late Carl Woese for most of his early career; though declining major society awards to the end of his days for the prejudicial slights he experienced early, at least his story ended well, as he was vindicated, and esteemed). Opposite that, other major research laboratories have come-and-gone that were on the wrong tack for years (clinging to failed hypotheses, long past the point where the preponderance of science had said "let go", because all data coming the way of the PI was prejudged based on worker perceptions of what the PI was willing to hear). These historical observations, as much as the one given from the birth of modern physics, are the basis for my comment regarding religiosity among the most fervent of science types. The direction such attitudes point may indeed be different from those of its opponents, and the aims largely correct. But it is still philosophically the same mares nest, and when it falls, it falls hard. One sees it in the history of science, in biology, in chemistry (my field), in drug discovery, etc. etc. Please, approach everything in an evidence-based fashion, and not prejudicially. Even if only one of the myriads of seemingly nonsensical alternative treatments proves true, we would lose (and lose ourselves) if we resort to anything less than empiricism to find the one and dismiss the others. See comment regarding your stridency, at [32]. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Entertainment Expo 2014

Can you take a look at Electronic Entertainment Expo 2014 ? This edit summary [33] confuses me, and the edits are piling up. I'm not sure how to review this. Thanks, Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tails of that one either, Origamite. Do you know whether the edit is accurate? That's the important part, not the ramblings of an anonymous editor.—Kww(talk) 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes... but games keep getting added, and I'm not sure whether to approve those (the editors might be at E3) or not. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty simple rule in my book, Origamite: if they didn't provide a good enough source for you to verify it, they didn't provide a good enough source for you to approve it.—Kww(talk) 00:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Chloë Grace Moretz

Greetings! As a confirmed user, this doesn't affect me, but I'm curious: I don't see the persistent vandalism or edit-warring that used to be a requirement for page protection. Did I miss something? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty blatant BLP violations in the history, of the kind that experience has taught me is a meme. No reason to suffer through it.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I didn't look back far enough. Carry on. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply

You've got a reply on Template talk:Singlechart#Countries for chart identifier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberlylambert (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Owner of archive.today

I would like to inform you that a pattern that I have noticed could serve as a strong hint regarding the ownership of archive.today by User:Rotlink. I’m telling you this here instead of mentioning it in a more general location because I’m not sure what the best place to mention it would be.

In the message where he claimed to be the owner of archive.is, Rotlink ended a sentence with the “:(” emoticon not preceded by a period, the next sentence starting with a capital letter: “[…] nor in Tubmlr control panel :( Hopefully, I found this conversation […]”.

A message posted 4 weeks ago on the archive.today blog shows exactly the same pattern: the very same emoticon, not preceded by a period, right at the end of a sentence and preceding a sentence starting with a capital letter: “It is not easy, PhantomJS allows to spoof User-Agent only for the request of the main page, not for the images and AJAX requests :( So you may get something weird instead […]”.

It is very improbable that this is a coincidence. It may seem very ridiculous, which is why I have called it a hint rather than a proof or evidence. Yet, in truth, there is no doubt that they are the same person: the probability that two persons, when one of them has claimed to be the other, have this very same writing pattern, which appears four other times on the blog (but the occurrence I mentioned is the only one where a sentence can be found after the emoticon), is very low. You can search for “:(” on the page of the blog to find the examples I am talking about.

I’m not sure whether this is sufficiently important for a new discussion to be started about it, but I think it should be brought up if any discussion about archive.today arises or is still going on. ― Rastus Vernon (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Create an OpenCart article

Hello,

I would like to create an OpenCart article. I have the draft written, although wikipedia would not let me post without an administrators permission.

I would appreciate it if you unlock the article so I can post it for the ever expanding community. The article does not contain advertising and it is pure 100% information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkonabike (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What has changed since the last deletion discussion, Elkonabike?—Kww(talk) 02:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have collected much more information on the topic based on research on what other E-commerce solutions feature as information. Still I do not understand why you and others are preventing and deleting any article on OpenCart. I saw the article has been deleted 2-3 times before. This is a free e-commerce system, actually the world's 3rd most popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkonabike (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

PC2

Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé

The number of awards won by the artist was more than 174 before the addition of Destiny's Child awards were added months ago. Secondly, many of the awards by the individual artist listed includes awards won by Destiny's Child. The number of awards is no where near inflated and both of us are just as capable of providing sources to each award. I will edit the page once again including awards won by Destiny's Child regardless of whether I will be blocked from editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

FAC Media check

Kww,

I am looking to take the Demi Lovato and Katy Perry articles to FA at some point within the next month, and was wondering: could you perform media checks for images and such when nominated? Given your frequent work at Demi (and other Disney-related articles), I can see why personal commentary on prose and such probably wouldn't be appropriate during an FAC for her, but would that make you ineligible for media-checking? If you can't do such checks, please refer me to someone who can.

Thank you in advance. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 22:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

David Guetta discography

There is an anonymous IP who keeps removing singles from tables at David Guetta discography without giving any explanation in edit summaries, some of recent removals are these, 1, 2. I tried to warn him/her on the user's talk twice 1, 2, but he/she deletes the warnings and goes back to the article and keeps removing content. The request for semi-protection was declined. Maybe you could take a look.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Addressed it with a filter. Let me know if you see him hop IPs.—Kww(talk) 00:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, I will.--Harout72 (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been denied. Please see the request page for details. I am aware I have invoked WP:IAR in closing this, but as there is not a clear consensus to run a bot to remove all the links (from the BFRA and RfC discussions), I feel the close is appropriate. Please let me know if you feel differently. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Justin Timberlake

Hello. Why are you deleting the sections of this article? Well, i understand that there are not links but it dosen't mean that we should delete the section. If you don't know then there's a template which you can put when the article hasn't sources. --Eurofan88 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Awards

There is a huge amount of unsourced entries on the List of awards and nominations received by Lil' Kim page. I think you should take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.133.76 (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick question

I'm not looking for any action, just an opinion. Do you think the highlighting done on this Talk page is a help or a hindrance? It's being presented as lifting the contributions of others above the din of the two conflicting editors. I have my own opinion about what to do next but I'm looking for a little outside insight and you are one of the admins I remember being above reproach. Padillah (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lil' Kim

There is still a lot of false and unsourced information on this page. An example being the BMI and ASCAAP awards. How did one receive awards for the same songs in the same years, when an artist can only be associated with one organisation at a time? A lot of the sourced awards link to the same Australian google book that doesn't have anything to do with the claimed awards. I will try and find reliable sources for the claims and help in any way you would like me to. Just a warning, I have had previous run ins with this particular editor, from experience he will likely revert your edits. KaneZolanski (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please be very specific, KaneZolanski. If you can demonstrate specific line items that he inserted with sources that didn't corroborate them, I'll either put him on final warning or block him right now.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

One example, in the ASCAAP Pop Awards section. The source provided honours 50 Cent for his contribution to Magic Stick. It does not award, mention or even credit Lil Kim. Citation 9 awards Scott Scorch as song writer of the year. There is no reference to Lil' Kim in the source provided. There are a lot more examples of this and there is a large portion of awards that have no source at all. KaneZolanski (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Those come under the class of what I could consider to be good-faith confusion. I've removed them, and hopefully that will be the end of it. I see this in articles all the time, where people try to give singers and actors credit for awards that belong to writers and producers. Do you have any cases where it's clearly a bad-faith edit, KaneZolanski? Please don't feel like I'm dismissing your concerns: I'm not. I just can't take action if there's a good-faith explanation for the problem.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will look into this further. An example of the editor inserting lies is the ASCAAP Pop Music Awards. He claims the Lady Marmalade won Song of the Year, when in fact Dido won that year, as backed up by this source. http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/awards/popawards/2002/song.aspx. Also, the ASCAAP Pop Honourees Award was awarded to Kenny Nolan for his work on Lady Marmalade. I have deleted these off of the page. KaneZolanski (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. The amount of false information on this page is outstanding. I'm removing all of the false and inaccurate claims, chances are they are going to be reverted by the editor. It's impossible to give any other reasons besides false in the edit summaries. I've searched the sources provided and done individual research and they still come back false. It's a shame.KaneZolanski (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to give the editor time to insert necessary citations using the tag. Hopefully he can find sources to back up these claims. KaneZolanski (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Another example of a completely made up received award. The sources only state that Christina won for Best International Female. Nothing at all to do with the song. Channel V Thailand Music Video Awards

Year	Nominee / work	Award	Result
2002	"Lady Marmalade" (with Christina Aguilera, Pink & Mýa)	Popular Duo/Group Video	Won

Made up award title and award, She co-hosted the event. She didn't receive an award. Children Uniting Nations

Year	Nominee / work	Award	Result
2007	Lil' Kim	Crystal Dove Award: Inspiring Our Children to Dream	Won

KaneZolanski (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are just a couple of the TENS of blatant false lies and information. For example the lie I'm currently deleting is from The Source Awards. Where it is claimed that Lil Kim won for best female rap collaboration in 2004. This source, from billboard, shows the award going to Remy Ma. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/66144/2004-source-hip-hop-music-awards-winners. There are so many false claims that i have probably skipped past some without realising. This article needs to be looked over from start to finish, and the editor who has inserted these lies needs to be banned from altering this page. KaneZolanski (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done enough I can for one night. I would recommend looking over the sources for the ASCAP Awards. The chances of all my edits being reverted by the editor are high. KaneZolanski (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Nicki Minaj

if you could take a closer look on what is sourced and unsourced on this article to avoid an article "war" it would be appreciated, as I have looked though and found data that may be false being reverted without citations, thanks.—9thinning001(talk) 06:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

The sockpuppet is back. Same behaviour as before. In the past there was some suspected IP socking too. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What evidence would you like to present of your accusations? It appears to me you would provide some if you had it. I'm beginning to suspect you just want to justify your disruptive edits, which I see have gotten you blocked many times in the past. Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I arrived here because Acupuncture happened to be at the top of my watchlist where I saw this edit with edit summary "reverting disruptive edit. Don't bite the newbies" from an account that is under two days old. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

at the top of the talk pages it says, "Please be welcoming of newcomers". When you click on it, it says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

So I'm not allowed to say don't bite me because I'm a newbie? Why is everyone being so combative?Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

and I arrived at this page because I was looking at quackguru's editing history and noticed his post here. I also noticed he has been blocked and banned numerous times for disruptive editing, edit warring, and even warned not to edit war at all. He has been told, and I think by you, that the three revert rule he warned me about didn't apply to him. He's not allowed to revert even less than three times based on his editing history. Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And you think ignoring me is a good idea? You are continuing to make disruptive edits. QuackGuru (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you are being your own worst enemy again. I'm aware. I'm watching. I'm contemplating what, if anything, to do. Making my orange bar flash every few minutes will not make me go faster.—Kww(talk) 03:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

You might be interested in giving input here. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 04:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Can you please give Favre1fan93 a final warning for re-adding archive.is links after they have been removed? Oh and just a heads up Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2 Werieth (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you have a word with STATicVapor ? They persist to editwar archive.is links back into articles. Werieth (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The 100 greatest Indian films of all time

Hi. If you believe this to be a copyvio, then why do we have full lists of films like AFI 100?? I strongly suggest you take a look in Category:Top film lists. The films were put in chronological order anyway. I can see that some articles only pick the top 10 though. Can you at least restore the list to my user space? If I simply have a list of films and remove mention of the source then it's hardly copyrightable. That Indian newspaper doesn't own the rights to the film titles. I thought it a valuable list of notable Indian films which I personally found useful, given that most lists are Anglo centric and that it would be useful for the Indian project to find articles to develop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be a copyright violation, it is a copyright violation and, as such, cannot be restored. If you reproduce the list without crediting the source, that still violates the copyright (and I have a hard time believing that you don't know that). The AFI list has an OTRS ticket (2007041310002766) releasing its contents. As for any other such lists that you encounter, delete them on sight.—Kww(talk) 13:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty crazy. I could draw up a list of the 100 films in any random order which happened to be cited in that list on this talk page and that wouldn't make it a copyvio if I added more titles to it from the Indian group input. It would simply be a list of films,The newspaper does NOT own the rights to the titles of films and the idea that they would have the power to the titles of the films is ludicrous. Where would this silliness stop? Not permitted to mention Scorsese's favourite films because he owns the copyright to it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the objective inclusion criteria that guides the law. When the compilation criteria is based on an opinion, a value is placed on the opinion, and thus copyright law protects that value. If you were to build a list, say, of "Indian films that placed on three or more lists of Greatest Films", that would have an objective inclusion criterion and would not be protected. There are ways to get fairly close to where you want to be.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you send me the list by email then and I'll revise it with different entries and put in my own user space so it isn't a vio.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

Hey, just a heads up on the reverts between you and SergiSmiler, the credits on her Bangerz album does list her as a writer to some of the songs. Would that not qualify her as a songwriter? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I link to singer-songwriter. Miley Cyrus does not practice a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I never saw your edit summary about the singer-songwriter article. I only saw the last revert thinking it was the first, so nevermind. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

See Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 Werieth (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I worked with him on getting a neutral phrasing in place. There was a little bit of surprise in the timing, but over all, I think it's probably a good idea to either reaffirm or deny the existing RFC consensus.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please have a word with him, he is edit warring again on Dishonored. Werieth (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Let It Go

Hi Kevin, I know that you are fairly experienced in terms of music articles, chart info, and radio release dates, so maybe you could look at this discussion regarding the radio and maxi single release of this song and give your input? –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Here is the problem in a nutshell the problem is, Forbidden and several other users are arguing with reliable sources and not assuming good faith and criticizing Chase and me for point out that they have been making weak points as to why the infobox should not reflect the Menzel's version has been released as a single. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User page

Actually, the only page a blocked user can edit is their talk page (unless that access is specifically removed...). Sandbox, user page and all sub-pages are out of bounds. I can't find a reference for this - it must be laid down somewhere, surely. That's how it works, anyway. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Boostedmx5

Can you please explain why yoou think that Boostedmx5 is a sockpuppet? The user is asking to be unblocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the history of Vivint, which was beset by sockpuppets, I came to the conclusion that Boostedmx5, The Voice of Reason 9999, Honestabe7777, and Joeearnest were all the same editor. I'd get a checkuser run before unblocking any of them, עוד מישהו.—Kww(talk) 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Please, when you block a user for sockpuppetry, leave some reasonable indication as to who the other accounts are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I was hoping you might be able to give me some insight as to what this message by GoFormer was about? I followed the link and haven't seen my username anywhere, so I'm a little confused. Mayast (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Its a known sock master who persists in harassing me. Werieth (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply, Kww. Mayast (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Creating articles that are creation protected with loopholes

That was probably a confusing subject, but I have a question relating to it. An editor has recently created an article for an actress named Madison lintz (she was on The Walking Dead). Note the lowercase "l". This editor has bypassed a creation-protected page at Madison Lintz and created the article. I don't exactly know what to flag it as to mark it for deletion (it only contains sources to AMC's website and her parents' blog) so I come to you. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Madison Lintz page

Hi, so I saw that you recently deleted the page Madison lintz because based on WP:G4 speedy deletion criterion. I've been working on it recently and am assured that the last revision of the article has fixed the problems that led to the article's deletion last time around. I'd like to see the article reinstated because of this, thanks for your time.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) When it gets rightly deleted once, don't ever immediately re-create it in articlespace. User WP:AFC or a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. If and only if it meets Wikipedia's requirements, you then approach a wisened admin to review and possibly move into articlespace for you. Doing anything else (like recreating under a slightly different name) can lead to a block for disruption. the panda ₯’ 00:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

SMS (Bangerz)

Can you watch it with the page? User:SergiSmiler undid its revision, though I undid it back. 'Composition' section says hip hop elements that is not the same thing. 183.171.161.153 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion

I provided the evidence here of a block evasion. Neuraxis calls me Quack[34]. This appears to be Déjà vu[35] again per WP:DUCK. Both Neuraxis[36][37] and CorticoSpinal[38][39] called me Quack and both share the same POV according to the evidence. Neuraxis was not here to build an encyclopedia. Both accounts also have similar names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.235.143.175

Suspected sock of Neuraxis/DVMt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.229.74.64

Suspected sock of CorticoSpinal.

Both IPs originate from Ontario, Canada and both IPs were used for IP socking.

I read you explained that: It's policy: WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Where a sock account is used to violate his block, it is normal procedure to revert the edits. This is not my rule, it is Wikipedia's consensus.

Here is the issue: The suspected sock made a lot of changes against consensus and restored a page that was merged into Chiropractic education. The page was a redirect for 4 years.

I was thinking about reporting this or discussing this on the talk page but your comment on my talk page suggested you want to review things like this that may require admins to review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, QuackGuru, I strongly suggest that you fly these things by me. Can you give the page that was restored? I'm queasy about claiming we know enough about DVMt to say that we absolutely know that he was CorticoSpinal, so I want to be certain you have a good case made before anyone starts taking actions based on believing that he is. I'll review the CorticoSpinal connection more thoroughly, and see how comfortable I feel about the case.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis made changes to the Chiropractor page. You can review the edit history of the page to see that back in 2009 there was consensus for a merge and the page was redirected. In 2013 is when the changes started. I don't understand why he blanked the page in one if his edits. QuackGuru (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There have been too many subsequent edits by valid editors for WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad to be applied any more, even if we could prove that CorticoSpinal was Neuraxis. That doesn't mean that you can't try redirecting it now that Neuraxis is blocked. It seems like he was the only editor fighting the redirect. If it gets put back, don't edit war over it.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Side note: Your talk page is moving way to the right. I'll try to fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI

I was going to add User:Snake&Staff to the current SPI report.

See this edit and see this edit. Both accounts removed the word "deaths" from the lede. This is the source in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Too old for checkuser to be of any use and pretty clearly a throwaway sock. I went ahead and blocked.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add the following to the SPI report:

The IP 72.33.63.1 added the word "characterized" on June 4, 2014 and later on two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "characterized" to the lede.[40][41] The wording "stated" is neutral rather than the word "characterized".

I think this is evidence that can be submitted to SPI. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Too weak to submit, especially since Middle8 appears to be competent with English and the IP clearly is not.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Feuds

I would like to find out your input about the "Feud" section on the Nicki Minaj page. I think that the addition of Foxy Brown and Remy Ma to that section was not needed because Minaj was not involved in any way with what is detailed there. Its basically just speculations and assumptions from different websites/blogs and no real connection to an actual "Feud", thus making the section false and making people believe there was an actual feud between them which is not the case. It was already discussed on the talk page but the reason they gave for it being there was that it had it had "credible sources". So do you think it should be classified as feuds even though Minaj has absolutely nothing to do with information given, whether verbally or physically. JACUBANHELADO (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's in an article about a living person and sourced only to a blog, you can always delete it, JACUBANHELADO.—Kww(talk) 20:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE report

I previously informed Middle 8 of the sanctions and about 3RR and disruptive editing for the acupuncture page. Middle 8 was just notified of the sanctions again by User:Robert McClenon but he is continuing to edit war:

Middle 8 was previously edit warring over the specific numbers.[42][43][44][45] On two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "characterized" to the lede5:40, 25 June 201401:09, 4 July 2014 and on two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "described" to the lede.11:55, 12 May 201423:57, 4 July 2014

I think this can be reported to AE or I can let you handle this situation. You wanted me to run things like this before I make a report. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a 3RR violation. I will discuss it with Middle 8.—Kww(talk) 05:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Certification Table Entry

Hi Kww, I have left some messages regarding a few issues for the certification template at the talk page of the above. Can you please take a look? If you are not the concerned person for making these changes, can you please direct me to someone who should? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Punkox, again?

Hi Kevin. These edits are very similar to his. He's been repeatedly adding sales from Sony Japan's website (which are inflated, of course. It says it's sold 100K when original sales stand at 40K). Can you take a look? Ryoga (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He's been adding fake certifications, again Kevin. Ryoga (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Request to submit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Middle 8 was recently warned for editing against consensus at the acupuncture page. Now User:Middle made changes against a clear consensus again with another sentence in the lede. Middle 8 unilaterally restored the old wording that was previously rejected. The previous wording was discussed in detail at Talk:Acupuncture#Original research again and the previous wording is supported by the source. Middle claims the wording is not supported by the source. (This was similar to a previous edit where he claimed the wording was unsourced. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#More re TCM .26 pseudoscience wording. He claimed on his talk page "(I don't remember why I also deleted the "with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments", but as you can see, somebody else restored it, which I didn't contest.)"[46]) Doc James made the specific proposal on the talk page.[47] I made the proposal in mainspace and this was also supported by another editor[48]. The change to the lede by Middle 8 was clearly against consensus according to the diffs presented.[49][50][51][52]

With your permission I would like to submit this to arbitration (or you can decide if anything should be done). I was told to run this by an admin first as you know. QuackGuru (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8 deleted sourced text claiming" per WP:BRD, rv series of bold edits by QuackGuru to version by Jmh649 at 08:50, 7 July 2014. Similar situation as Moffet; source comments on subset of literature reviewed, & doesn't support general statement. Talk: Special:Diff/616080486/616080558. The text is sourced using a systematic review of systematic reviews. Middle 8 was being disingenuous on the talk page. See Talk:Acupuncture#Another convenience break. He was also being disruptive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Acupuncture again.

I would like to submit this, along with recent past disruption, to WP:AE or you can decide what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)