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

Artpop

Well it does have a general release date, several confirmed tracks, etc. Born This Way was created with a release date and thats it. PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I was trying to be rude. I was just saying if you give these articles a chance, maybe even if they don't exactly meet criteria, they can grow with love into massively in-depth and successful pages like Born This Way. PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC

I was wondering if you could evaluate MY version of the the page for Artpop which is at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Artpop. I see that you keep redirecting it, which I understand because those articles were sub par, but I truly believe my article is worthy of the mainspace. Its fully sourced with NO speculation. Just to add some validity, I created the article for Born This Way (you can check it's first entry) while the same thing was happening with it. People created close to six different versions of the article, until I finally created an article worthy of the mainspace. Thanks. PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Artpop (NEW)

Well I'm back with a new username! :P Its been almost 2 months now and my page for ARTPOP has been grown expanded and edited. Its ridiculously extensive and I think the best candidate out there to be ARTPOP's mainspace page. I know you cite several Wikipedia guidelines as reason for this page not to exist, but several upcoming album's articles that have no tracklisting or release date exist (i.e. Native (album), Backstreet Boys' eighth studio album, etc.) This page has been incessantly edited by fans and I've been constantly reverting or changing their edits for while now. Please move the page to the mainspace for protection, and to allow better growth. Please give it a chance like everybody did for Born This Way (album). Now its a very notable article because the rules were broken to allow it to exist. Remember, sometimes the rules were meant to broken! Thanks! :) ARTPOPist (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated both of those examples for deletion. I actually do believe in applying policies and guidelines uniformly, and I strongly uphold WP:CRYSTAL. There will be plenty of time to write about Artpop when it actually exists, and there's no race to be first.—Kww(talk) 03:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Carly Rae Jepsen Discography

What comment? And why are the certifications being taken away? They all have citations. And why is the album being changed to "Curiosity and Kiss" Curiosity was just an extended play, all the songs are from the album, I don't see other discographies having the format "x and x" under albums.

Carly Rae Jepsen Discography

Well, How can I make it work out? The Japanese source posts the numbers weekly, but once next weeks chart is posted, they remove the numbers from the previous week. I'm just adding it up and it's 73,000. As for US, 46,000 is first week sales. Totals leaked and it's 82,000, as seen on post#16 on this page: http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=286752 Am I able to use this info and cite it? Because now the information is invalid and it would be better to completely remove the sales than leave it this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamil24 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Latvian Airplay Chart

84.237.250.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The user above is at it again. Is there something we can do to fix this? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Just warn and revert until it's clear he's ignoring you. It's not the chart from WP:BADCHARTS, but it does violate WP:SINGLENETWORK.—Kww(talk) 22:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Its more the number of articles its being added to. Same with another IP adding Spanish Airplay. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting help

I am unable to be on Wikipedia for the time required to do the reviews I have picked (real life situations making time a problem for now). No review was actually started, but I opened the GA review page and do not know how to reverse this. Could you assist of help me locate someone that can remove me from the following reviews to open them up for others to take: Talk:Jon Huntsman, Jr./GA1, Talk:Star Trek/GA1, Talk:Show_Boat/GA1. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Wizardman deleted the pages for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 03:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

linkin park

HEY KEVIN REPLY TO ME ALTERNATIVE MEANS MIXEDAND LP IS METAL SO ITS ALTERNATIVE METAL

Gota Work etc.

Hey Kevin, I just blocked 149.151.144.60. But please don't mass revert: some of their edits, such as the one on Gota Work, are improvements. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I join Drmies here - do not mass revert, please check your recent reverts. Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dewan357 is a prolific sockpuppeteer. Has been for years. I agree that some of his edits are useful, but I have always, and will always, revert anything he does that isn't a vandalism reversion. If you see that I have accidentally restored vandalism, feel free to undo my reversion.—Kww(talk) 00:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You have, quite a lot, sigh .. Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Show me an example. Not of there being a bad version of an article that he had improved, but actual vandalism.—Kww(talk) 00:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah no, xe was mostly fixing past blunders, but sometimes vandalism too [1][2]. I haven't checked many edits. Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User:KWW has a personal vendetta against me. As you can see form his history that he has abused his administrative powers by giving people excessive blocks. As you can see from my edits that Much of my edits have been of good faith. User:KWW has no sense of professionalism. Please go through my edits and you will see that I have contributed with good faith, User:KWW has abused his powers. Please take this up with the Arbitraion committee and look into my case, as well as User: KWW. He is in deep violation of his powers. Personal vendetta has no place in wikipedia and especially Admin abuse/trolling. (174.226.194.202 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC))

Which is evidence for my basic thesis: if you spend a lot of time investigating his edits, you are ding exactly what he wants you to do.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your tone is exorbitant. As the odium goes: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." (174.255.113.212 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC))

174.255.113.212: You are wasting your time. Editors may accept your edits, but they may also revert and block you on sight - you can't claim any justice by evading blocks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have no love for the sock, but there is no point in reverting all their edits. It's only an invitation for them to return. I may go through the list, and I may use rollback to revert what I think are useful edits. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hey Kevin, There's an edit war brewing on Christina Aguilera discography. He keeps adding non-reliable sources (blogs, fansites etc.) and placing random worldwide sales with them. Please take a look and intervene.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Temple garment

I know you generally keep a pretty close eye on the Temple garment article, but three brand new users keep adding content about a commercial site selling replicas of garments. This section has become almost an advertisement for the company, and it looks like these three accounts (User:Dholsing, User:Mormonrod, and User:Ivypr, probably along with IP 75.72.207.229), are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Please take a look. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Another sockpuppet, User:Exmoboard, with a new account created a short time ago today, just popped up on the talk page. 72Dino (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the OR that I added. I found a reference and added that members can even make their own currently under the direction of their local leaders. Thanks for the friendly reminder. Not too often I forget that one. Regards, --Manway 02:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

User:M.Sunshine

Kevin, your contributions look like you are reverting every single edit M.Sunshine made before you indeffed him as a sockpuppet of Chace Watson. It doesn't look like you ever filed an SPI on M.Sunshine to confirm your suspicion, but even assuming you're right, it appears that you have deemed Watson as de facto banned and have been reverting all of the account's edits, regardless of whether they need to be reverted. Some of the reversions are to articles on my watchlist (which is how this came to my attention). In many instances, the Sunshine edit was a good one. In at least one instance, your reversion damaged the article (that's the only one I reverted back).

As you probably already know from the previous discussion about Dewan357, I don't agree with your interpetation of policy or your actions, but, honestly, putting our disagreement aside, why do you feel so strongly that you need to do this? How does it help Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Several reasons:

1. Sockpuppeting is the single most destructive problem on Wikipedia. There is no worse behaviour.
2. Without enforcement, blocks and bans are meaningless. Our technical means are inadequate, and it is every admin's obligation to enforce blocks.
3. There's essentially no such thing as a block evading edit that "doesn't need to be reverted". With Chace Watson, I have to step more carefully around BLP problems, because he tends to edit BLPs, but aside from that, his edits need to be removed.

Despite the implications of your comment, I have no need to open an SPI report for every detected sock. SPI is a method for users to seek an admin's help, or for admins to seek a checkuser's help. If I detect a sock and block him, all that I am obligated to do is tag him. And Chace Watson is de-facto banned. It's recently become fashionable for some admins to deny the existence of de-facto bans, but de-facto bans have been the predominant banning technique since before I became an admin. No sane admin would unblock someone with that history of sockpuppeting, copyright violations, and active deceit. He's indefinitely blocked for misbehaviour for multiple years on multiple projects, and de-facto banned here and on commons.

If you really need a written rule to make you feel better about my behaviour, see WP:BAN#Difference between bans and blocks where, for the situations that it is appropriate to undo edits by indefinitely-blocked editors, it states "Edits by the editor or on his behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages that have been created by the editor where he is the only substantial contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5." for contents created during the block. Since Chace Watson is indefinitely blocked, my reverts are entirely appropriate.

If you have serious questions about exactly why I know this is Chace Watson, we'll need to take that up via e-mail. I have no reason to publicly display to a block-evader exactly how I know it's him.—Kww(talk) 01:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

One additional point: I don't mass-revert unless I am 100% certain about the socking. In history, I have been found to be wrong about the socking precisely twice after I undertook mass-reversion, and, in both cass, I both apologized and took the several hours necessary to completely restore all the edits.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A broader discussion than one between you and me might benefit from a detailed policy discussion, but that wasn't really my objective in coming here. For the purpose of our discussion only, let's assume you have the right to determine without an SPI that an editor is a sock. Let's also assume that based on your determination you have the right to indef the account. Finally, let's assume that you have the right to act as if the editor is de facto banned. With these assumptions in mind, how do think it helps Wikipedia to revert edits by the sock simply because you "can"? The policy says: "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." In other words, you have some discretion about which edits to revert. Other than the ones you shouldn't revert for policy reasons ("exceptions"), are you evaluating the substance of the sock's edit? Are you checking (as in the case of Ryan Reynolds) what your reversion does to the article? We can wikilawyer this to death - and some wikilawyering may even be appropriate - but shouldn't the quality of the articles matter just as much as the "broader problems" mentioned in the policy?

Again, the policy issues are debatable, but I'm trying to approach our conversation from a more commonsense perspective. I get the impression that your hatred of sockpuppetry (understandable) may cause you to act in an extreme manner and, as admins, we are supposed to be cooler and, when appropriate, more nuanced in our interpretation and application of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the only thing that will ever dissuade a sockpuppeteer is the knowledge that none of his edits will survive, and a mindless consistency is the only way to achieve that. That is precisely the reason that the policy emphasises that the ban applies to all edits, both good and bad. Evaluating each of the edits individually and determining whether they are "good" or not is what we are supposed to do with all editors: it's standard treatment. To perform such evaluation on a blocked editor means that you are not making any distinction, and are not taking any steps to enforce the block. None of these sockpuppeteers has any special knowledge: any beneficial change they make will eventually have an equivalent change made by a legitimate editor.

The problem is made far, far worse by editors that attempt to examine each edit. For example, treating Dewan357 as you have has done more to encourage him to continue evading his block than anything else you could have done. He's been encouraged similarly in the past, and that's the primary reason he continues. It's clear that at this point he blames his block on me, rather than himself, and doesn't even take into account that I wasn't even an admin when he and his first group of socks was blocked.

The point of the reversion is to return Wikipedia as nearly as possible to the state as if the illegitimate edits had never been made at all. That's the goal: to completely nullify the impact of the editor. Without that manual enforcement, our blocks are meaningless, as they usually don't require anything more dramatic than resetting a cable modem and creating a new account to bypass.

The quality of individual articles is actually fairly meaningless in the broad scope. We have over 4 million of the things. A temporary degradation of a small number can't be reasonable held to be significantly damaging to the product.

As for checking, I do check for vandalism and for BLP problems. I didn't undo about 20% of M.Sunshine's edits because of BLP issues, and had to retroactively undo a couple of my rollbacks because of vandalism issues. I don't worry about restoring an article back to the previous state if that previous state simply wasn't as nice as it's current one (including formatting problems). That's not my concern, and shouldn't be yours.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. At this point, you've addressed the questions I've raised. Whether I agree with you is a different issue, but at least you're clear. One correction: I didn't treat Dewan357 in any way. I expressed opinions on your treatment, but I've never, to my knowledge, touched any of his edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

True enough: that was Drmies.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Foo Fighters discography dispute

Hi there, as you have asked I have taken my dispute about edits to the Foo Fighters discography to its talk page. I am only trying to keep the article so as to conform with Wikipedia guides lines such as Wikipedia:Record charts, as explained on the talk page.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. It seems that User:Cathartica does not want to discuss this issue. If he does not want to discuss then he does not have a leg to stand on. Furthermore, It seems that you personally have had dealings with him in the past as per his talk page, in which you have told him not to add Billboard Bubbling Under charts as an extension of the Billboard Hot 100. Also there are other users on his talk page who have told him not to add the Belgian Ultratip/Tip chart as an extension of the Belgian Ultratop singles chart, as it isn't. So he is effectively adding false information to discography pages and appears to be doing this repeatedly despite being told it is incorrect. Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Corbin Bleu

Kevin, I think this is curious and might interest you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Galactik Fiestamatik...

Hello Kww... I'm a huge fan of Rico Blanco.. And I'm just wondering why you removed the chart peak of his single Amats.. Myx is actually a music channel here in my country and people here tune in to the charts published or released by Myx.. We don't have an official charts here like Billboard Hot 100 or UK Singles Chart so the best source would have to be Myx because they based their data on music requests by fans through phone calls, texts and online voting... Thanks Alcohkid (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

ok i understand now.. thanks btw.. I'm only on my second week in editing wikipedia articles.. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.198.247 (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Charts in France

I need your expertise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Is_Charts_in_France_a_reliable_source.3F SJ (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I renewal my invitation about this question. It is very important. SJ (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Article word usage

I actually figured you would know more about this, since you are an administrator. Here at Elizabeth II we are facing a sort of edit war on how certain lines of Elizabeth's biography should be written. Originally, the article read, "Elizabeth's only sibling, Princess Margaret, was born in 1930." BUT I changed it to, "Elizabeth had a sister, Princess Margaret, who was four years younger." Another editor stated that the former was necessary because readers would need clarification she had no other siblings. See User_talk:DrKiernan#Queen_Elizabeth.27s_sister; I left several messages but the editor failed to respond. Spelling Style (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheDarkPyrano#Comments_by_other_users. Reyk _YO! 06:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Time delay

... has been implemented. →Σσς. 08:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your assistance would be appreciated

Hello, in this discussion [3] you stated that an editor must provide a source indicating "unusualness". User:Andy_Dingley has failed to do so [4] even when directly and specfically asked to User_talk:Andy_Dingley#WP:OR_and_WP:V. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Kumar Parakal

Hi. I've moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WP:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakal (3rd nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakal (3rd nomination) and have attempted to tidy up afterwards. Please let me know if it's a problem or if you think I've missed anything. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Betelguese

I'm not sure why you chose to modify Betelguese with this. If you read the article Bow shock (referenced in the sentence you modified), you will see that there is indeed a characterization as "supersonic" in interstellar plasma. I reverted the edit (notice it's in a section titled with "supersonic"). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported information

I added the source on the main album (The Spirit Indestructible) page for the Canadian charts. I don't see sources for the other chart positions on that page, I assumed adding the source on the album page was enough to list the chart position on the discography page. You just added the source I put on the album page anyways. Threats are unnecessary. Evilperson 20 (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

References

I will add references where it is necessary. I don't like to over cite either, especially where just rounding out already good information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccurateHistoricalRecord (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:MariaJaydHicky

S/he is editing as 81.155.7.124 (talk · contribs). I think that Why? (Mis-Teeq song) needs protection. The song never charted. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Besides "Why" and Mariah Carey-related articles, the IP edited the page Young (Tulisa Contostavlos song), which has been edited by him/her in the past. But the IP has changed to 217.44.120.219 (talk · contribs) (you can geolocate them as well), which reverted my reverts in four pages, thus, IMO, confirmed the IP is her/him. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Now s/he is editing as 217.43.84.157 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

H/She returned as 81.155.7.235 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you didn't see the message above, so I'm taking it again. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

---

I had my suspicions but this edit and this edit are the same. Also, Greg edited the articles Bad Intentions (album), The Solid Sound of the Underground, The Female Boss and {[Stooshe]], which were edited in the past by Maria. I think they are the same person. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Watching closely, not acting yet.—Kww(talk) 06:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The pirate is here

Stranded Pirate has been busy editing with his 20+ socks. too bad you can't track him down cuz ur a loser. Kww i hope u get murdered and then ass sodomized by a clown as ur body gets ground up into tiny bits and then someone poops on those tiny bits. anyways, the Pirate is off to create more trouble with his socks on his DoD proxy network. u've been pwned sucker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.84.137 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Never ending uploading of fanmade covers

Hey Kevin. I've seen this way too many times now, and it is getting out of hands. Users keep uploading fanmade covers to song articles. Do you think a warning could be set up for dealing with this? It's getting out of control. Zac  16:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it would be completely useless and ignored. If you are having problems with specific users doing it after warnings, let me know.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Hi Kww. I was so proud of finding where I had messed up the first time that I didn't check to see that you had already fixed things. Sorry for the extra work and thanks for all the fixes. MarnetteD | Talk 21:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Pat Paulsen campaign speech.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC comment

Thanks for the heads up. BTW, would you like to comment at the FAC page for The Way I See It (album)? Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated, as it's been a little slow there. Dan56 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Template talk:Singlechart.
Message added 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Till 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey

That dodgy Polish chart is also on Best Thing I Never Had. I think it might be necessary to include it on WP:BADCHARTS. Till 08:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Zhoban

Kevin, could you please look at this topic on my talk page? You're the last admin to block Zhoban, and you did it for abusing multiple accounts. Besides, you know more about sockpuppets than I do. I'm not even sure why Sjones came to my talk page except that he knows me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your efforts in blocking yet another sockpuppet of Fragments of Jade. Keep up the good work! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

New sockpuppet

I just blocked a new sockpuppet of Fragments of Jade. --Bsadowski1 17:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your wondering admin work. Sorry about my immature past. TBrandley 03:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop reverting sourced edits.

It's cute that the pages are on your watchlist but tell me something. Do you see Midhat Mursi's photo on the Rewards for Justice page? Last time I checked, dead people were not wanted fugitivies.

http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?page=Wanted_Terrorist&language=english

Khalid al-Fawwaz is no longer being held in the United Kingdom. He was extradited to the United States earlier this month. Stop saying that he's still in the United Kingdom.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_21715807/five-extradited-terrorism-suspects-appear-u-s-courts

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to provide facts and not false information?

--WhiteScorpion1977 (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What If

Since you redirected What If (Ashley Tisdale song) to its album, perhaps we should redirect Overrated (Ashley Tisdale song) to the album too - since it has the same only chart; hasn't really got anything else than What If's page. Pedro João [talk] 19:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either should have an article. "What If" didn't even have a working source for its chart claim. Since Overrated did, I left it alone, even though I do not think it should have an article.—Kww(talk) 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Kww.

You might also be interested in knowing that I suspect that THIS>>> 2001:558:6026:97:30EC:B4C5:AF59:B9E1 anonymous IP, may also be the same blocked sockpuperteer known as User:Fragments of Jade (See his additions HERE and then see his deletion edits HERE), seemingly seeking the help of a registered and autoconfirmed user (that is, myself) to geeting his reverted edits reinstated.

Also, see HERE how the users (Zhoban, Memorex1987, and Damacyboy) all suddenly seem very interested in an article that is relatively obscure to the public at large (that is, Avelino González-Claudio).

Also, the anonymous IP user 77.75.120.108, which you reverted HERE possibly because he was a sockpuppet of Jade, made the edit summary comment ("You're a fucking idiot. Read the fucking website. He's still imprisoned. Ask Mercy11 if you don't believe me") here >>> HERE which is quite along the behavioral lines of comments made by a previous anonymous IP editor (70.126.139.249 and 70.127.202.197, etc.) - see HERE, and more specifically HERE and HERE for specific examples of such similar uncivil and abusive language in the edit summaries by what appears to be the same real user. Both articles (Avelino González-Claudio and Oscar López Rivera) are about Puerto Rican political independence activist prisoners.

Hope this helps. Regards. Mercy11 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Parking Lot (Nelly Furtado song)

You said the song is not a notable song because there are "no charts, no covers, no awards", but it does have a cover. So the article must be keeped, and not to redirect to the parent album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvinariels (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hey, I'd like to ask for your opinion on this. Widr (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed block of Tim98Seven

Just want to let you know that - if Tim no longer has access to the original account (which hasn't edited in over a year, anyway) - then blocking him as an illegal alt. account would be erroneous. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

RC1995 at the Whitney Houston article

Kww, I've seen you revert at this article before and am coming to you about RC1995 because there needs to be administrative action taken against this editor. I've warned the editor about adding unsourced material, and this includes the addition of a final warning, but he or she very recently added unsourced material to the article again.

Dealing with these types of editors who never reply and never seem to fully comprehend or even try to fully comprehend Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very frustrating. This editor has also added unsourced material to other Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. Flyer22 (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Another Excuseme99 sock

Since you've dealt with this user quite a lot before, perhaps you could take a look at the new case that I just made. Cheers. Nymf _hideliho! 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharon Stone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Last Dance (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you abandoned the GradyEdwardLoy account? I can't see any reason for you to be using both accounts.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware I was using more than one. It may be that I inadvertenly signed up again after not signing in for a long time. I am happy to abandon one if that does not create any problems.11:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)15:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GradyELoy (talk • contribs)

Pe de Chinelo

Hi. Just wanted to give you a heads up that the blocked user User:Pé de Chinelo is back again, this time using different IPs from Sao Paulo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kww. I think S came here on my recommendation since you had dealt with the last few reports here. I don't know that either of us have come across any new IPs in the last several hours. I think that S is expressing the hope that there would be some way of detecting and blocking any new IPs that show up (my apologies for putting any words in your mouth S) without our having to do anything but I know that can be difficult. I was expressing to him that you might be able to help in the event that you are online the next time Pe strikes - its been going on for at least 3 years so there "will" inevitably be a next time. We are all just Sisyphus in dealing with this so I will express my thanks for all that you have done. MarnetteD | Talk 23:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be confusing, because this message came after I've blocked the last two IPs he reported.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I know that S didn't make this post until after I mentioned your name in my post to him at the "Many Thanks" thread that you have also posted at on his talk page. I think something got confused in the intervals between the three of us being onwiki. Many apologies. I'll let you know if anything new occurs. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Unusual plays

re: [5] while the source about the death doesnt call it unusual, the added bit about the play has a source that describes the events the play is based on as unusual or bizarre or something similar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on List of unusual deaths

Hello, I'm 172.163.86.195. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Hello, I'm 172.163.86.195. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.86.195 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Four simultaneous templates, and not a single one of them appropriate.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hot Country Songs/Airplay

See further discussion at WT:CHARTS. I've provided evidence that even the higher-ups are shunning the "new" country chart in favor of the old airplay-only one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hello? You wanna post again at that discussion? We really need more voices there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 17:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AARON• ^TALK 17:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. —Kww(talk)

Re: List of awards and nominations received by Demi Lovato

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 18:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Pesf

You know him more than me, but he has been vandalizing these three pages: 92.20.99.20 (talk · contribs), per what I found at Talk:Fires (Ronan Keating album). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

HS

This isn't a forum comment since I wondered why her article doesn't note her HS education, and BTW, you aren't allowed to delete. Sorry. ;) Spelling Style (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wiz

I love Your MasterPlot of The Wizard of Oz. :~) Kdammers (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you going to do when the locks on your watchlist articles expires in January?

Continue to watch and revert edits on the pages in silence until the end of time? ;)

You can't win, old man. Your policy is retarded. Revert perfectly sourced information (Said Shihri released an audiotape confirming his survival last September) and allow articles to be totally outdated. When the lock expires, I'll just revert your edits. Thank goodness, a couple of administrators had the brains to revert a few of your reverts. You need to get a life. Big time. ;) Give up, old man. I know more about computers than you ever will in your pathetic life. Each time you block one IP, I'll come back with another one. Of course the chances of more than one person from New Jersey editing Wikipedia is completely remote. The editor must be Fragments of Jade. <sarcasm> I feel sorry for your wife and children. They have a moronic pathetic excuse for a father/husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.31.89 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Hey, shit for brains. Is that the best you can do? LOL!

Either he's going to die of old age or you'll get through puberty and realize what a belligerent little brat you're being. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Belgium

Kww, what's the difference between the Ultratop and Ultratip charts of Belgium? Would appreciate your help please. Till 11:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Guess who's back?

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/A_Nobody/Archive#12_May_2012
• [6],[7],[8]

Can you do the needful?

Cheers, Reyk _YO! 23:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• That was quick! Reyk _YO! 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyrus

That's not what the guideline says, and I don't care for your personal opinion. There was a reason why I linked that, and when I spoke to an admin who did the same thing on another page (thinking I was just asking something in a wrong way), he said, "Oops! Never mind!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.72.184 (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was UFC 155 deleted?

What reason? We proved notability, and a World Title is being defended at the event. I fail to see why it was deleted, and I request it be restored. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the closing statement. I covered that.—Kww(talk) 01:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we have access to the deleted content? the event is about to happen and the article probably will pass all wikipedia requirements or there's also the merge possibility. I would like to keep it on my sandbox if possible. Poison Whiskey (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that UFC 155 will ever be eligible for a standalone article. The content would only be suitable for some sort of large list article (like 2012 in UFC events), but all of those seem to have been deleted. You'd have to demonstrate that you had a logical target for the content.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please check these AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 144 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 145. The event deleted was on the same (or even higher) level of UFC 144 and UFC 145. Someone will probably recreate after it takes place (more info will come and the lasting effects will be determined). I just want to save the people from the incovenience of making all again from zero. Poison Whiskey (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds ridiculous. We've had articles on individual UFC events for a long time, and suddenly some of the biggest events of the year will never be eligible for standalone articles? The list articles were deleted because they were sloppy, ugly, and more difficult to navigate or edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 144 the same way I closed this one. There's no reason to make creating these articles more convenient. Snottywong made a fairly common error in closing that AFD, in that he treated the GNG as meaning an article was required. It doesn't: meeting the GNG simply means that it's possible to have an article, not that it's necessary, and the arguments based on WP:NOT are far stronger.—Kww(talk) 02:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your attention. Poison Whiskey (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• The closing statment "it appears that the "keep" side of this debate wishes to have this sport treated substantially different from all other similar endeavours" is entirely incorrect. MMA, and UFC entries in particular are above par in context of sporting event articles on wiki (which exist for pretty much any sort of popular sport), and their format is the norm for the field. This is was covered more times than can be counted in same prior deletions in this area over the course of the last year and it's quite unfortunate that someone who's apparently unfamiliar with what's going on is yet again targeting MMA for special treatment. Agent00f (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Even though it seems likely that facts or reason or anything of that sort won't be helpful here, these are but a few examples of how sports event content is typically created on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Canadian_Grand_Prix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_World_Series_of_Poker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Preakness_Stakes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Ironman_World_Championship

These were arbitrarily chosen and any 5 min trip through the field would produce similar results.

In particular, the same nominator also failed here. So perhaps you can weight in on whether tennis events should also be removed from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2004_Estoril_Open

It's also notable that one of the "policies" noted, the Wall Garden, is only an essay and specially says "if you find several pages that only seem to link to each other". The web of MMA on wiki is in the area of 1K pages, far more than most sports, and thus this justification for deletion entire unfounded. Agent00f (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

These events would appear to me more comparable to yesterday afternoon's University of Nebraska-Penn State game, which was mentioned this morning in every American newspaper, anticipated in every major newspaper, and covered in detail in numerous websites devoted to college football, University of Nebraska football and Penn State football. Yet, no article has been (or should be) created on that topic.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems unfair to compare to events that apparently no one cared enough to create an entry for in the first place. This is rather opposite to the situation here. I'm comparing to pretty much any of the tens of thousands of sporting events which already have entries, and the UFC/MMA ones compared quite favorably here. Though OTOH I supposed you could feel that all tens of the thousands should be deleted. Also note that this isn't even specific to sports, as there are perhaps order of magnitude more 15-min of fame flash in the pan TV shows or whatnot. The constitution/division of lists (and how it makes zero sense to require long unwieldy 1MB pages for an apparent bureaucratic formatting requirement) was also covered with this discussion.

We could also go into the specifics of why the UFC events are not akin to one football game, but this has already been covered ad nauseum by dozens of editors over the past year. Again, all that really could be said here is that it really helps when people making decisions are familiar with what they're deciding on. Agent00f (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I reviewed the previous AFD's on UFC related topics. I could only shake my head in amazement that so many were kept in the face of such fatally flawed arguments.—Kww(talk) 23:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, facts or reasoning relies more on arguments (eg those presented above) rather than "believe me". This seems to be following the same path as the previous drama where there's an over-reliance on authority over merit, which only paints wiki in a bad light. Agent00f (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Kww: if multiple admins ultimately disagreed with you after a truly titanic year-long struggle, perhaps you should reexamine the criteria. Beyond notability, the fifth pillar argument overwhelmingly applies here. These pages were both extremely functional and popular and you yourself have conceded that notability guidelines are met. Considering that there are literally hundreds of editors that have been involved in this fight, you absolutely need to give a more elaborate justification for why you would overturn the policy result of an entire year's worth of edit wars. Every single one of your arguments has already come up and been addressed repeatedly at one point or another. Over 1000 pages does not constitute a walled garden. Comparing an entire card worth of fights with ramifications across multiple weight divisions to a single football game is again very flawed. You deleted an incredibly stacked card with near-term title ramifications in multiple weight divisions that was headlined by a Heavyweight World Title fight. It's practically like deleting a Stanley Cup Finals article. Beansy (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it always amazes me how people compare a UFC card to a single football game. The comparison should be between a single fight from a UFC card and a football match. Nobody will create a page for a single fight, though a page for a whole event is perfectly feasible. Contrary to what Kww says, dozens of sports have pages for events that could be considered analogous to UFC events. It is also amazing how a card which has a World Title Fight lacks notability. If Kww thinks that UFC 155 lacks notability, he should go on and delete all UFC events. Evenfiel (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose it's keeping in tradition that once the facts and reasoning started flowing here, the replies stopped. To maintain any sort of consistency across wiki sports entries, Kww needs to delete the vast majority of them. Likewise the majority of TV episodes or other serials. This is the reason why I previously asked for these AfD's to be attended by admin familiar with the field to some degree, but alas the comedy continues. Agent00f (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Excuse me for being away from my keyboard for 12 hours, Agent00f. Yes, if any other UFC events have similar AFDs with similar facts, I will delete them as well. No, being a UFC event is not a speedy deletion category, so I will not go delete them autonomously, only after they go through AFD.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Contrary to common belief, doubling down on decisions made via authority doesn't make them any more reasoned or informed. If the facts mentioned exist, then surely they would be presented as others here have rather than only implied. However, I do appreciate the honesty that the UFC specifically out of all sports or orgs is being called out. Agent00f (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• That's a pretty strange misreading of what I wrote. It's the policies and guidelines about article content vs. the facts and sources presented related to the UFC events discussed that drove the deletions. If another similarly situated sporting event went for AFD, it would be deleted, and if a UFC event with some substantially different set of facts (or a radical change in keep arguments pertaining to it), the article about a UFC event would be retained.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Again, if the facts are so clear, then it would be trivial to explain them in the face of the various specific arguments above. In addition, numerous quality sources (eg. USA Today, etc) above and beyond the norm for sports coverage on wiki were presented. All of this was dismissed out of hand as readily evident by the generic uninformative nature of the replies. Surely wiki would like to see better quality of judgement than "I say so". Agent00f (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• The lack of any appreciable reasoning behind this decision seems to be about as uncontestable as the consequences: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/UFC_Ultimate_Fight_Night&limit=999. I guess it's up to others to clean up the mess a trite delete decision leaves behind, but it's questionable why anyone would bother given any such effort here is subject to similar removal. Agent00f (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is getting incredibly frustrating. I really cannot comprehend the idea that no UFC event would be notable enough for its own page, considering notability standards which have been applied to thousands of other pages. Will consider taking this to dispute resolution. Byuusetsu (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The continuing erosion of wikipedia, acting in detriment to the ideals of this site to accumulate edits for who knows what reason. Do you feel a sense of power in this or are you just a miserable human being? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.242.141 (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Lying

I am not lying. Please do not falsely accuse me of your allegations or attack me. Sysmithfan (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC 155

Hello Kww, is it possible for you to restore the contents of UFC 155: Dos Santos vs. Velasquez 2 to User:Oskar Liljeblad/UFC 155: Dos Santos vs. Velasquez 2 so that I can incorporate the page's original contents into another page like List of UFC events in 2012? Thanks in advance! Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Adele/archive1

Hello, if you would like to leave comments which concern you or would cast a vote in support or opposition based on your findings, I would much appreciate it. The list has garnered several good (and resolved) reviews, but no votes have been cast. Thanks. AARON• ^TALK 12:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6

You recently participated in a discussion at WP:AN that has now produced a new section at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6.

Thanks for your earlier comments, and I hope you might also participate in this new discussion. Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

can you tell me how did you protect Ghazl El Mahalla page .. I need to protect Al Ahly SC page from IP vandalism. I fix the page everyday.--Zo3a (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Al Ahly SC

thanks so much for caring the page is attacked by too much IP vandalism some of them are random some of them are "Daily" the daily ones are changing the no. of championships from 123 to 124.. the proof that it's 123 is just a simple calculator the championships are stated in the section by numbers of each championship .. also the references of the championships section which is the club's homepage states that they're 122 championships as they didn't add the 2010-11 Super Cup. and the second one is changing the nationality of Dominique Da Silva from Mauritania to Senegal . He's both Mauritanian and Senegalese but he plays for Mauritania and here's my reference [9]

examples

• Revision as of 09:58, 26 October 2012 by 188.55.107.114 (the same IP changes both the no. of championships and the nationality of Dominique Da Silva almost everyday it's very frustrating)
• Revision as of 07:25, 26 October 2012 by 217.174.56.156

the other random ones are like

• Revision as of 09:22, 31 October 2012 by 41.129.88.201 where a new championship was added to the trophies.
• Revision as of 01:55, 1 November 2012 by 65.92.234.70 where he changed the club manager and the Chairman names to his name and nickname probably.
• Revision as of 07:24, 26 October 2012 by 217.174.56.156 where he added a strange name to the squad list you can check the squad list here [10]

if you could protect just for a little while that they just forget about the editing the page it would be great.

--Zo3a (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi Kww-- just a note that I transcluded your election statement to the candidates page at WP:ACE2012/C.

Best, Lord Roem (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Help.

Hello. A new picture on Demi Lovato's wikipedia page is needed, therefore I legally bought a recent picture of her from getty images and took the full permission to use it on Demi's wiki page. You can find the full info on the last section of Demi's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Lovato#New_legal_picture_to_be_added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.185.189.101 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

licensed picture

finally found a licensed picture of demi that can be used on her wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Lovato#NEW_PICTURE_WITH_LICENSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.72.89 (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello

You may want to see this thread. Thanks. Till 01:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Sprouse brothers

I understand your point, but there are a couple of things that I want to say:

1. The vandalism due to them being Disney stars has died down since their series ended and they stepped out of the limelight. The last protect before the current one was when their series was still airing, popular, and producing new episodes (and it was actually protected nearing the finale of the series, which I totally and completely understand). I also have the article on my watchlist and have seen the editing that has went on since the last protection expired.
2. I'm not advocating for complete unprotection. The event that led to the current onslaught of vandalism and subsequent protection (Cole deleting his Tumblr and some controversy/bitterness surrounding it from a lot of Tumblr users) is something that I feel would die down in WAY less than a year, the current duration of protection. Therefore, I was not advocating for unprotection but instead a change in the length of the protection.

Again, I understand your point, but this is my point of view on the issue based on the edit history. - Purplewowies (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not Redrict the page

Hey kww, there was no need to redeict the pages on Diary of a wimpy kid. Please reset them. (talk) 10;10,19 November 2012 (UTC) -Thegreatbull — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatbull (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me why you Redricted the page

Kww,thank you for telling me why you redricted the diary of a wimpy kid page. I'm actually a novice, so how could i understand? (talk) 13;33,19 November 2012 (UTC)-Thegreatbull

IsAnybodyDown and "Magic Powers".

I never meant to say or imply that you did have or should have magic powers. :) I consider myself to be too involved on the IAD page to take any sort of admin action there myself, given I was the one who filed the AFD about it. But I can help enforce your BLP declaration by reverting. Assuming that you still feel that the names themselves need to be revdeled (which it appears that you do), then you'll need to take that step yourself, given my ineligibility to use admin powers there. But given all that, I'm not really sure why you think that I somehow said or implied that you should have "magical powers". Sorry, but that comment has me a little baffled.

On a couple of side notes, the names are both still visible in a few edits 11/14 and 11/15, where I reverted the names out, but did not revdel.

And going forward, how would you *like* me to handle cases like this where the names are added? Leave them? Revert them? Come here to your talk page to let you know they have been added? As I said, I consider myself too involved with the page to actually do the revdel myself, but short of that, if I see the names pop up again, what would you like me to do? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey

hey i added a new section here hoping you could notice it xx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Lovato — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.108.46 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken

I'm sickened by this now;

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has continuously accused me of being a sock puppet/banned user/whatever... many times.

I've warned him. Others have.

But, he keeps at it; [11]

Surely this is over the top of 'personal attack'. As far as I am aware, I've done nothing wrong except try to edit an article - and removed some unref'd claims. Is all'.

There is really, really no more to it, but he is continually attacking me, claiming I have some ulterior motive because I was blocked in the past or something.

This is intolerable. Shaz0t (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

CharlieJS13

Considering the edits at Lady Gaga's songs he has returned as 109.157.145.170 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, he continues editing with the same IP. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Strangely he still editing eith the same IP. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Darby O' Gill and the Little People (band)

I understand that you removed the PROD, but clearly you can see that this page needs to be deleted. There are no citations to verify any of the information, it's promotional in nature (the only link points to their MySpace page with "purchase" links all over it), the notability of the subject has not been established; they don't even have a website. If this page exists, anyone should be able to make their own band page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvador Calyso (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Reductionist Attitude and the UFC

You cited in your argument to be on the next annual Arbitration Committee that with nearly 4 million articles in the English language Wikipedia, the focus should be on reduction and consolidation of materials. It is certainly true enough that Wikipedia has its fair share of frivolous articles that pop up from time. At the same time, expanding Wikipedia to cover the sum-total of relevant human knowledge requires an ever expanding database. The world certainly isn't getting simpler, so it's kind of confusing why you need to see consolidation and reduction not just in terms of reducing the outermost frivolities, but in tearing a hole through established sub-communities that have been doing just fine for years with self-regulating guidelines. Unlike the editor who has spear-headed the anti-UFC effort for over a year and seems to be fighting battles just to be an edit warrior, I do not believe you are acting in bad faith. However, what you want Wikipedia to be, and what the average person who uses and contributes it wants it to be, seem to be seriously at odds. Wikipedia's founder described it initially as "a social experiment" and while its form is a bit more crystalized than that today, Wikipedia still only exists insomuch as the manner in which it continues to attract editors and users.

Why you went along with targeting the MMA community in particular, apparently taking a top-down approach, is beyond me. Do you really think other admins were merely counting votes when deciding to keep UFC event articles? These are articles that are announced months in advance, receive coverage in mainstream journalism outlets when they do, and some of them are analyzed years down the road. Up until the deletion war there was an equal number of MMA articles in Portuguese, and a majority of UFC event articles in particular have counterparts in Portuguese, Japanese, and Italian. This is a global sport and events nowadays attract a global audience. They tend to be far better sourced than most similar sporting articles and better organized as well. Many of the newer ones have sources in a number of different languages. They generally meet the WP:NOT General Guidelines for Significant Coverage, Reliability, Secondary Sources, and Subject Independence, while having had an organized and self-regulating community for years. There are also over 1000 fighter biography pages, most of whose merit is determined by the events they fight on, yet you seem to think that those events themselves are not notable. The major events stay relevant because they generally chart the path of a fighter's career (since the UFC has exclusive contracts with 85% of the world's top MMA talent at any given time, it is inescapable that there are multiple significant fights on every card, and it's downright rare for a UFC fight to not have any measurable ramifications at all in its weight division). If you wish to trim the fat on sporting articles there are plenty of far, far better ways to do that and approve an AfD for one of the biggest events of the year across all combat sports. I'm sorry if MMA fans have been rude to you, but it is genuinely confusing that even within MMA, you would target the UFC specifically as opposed, to, oh, Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki events (Polish C-League with a couple of notable names but whose events are probably not even omnibus material). So, anyway, I know this is a wall of text, but I'd like you to consider your approach here. This has been a very, very, long, draconian struggle already and after what seemed like a fair resolution (one that did include some article consolidation or elimination for events from lower-tier promotions), things seem to be going in circles again. I hope you take a longer look at some things. Beansy (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

ACE2012 Statement

Hi Kww -- per the eligibility criteria for the 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections, you need to include in your statement a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts, or a statement that you have none.

Thanks and best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Favor

Hey Kevin. Can you delete this page? And also move this to its original title? As you can see, it's not really necessary anymore. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. A). You could have at least replied and explained your opinion to me, instead of just reverting. And, your not convinced? There is no difference. One is a perennial classic that has been a hit worldwide every year since 94', and has been covered by over 20+ notable artists. The other has no such accomplishment except a few low holiday chartings. If you're going to choose to handle it this way, I'll take it somewhere else...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "just revert", I reverted and provided an explanation. There's no pressing reason to get rid of a perfectly good disambiguation page.—Kww(talk) 05:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying your "not all that convinced" when its pretty fucking obvious is not an explanation. You're trying to roundabout something anyone with eyes can see...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious that the Vaughn song is so trivial and unimportant that it is unworthy of a disambiguation, and I remain unconvinced. You took over a perfectly good disambiguation page and destroyed the indexing system that would lead people to the Vaughn song.—Kww(talk) 01:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Get over yourself Kevin. I didn't ruin or destroy anything. When I was finished, readers were automatically sent to Carey's page, where the first line would offer the Vaughn version. So yeah, not really... Didn't ruin shit (that's how it was before by the way, if you even took care to look through it). And yes, by comparison the song is completely trivial and unknown. You just don't want to face it for some biased reason.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have to agree. Two songs of the same name. One is an iconic Christmas song, and the other is basically unknown. The hatnote on All I Want for Christmas Is You (Mariah Carey song) works perfectly fine, and has for a long time. Last year, an editor moved it around without a discussion. Statυs (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Status. That's exactly what I'm trying to explain. Unfortunately, it seems I'll have to go to another admin; one that actually still uses his tools...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The cheerful attitude doesn't go a long way towards making me feel inclined to do anything. What's your suggestion for All I Want for Christmas (song), which is an article about yet a third song named "All I Want for Christmas"?—Kww(talk) 22:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I missed the "Is You" on that one. Still, we have a pile of different things here with very similar titles, easily confused by readers. I don't think we are best served by getting rid of the disambiguations.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well your dismissive attitude is difficult to deal with in a cheerful manner. As you don't quite understand the request, let's start over. Hi Kevin, some user with no consensus (sometime last year) created a disambiguation page for "All I Want for Christmas Is You". It looks like this. Now I'm asking you to revert what he did, and bring it to how it was before, with it automatically linking to the Carey song and leaving the hatnote for the Vaughn song as it was before. By the way, this request has nothing to do with All I Want for Christmas, which obviously has a lot of different titles. It's for All I Want for Christmas Is You, which is in a disemb page only because of the Vaughn song. As you can see, All I Want for Christmas Is You (Mariah Carey song) still has the hatnote for the Vaughn song: AKA, we don't need the disem page. So I want the disem page deleted and just redirected to the carey version, and to rename her version with just the song title (not "Mariah Carey song"). Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:One Direction#Own Pages

Could you opine. Gegroet. AdabowtheSecond 00:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I know your busy making Wikipedia as prosperous as possible but you could at least respond saying I don't know um "It doesn't concern me", "I don't care", "I'm busy at the moment", or perhaps "no need for my input". I know this is the internet but when people ask you something and you ignore their question/post its childish. Groetjes AdabowtheSecond 20:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of times, I don't have much to say. I generally don't comment about areas I find completely uninteresting and might have to take administrative action in regard to.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Precies, wat ik al zei antwoordt gewoon. –AdabowtheSecond 17:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Iluvrihanna24's talk page.
Message added 16:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AARON• ^TALK 16:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally unserious question from NE Ent

Why does the author of Wikipedia:Short_horizontal_line have an &mdash in their signature? NE Ent 14:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It meets the criteria: I don't expect people to either search for it or type it.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC 155

Hi there. I noticed that UFC 155 is gone. Just curious to know what lead to that descision? That article is gone but many others still reside. There seems to have been the same reference on wiki for years and years and in the last 9 months it has become a problem. I dont understand. Now that the event is gone it ruins the chronological links in other events. It just seems silly as the event obviously is notable due to heavyweight title fight. Someone mentioned that it should be listed when there is academic journals for it etc. its not science or medical discovery or a pivotal political situation so its not covered by that type of document. It might not be any of those things, but it is currently the pinnacle of martial arts! Regards josh 182.239.198.180 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I think that the debate is farily well evidenced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155 which I observe that you contributed to. Hasteur (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose it was. Plenty of facts and reasoning one way, almost none the other, yet KWW saw fit to support the latter. This led to the questions here but no additional justification was provided other than maybe a statement of personal preference. Hardly a fitting background to the larger issue which surrounds ~1K MMA and ~100K sports articles. Agent00f (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• We've also seen the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_on_FX:_Sotiropoulos_vs._Pearson have a virtually unanimous result of Keep despite being easily less notable than 155(or Fox 2, which already happened). At this point I think it's safe to say there is no consensus for UFC events not being notable. Byuusetsu (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fantasy (Mariah Carey song)

Maria has returned to the article Fantasy (Mariah Carey song), as well as others, utilising multiple IPs. If you check the history of the page until May 2012 and compare to other IPs and the zone they are, you will notice they are the same (86.186.34.8 (talk · contribs)). If you could protect the page(s) all these IPs have edited, or just Fantasy, it will be welcomed. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The IPs 217.xxx hae created an account, Accent1101 (talk · contribs) whose edits are similar to those of Maria, specially

• Young (Tulisa Contostavlos song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Live It Up (Tulisa Contostavlos song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sight of You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also, Greg Bosher (talk · contribs) may be an option of puppeteer. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(Refer to one, two, three.) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked. I wasn't certain before that they matched MariaJaydHicky, but I am certain that Accent1101 and Greg Bosher are the same, and am willing to bet that they are both just Maria returned.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

UK chart archive

Hi, how is the UK chart archive coming along? Have you managed to fix the problem? Sorry I didn't ask earlier, was blocked for a week. Till 02:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Working on it. I can't just change the expansion of template, I have to write a script that reads the existing articles, figures out where to find the data on the OCC site, and then replaces the template. I haven't done that before, so it's taking time. In the meantime, the actual peak position is still on the provided page, so I'm not in a huge rush.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's okay then. Btw, when you get a chance can you build the albumchart template for the Czech Republic? Thanks. Till 08:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Holly Valance twitter

Just a point, but even that twitter account says Holly Candy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Een Schuurstar voor jou

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Ik weet dat je niet een fan ben van het Nederlands taal gebruiken op Engels Wiki maar ik schrijf nou liever Nls. Bedankt voor al je contributies aan Wikipedia! —AdabowtheSecond 17:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Shaz0t

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curb Chain. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy December!

The Holidays are coming up... enjoy this lovely brownie as your first treat! Statυs (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Trouble

Can you please comment here. iTunes is rearing its big ugly head again. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ride (Lana Del Rey song)

Thanks for adding the rowheaders for Ride (Lana Del Rey song). I had no idea the template included that parameter, so I'll try to use it on more articles in the future. I'm awfully proud of the work of I've done on "Ride" so far. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing kils a Deere like a Magnum

http://api.ning.com/files/Zn9FyqoD5eEjqPYIESYDDv65IYFA6jfHHmwdGoJO0rB9y51J3BiN8wc5W5p3pqnQ1sMw5I4MzR4SxUUSiDE0h0WGdKrMwydg

Good enough source for you? 83.191.149.84 (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom question with links

1. Question: Would you close a formal mediation RfC when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that eventually resulted in said RfM and RfC? Assuming that this has happened, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC 155

A biased and poor choice by an admin to fulfill the crusade of Mtking to remove all MMA based articles that they possibly can. They've thrown every weak attempt in the book at deletions and you've been suckered into backing. Bad choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.195.174 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose UFC 155 for deletion review on a number of grounds, but the rules require me to speak with you first. Please let me know what steps I need to fulfill in order to move the issue forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.218.214 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No one would block a DRV on the basis that the deletion hasn't been discussed with me. No one has persuaded me yet that my close was improper, but I've certainly been made aware that a number of people disagree with my close.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC about iTunes as a source for release histories

Hi, I would appreciate it if you could please take some time to comment at Talk:Trouble_(Leona_Lewis_song)#How_is_iTunes_messed_up. Thanks — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Alan Levy

Hi. You speedy deleted this soon after the AfD opened as it was created by a sockpuppet, but I suggested a (imho) within-policy "weak keep" having found a few references. As the one article subject that was one step removed from Is Anybody Down? and hence having a fighting chance at being notable for something else, this was the one AfD in this group that I felt should have run for the week. Your thoughts? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Query

Hi Kww. Can you help me with something? This thread dictates that the certifications listed on the official BPI websites for some Sugababes albums are incorrect, and contrasts the certifications listed in the book "Virgin Book of British Hit Albums". I have also seen various secondary online sources that support the claims from the book. Would appreciate your opinion on this, thanks. Till 12:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists

Hi Kevin, based on consensus here, we removed all artists below 70 million records. Now user Subtropical-man has created List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records) which goes against our consensus and also violates TITLEFORMAT. Can one do that when there already was a consensus to not split but instead trim?--Harout72 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to go through AFD. I sympathize, but the consensus on one talk page to reduce rather than split isn't a wide enough sampling for any responsible admin to feel comfortable deleting the result of the split.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Block Party (album)... was that not one of the article authors? Why did you revert their comment? §FreeRangeFrog 04:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Roger that :) §FreeRangeFrog 05:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

FoJ?

Hey, I have something I had a question I thought I'd hear from you on, since it's come to concern you over the past couple months. Are you sure Zhoban is Fragments of Jade? I haven't followed on the case for nearly a month now, but I've noticed that the I.P. addresses and sock puppets of Zhoban include taunts and their talk page messages include accusations of stalking, comments like, "aww", "cute" and "charming". Fragments of Jade never made edits like this and she was rather mild in her retorts and seemed to actually give somewhat of a damn about Wikipedia protocol. Is it possible that there are two people in New Jersey who happen to have edited a couple of the same pages? If so, I think it would be wise to split the investigation and categorization into two. DarthBotto _talk•cont 06:32, 05 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Template talk:Singlechart.
Message added 12:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Till 12:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Image removal

Hi Kww - you didn't leave an edit summary when you removed the image at Kathryn Prescott. The image isn't tagged for deletion - could you advise what the issue is with its inclusion? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that, but I didn't want to revert without knowing the details. I added the image back in manually as opposed to reverting. Same result but less it feels more appropriate somehow. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad image use

On Kristen Stewart, you reverted an edit without explaining why, which doesn't really bother me. But the effect was to replace an image with one that doesn't exist, and to insert the person's signature contrary to several other editors' concerns. Please fix. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Abusive language in closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012_November_25

Your language

"an intentional misreading of the criteria (the argument that "significant" could mean "detectable" or "noticeable" is bad to the point of undermining every argument Lexein makes, for example)."

is itself uncivil, abusive to me, and misrepresentational.

1. "intentional misreading" - this is astonishing. You falsify my intent and language. The nominator and the closer, and several endorsers equate "critically important" with "significantly increase understanding." That is intentional misreading. I'm the only one in the entire discussion defending the NFCC#8 language in its original form. "Significant" has never been defined in policy, nor was any discussion resulting in consensus about its precise meaning ever linked to. "Significant" has been a brickbat used to push an agenda opposing the calmer language of the policy itself.
2. "bad to the point of undermining" - no. That you reject my arguments due to an unwillingness to revert to a plain English reading of the policy is not any fault of mine. You make no defense of your position, but resort to uncivil, unsupported hyperbole: "bad". You pose no "reasonable man" argument, as you should.
3. You deliberately omit to mention that my entire point was that others were exaggerating and persistently misrepresenting the exact language of the NFCC#8. My point is that deletionist exaggerators should never be allowed to do so unchallenged.

I request that you strike the uncivil portions of your closing statement with <del></del> and amend it with <ins></ins>.

As an administrator, I expect you to pose better arguments, based on the actual meanings of words and policy, and better behavior in any case. --Lexein (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed "intentional". Your reading of NFCC#8 goes counter to its intent, long-standing practice, and normal interpretation. I agree that your misinterpretation of the policy may be genuine instead of being feigned as a debating tactic, so I have rephrased.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that much, but it does not represent me fairly. I do not, in good faith, believe that my reading goes counter to the stated wording or intent of NFCC, #8 included. In other words, I'm not being stupid about this. On the contrary, my reading is intended to restore the authors' intent. It was written carefully, it should be used with the same care and regard. The word "significant" is significant, and I think it has been institutionally misapplied by a powerful minority of editors bent on a particular, uncoded-in-policy-clarification, sub-definition of "significant", against the plain-English primary definition of "significant". This leads to my use of the phrase "thumb on scale" - exaggeration that imposes an unfair, out-of-policy tax. Ask yourself this: if the policy language is so clear, why do so many editors allegedly "misread" it, or "misunderstand" it? Why do so many editors think "significant" means "critical", which is so radically out of bounds that I'm duty-bound to point out that its meaning is so far from "critical" that it indeed approaches "noticeable" in meaning. And, gladly, I'm not the only one. There's nothing "bad" about trying to get a universally agreed-upon meaning of a word nailed down. I suppose an RFC might help.

I also think that if you understood my position better, your language at close would not have been so critical of me or my points. --Lexein (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that Lexein's reading of NFCC#8 was dead-on and true to the intent and normal interpretation of policy; and that the opposing views were not using the text in policy but some interpretations that were never consensual to begin with. The existing agreement between participants in the discussion indicates so. As of current practice, maybe this is what diverts from the consensus that was reflected in policy? Diego (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Kevin, sorry but that was a pretty bad close. You substituted your reading of NFCC#8 over that of the participants of the discussion. Yes, there is a long record of NFCC#8 being very broadly used (and I'd say abused). And yes, the closer should consider more than just the !vote count. But policy, as written, isn't so clear that you can ignore the voices that are reading it differently than you. In fact, those !voting to overturn were, as Lexein notes, much closer to what it actually _says_ and those who want a stronger bit of language there have not succeeded in getting it there. NFCC#8 requires judgement and is not a black and white issue. A closer of an FfD can't ignore reasonable voices on that issue, otherwise it's just a super vote. If nothing else, the procedural problems (closer closing against consesnous and largely refusing to explain) justified a relist even if NFCC#8 were black and white... Hobit (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't do that quickly, Hobit. I looked at the arguments for overturn, and looked at the arguments for endorsing. I went through and examined a decent sized sample of the target images and evaluated the arguments relevant to them. What I found was that very few of them were even borderline cases. I'd entertain discussion about File:Rake_Joke.png, for example, might actually be useful, but the overwhelming majority were used simply because the article creators wanted to have pictures in every article. It was a bad situation all around, but I think restoring that whole rack is the worse solution. Probably the best overall conclusion would be for people to set up a systematic review process of SchuminWeb's deletions.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If the closer thinks that one side is completely misreading a policy then he has a duty to give their views less weight. You can't change a policy during a deletion review. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
      • If one side is using the literal wording of policy in their arguments, and the other one is using criteria that are not included in policy, how is the first one the side that misreads policy? Diego (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• If "a bulk overturn would be equally problematic", what do you propose as an alternative? Individual discussions for each image? You seem to agree that one single person creating connected discussions is not a good idea. That extends to the bulk closing of all related reviews, that shouldn't be closed by a single person. I suggest that you revert your closing of File:Andy checking phone on stage.jpg, File:Carride.jpg, File:Office scott's tots.jpg, File:The office grief counseling.png; and let an uninvolved editor close them (you became involved when you closed the mass deletion review). Otherwise your argument for endorsing the bulk nominations is undermined by your very own actions. Diego (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. Individual discussions that focused on how the images clear WP:NFCC#8 (and yes, "significant" does not mean "critical", but the plain-language-English-definition of "significant" is also not merely "detectable"), and WP:NFCC#1, in which the proponent would have to demonstrate that the image cannot be replaced by a free, textual equivalent. Procedurally, I'll note that the NFCC#1 argument hasn't been explicitly made, but that's why the "decorative" argument is discouraged: it's a sloppy shorthand for "any information conveyed that would allow the image to pass WP:NFCC#8 is so trivial that it could easily be replaced by text, thus failing WP:NFCC#1." It doesn't surprise me that many people fall back on "it's decorative": much shorter, and doesn't look like gobbledygook.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but how do you demonstrate that the image cannot be replaced by free text, other than with consensus of the editors reviewing it? The closing admin should not make that decision all by itself, given that it's usually pretty subjective. Thus the closure should be based on what the discussion concluded; "strength of policy" cannot be determined by one person alone with respect to WP:NFCC#1 (when replacing with text) and WP:NFCC#8. Diego (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that most of the original FFD noms had all of 3 editor's input - the nominator (for deletion) and two others wanting to keep, the closer has to make a decision based on that consensus, and given that we are talking policy, a strong policy argument made by one will outweigh non-policy arguments of many others. What should be pointed out is that most FFD are this sparsely discussed, some even closing without any other comment besides the nominator. We can't force people to respond to FFDs, and we do need to handle FFDs in a "default to delete" manner due to the non-free content approach, so most do go to deletion. So realistically, there is nothing different from how these SImpsons FFDs were closed compared to any other FFD, outside of SchuminWeb doing a large number at the same time. Kww's acknowledged that he's reviewed many and agree with Schumin's reading of consensus, but a few probably can be DRV'd to re-assess the consensus. Schumin still deserves a TROUT for false reads (I agree there are a few that if I had checked, I wouldn't have deleted even with the poorly-attended FFD that favored deletion), but Kww here is closing a difficult discussion in the manner that follows policy and creates the least amount of disruption, and certainly he should not be blamed for the original problem. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't think that was a stellar close either. NFCC#8 isn't a question of fact to be determined by a sysop. It's a question of interpretation and degree to be determined by a consensus, but the DRV close denies that. Please consider inviting a second opinion.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me stress again: most FFDs (Beyond these) are closed with minimum input from editors (1 or 2 + the nom), and regularly closers are making the final decision. That may be a problem with the notification of FFDs to the right channel, but that's not an issue with closing them; our NFC policy (and backed by the Foundation resolution) requires timed action on files that don't meet the NFCC. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If the closer is "making the final decision" then it is DRV's role to see they are overturned. Closers are not elected to do that, and they don't have the authority to do it, in any area of XfD. Decisions at XfD are made by a consensus of participating editors, not by a sysop arrogating executive power to him- or herself.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
      • No, the closer isn't adding to it; they are to be evaluating what opinions are left -- including that of the nominator, in light of consensus and policy. If an xFD with a nom that cited appropriate policy, and 99 "keeps" that were all "but this is good to keep!" without policy arguments, the closer is completely in the right to, assuming the nom's application of policy is correct, close as delete. In most FFDs (not just the ones that are under this issue), you have 2 to 3 opinions: the nominator typically citing NFCC policy, and one or two others, maybe for deletion, maybe for keeping. So the same thing happens: the closer reviews the nom's policy-based argument, and if there's no other policy based argument to go against it (there rarely is), deletion is appropriate. All the files in question were basically that: koavf's original FFD nomination (citing NFCC#8) and two keeps by Maitch and Lexian both stating "'It's decorative' is not a reason to delete." (which is not based on any policy and is patently wrong because we never allow for decorative non-free images). Ergo, SchuminWeb's closure of the bulk of those is correct based on policy. Yes, even the ones being challenged now had little additional input. Kww's right to note that a limited number of these were probably mass-closed in haste or incorrectly by Schumin, but of the rest, which Kww's spot-checked, which I've spot checked, and I'm sure several others involved in these discussions have checked, the initial FFD was closed correctly given the nom's policy stated and properly reflects the consensus given, and how FFD normally works. If Koavf had nominated one image per day instead of 272 at the same time, and was processed through FFD at that rate, I am confident that we'd be at the same spot (most of those deleted, the few remaining having been shown to be properly meeting NFCC), and without the drama of the event, even though it took 30x times longer to get through the list. In other words, the least disruptive way out of this situation is to simply allow the limited number of images that had a better shot being kept should be re-reviewed in a DRV given the benefit of doubt, but there's no reason to doubt the rest followed all proper FFD/DRV close procedures. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
        • If that's the attitude at FFD then I'm not surprised that participation is low! You give your good faith opinion and the closer disregards it and does what policy says anyway? How ridiculous! There's no point having a discussion in such an environment. If what you say is true then we need to close down FFD. We might as well replace the whole discussion area with a simple and streamlined "sysop suggestion box" system. If that's what sysops are up to at FFD, then they need bringing back into line with normal practice in XFD discussions in the rest of the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't have any exact number and only going by how I recall the rate of FFD to the rate of DRV, but I would argue that the number of FFD arguments that come up at DRV is at best 1% - in other words, the way FFD has been operating in the last several years has not been a problem. Mind you, the bulk of what gets to FFD is orphaned files and those are rarely challenged, so if I would have to guess how many FFDs that are not about orphans that end up at DRV, I'd still say that number is in the single digits. Remember, at some point, some admin is going to have to make a decision which way an FFD discussion falls; they can't be kept open forever. I won't be the first to argue that low participation at FFD is a problem with the notification system: presently I think only the original uploader is notified, which with WP's age, may not longer be active; I'd fully support requiring FFDs to include positing to the talk page of all articles affectd in addition to original uploader and the file page. But that doesn't change how they should close; if the nominator properly cites policy and no one refutes that no matter how many response, the close should go the way of deletion. Again, FFD - particularly with non-free - is nuanced by the fact that we are supposed to remove media that fails policy in a timely manner per the Foundation; articles like at AFD are not in the same position so in the same manner, "no consensus" is often better. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
            • There's no point having a discussion if the closer ignores it with impunity. If what you say is true, then FFD is a waste of valuable contributor time and should be shut down. DRV's job is, and has always been, to force sysops to close the discussion as it is, not the discussion as they think it should be. If SchuminWeb disagreed with the discussion then he simply shouldn't have closed it; he should have !voted instead. I'm afraid that there's no way to dress this up as an acceptable close.—S Marshall T/C 01:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Again, if one side presents policy-based arguments and the other side doesn't (and doesn't even try for an IAR argument), even if in overwhelming numbers, the closer is absolutely right to close with the policy-based argument. Also, for any xFD, the closer is going to have to evaluate the arguments provided, see how the arguments accurately apply to the policy and guidelines given, and make some type of subjective statement to which side is correct; in most cases (AFD, etc. where we're not talking non-free media) if there's even that type of decision, then "no consensus" is a better answer. I would argue that in FFD, as long as both sides are arguing with strong policy-based reasons, a "no consensus" is also appropriate, but in all other cases, due to the expected timeliness of NFC handling, the closer should close "keep" or "delete" with impunity based on the policy-based argument. DRV is never to have been to force sysops to close the discussion as is (That would make it xFD #2, which is it specifically not), but to review if there were any steps overlooked in the process of the xFD, if the closer misinterpreted any arguments corrects, or to challenge the closer's decision. Remember that DRV itself is a consensus-based process, and in the same manner, the close of the DRV has to come to some decision that may be novel (as KWW did here I believe) based on the strength of the arguments. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
                • I think there are two fundamental misunderstandings of discussion-based processes in that reply, Masem.

                  Firstly, you're saying that policy should overrule the local consensus. Although you do hedge that a bit by allowing for the possibility that the local consensus could "try for an IAR argument", it's still much too strong a view of policy's role in discussion processes. If policy always overruled the local consensus, then there would be no point in having a discussion. And it's even worse when we're talking about a policy that involves a subjective decision, like NFCC#8, because then what you're saying is that a sysop's interpretation of a policy overrules the local consensus.

                  Secondly, you're saying that a discussion close is a choice, but overruling the local consensus was not a choice available to the closer in that case. When faced with a contentious discussion, sysops only have three choices. Firstly, they can close the discussion in accordance with the consensus. Second, they can declare that there was no consensus. Or third, they can decide that the consensus is wrong or defective in some way, in which case they should not close. What they should do is !vote and explain the reasons for their !vote in full. Then the next sysop who comes along to close it will have a better discussion to close, you see.

                  Infrequently, situations can and do arise in which a sysop is right to overrule the local consensus, but this only happens when there has been sockpuppetry, canvassing, or other bad faith. Sysops are never right to overrule a good faith consensus. If they feel the discussion is defective or reaching the wrong conclusion they should always !vote instead.—S Marshall T/C 12:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I still want the original nominator, Koavf, to receive some sanctions for using "Decorative", since it's an WP:AAFFD, and for blatantly misrepresenting policy with the language "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease". To let that language stand without mandating strikethrough or deletion is a horrible precedent. Disgusting, and against the notion of policy as policy, not to be modified on the fly by willful editors. If I had written such a batch of nominations, you and several other admins would have taken direct measures against me but since it's Koavf, it's somehow all good. What's up with that? --Lexein (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • • I'm afraid that in discussion environments, people have wide latitude to say whatever they like, Lexein. What Koavf said was well within the normal range in Wikipedia discussions.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Give what Koavf's noms - and subsequent changes to each one to strike out "Decorative" - the noms were clearly made on proper basis of NFCC#8 failure - lack of any critical discussion of the images or scenes depicted in the bulk of the article. AAFFD is not a policy (and it's not "arguments you're not allowed ever to say", only arguments that without additional support tend to be ignored by admins), and since he did correct he, he's basically been TROUT'd for using that as the simple argument. The nominations were all still valid in their final form; the intent of his argument still rings true and was a valid basis for the closer to act on. You're making a big bad faith assumption that you would have been treated any differently from Koavf here if you had done the same. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just going by experience. "Decorative" (WP:AAFFD), and the misrepresentional "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease" just have no place in deletion nominations, because policy should simply never be misrepresented. Nominators, IMHO, have a burden of accuracy (and honesty). I don't see where any trout has occurred by anyone, and no complaint about the nomination quality by anyone but me. Another horrible mess of nominations gotten away with, scot free. --Lexein (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You did see that Koavf went through and struck out "decorative" and replaced it with a spelled-out NFCC#8 argument in each of the noms, likely based on one of your initial !votes in an FFD? That's 272 edits. He took his licks to satisfy your complaint on the word "decorative". There's zero reason to "punish" him further.--MASEM (t) 15:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Struck it through, and put it right back in later in the text. I don't know how familiar you are with Koavf's history, but he's quite skilled with bots and scripts, so those edits were the lightest of all possible work, and cover 25% of the problem. Still remaining: the misrepresentional "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease", listed right there, as if they were part of NFCC#8. Quote: "This image is not critical for understanding, but is used in a decorative fashion. Since this file does not greatly enhance understanding, nor will its omission greatly decrease understanding, it must be deleted". Sorry, it's getting off scot free as long as that misrepresentational text remains. --Lexein (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean vs. My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean

Hello Kww. With regards to this (by the way, you also changed "IMDb" back to "IMDB" – it would be nice to be a bit more diligent when reverting others), please take a look at the edit summary here. Do you really want to change One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, although it doesn't seem to be spelled with a lowercased "o" in over, like, anywhere? Looking forward to your reply. Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just replied on my talk page. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your protection of John Llewellyn Moxey

I know you protected the article from being edited by a sockpuppet, but I would to make a couple of small edits to the external links section, if you don't mind. QuasyBoy (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I figured that it was supposed to be semi-protected. Thanks. QuasyBoy (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A friendly wager

• User_talk:Jclemens#A_friendly_wager

My apologies. In my initial looking over the guides en masse, I missed that you share the *cough* "pleasure" at being at the bottom with us : )

I don't know what Jclemens view on the wager is yet, but you would be welcome to join in as well : ) - jc37 05:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've done my quota of requested closes for a while. Look upwards a few paragraphs, and at WP:AN as we speak.—Kww(talk) 06:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, just sounded like something fun while we passed the time : )

Happy editing : ) - jc37 06:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to offer my consolations.

Happy editing : ) - jc37 21:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least we beat Yolo Swag. Still amazes me that every year people bitch and moan about Arbcom, and every year they vote in nearly exactly the same kind of people.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012#Question_about_the_results - jc37 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge was an incorrect decision by MBisanz

I'm not sure if you've seen the decision (Merge) made by MBisanz at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records). Why Merge when we had more votes for Delete. And that part had already been deleted from the list, but Subtropical-man has merged it with the parent list again.--Harout72 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm looking for a specific version which that happened in. In fact, that has happened three or four times before. I even asked someone about that.--Harout72 (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The last time that happened was on October 6, 2012 in this very version and we had just close to 450 citations. So, I had to remove some sources to get the ref. section re-appear. But it's strange because that now that very version shows the ref. section. I'm not sure if they've recently updated the limit of citation templates for a page. I guess that argument won't work.--Harout72 (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, I really appreciate your help.--Harout72 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of The Simpsons images

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25

What are you going to do with mass deletions of The Simpsons images? I wonder if another deletion review on only them of The Simpsons is needed. --George Ho (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note that this is now happening, which is in effect a reversal of your close. You may care to comment: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29#File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC 155 and UFC 156

These articles should have an individual page, they are notable because a title is being fought for at the events, and they are almost certain to take place, therefore they pass nobility and crystal ball. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does your contributions to wikipedia only involve deleting pages, images, and information?173.168.140.188 (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking another one of Drecool/Stuffat/etc sock puppets. I wasn't even thinking about that possibility, but in retrospect, it makes sense. Anyways, thanks again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Hello, thank you for your comments on the proposed changes to WP:MMAEVENT on WT:MMA, there has been consiterable dialog, and the Proposed Changes are on "Version 4". Through the conversation most people have offered their support to the proposal, with 3 people opposed. Of the 3, 2 have now stated that they support the proposal, and i believe the current version addresses the concerns of the remaining opposition. I did ask them to take another look on their talk page, but have not yet heard back. i am wondering if you might lend guidance on what the next step should be? i have never been involved in a RfC, but it seems that some people feel that is the next step. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Kevlar (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA

Since you've shown an interest, I'm trying to formulate an RfC that can be put in front of the entire community here. I've done a fair amount of mediation at MMA, being that I'm not a fan, nor against it. Goal is to have something clear enough that the entire community can set a clear criteria and leave the minutia to the project. It is still quite rough, and I'm not rushing it as I would rather do this just once and be done with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on deleting UFC 155 and UFC 156 pages did not have one reason for deletion. If you read the deletion guidance then you would find a list of reasons for deletion. The discussion failed to produce a reason for deletion and therefore is a invalid deletion. More ever is the fact that the redirect results in a link off the page that redirects back to the page. Given that the page is deleted why not delete the list of UFC Events and all things MMA? This is laudable and inconsiderate. Shame. Shame. Shame.173.168.140.188 (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Iluvrihanna24

Look at his talk page. No else gets let of like he is at the moment. He is a very deceptive person. He does reverts and makes sure he changes a few words so it doesn't look like a straight revert. Why he is receiving some sort of special treatment I do not know. AARON• ^TALK 18:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Another example of him being deceptive. Says he is only adding Irish debut, but instead reverted other linking which he has reverted about 4 times on that article alone in total now. AARON• ^TALK 16:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't actually believe how many chances you are giving him. I have never seen an editor receive the type of treatment he is receiving from you. Look at the state of his talk page, filled with final and only warnings, and not just by me. Haven't you noticed how he "agrees" to what you impose, then when unblocked, goes against it? Every time on every sock account. Saying not to edit war over titles to him unless he agrees not to will only stop him doing it for a few weeks. AARON• ^TALK 16:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

UK chart placements above 40

Kww, I know that Chart Stats still has the copyright issue preventing it from showing the UK chart placements above 40, although is there any other way we can find these placements? E.g. 'x song debuted at number 50'—would this information need to be removed or could we find a source similar to Chart Stats? Till 06:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No reliable ones that I know of. Other editors use zobbel, but I've never supported its use. That said, I'm not about to go chasing after people that use it, either.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Sorry about the results – or perhaps "congratulations on your freedom"? I believe you're one of the sanest "opposition" candidates for ArbCom, and I hope you'll continue to contribute from the sidelines (and try again next year). — Coren ^(talk) 22:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty discouraging, actually. I'm going to have to figure out a way to package the concept of "I plan on actually applying policy instead of just making things up as I go along" in a way that people find more attractive. Silly me ... I thought that would be an attractive message. Of course, between the ARS, UFC, and NFCC issues, I've managed to alienate a large section of the electorate. I just wish the other folks would stop and think it through, and realize that someone that applies policy in unpopular instances is an asset, not a liability, when it comes to a body like Arbcom.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more that you get (unfairly) lumped up with the "opposition for opposition's sake" crowd because you're a vocal critic of Arbcom; I did notice that you do understand that the committee needs to work even if your suggested reforms meet resistance, and you'd be able to work with the committee. Perhaps that is what was less clear to other voters? — Coren ^(talk) 23:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Very disapointed with the results. I voted for you and fully support you, but that is not the entire reason for my disapointment (although, at least one very controversial candidate seems to have been removed by the community) I am disapointed that too many of them are so...whats the best term....insiders? Oh well. Next time.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy enforcement

Kww, please reconsider editing wiki pages based on policy alone. Wikipedia deletion polices clearly state that the intention is to have no firm rules or bureaucracy. They also state to keep pages unless they are completely irrelevant or redundant, but to avoid deletion as much as possible. If you do continue then please do more to make your point than simply pointing to a wiki policy page. Your argument should state specifically and clearly what policy is in conflict. From a non policy point of view there are thousands (millions?) of wiki pages that go against your argument for deletion. With no delivery of clear policy conflicts you will always be receiving similar problems. 173.168.140.188 (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

NSONG

Hi Kww, please see the latest proposed version of Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Latest_version and let me know if you have any further feedback. Mkdw^talk 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

91.154.96.0/20

I took this with NawlinWiki (talk · contribs), but this Finland user has edited again while I waited for an answer. The problem is resumed here, and the latest IP is 91.154.104.225 (talk · contribs). If a RB can be performed it would be good, because I've started to despair. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for the Heartbreak

I disagree with the notion that this article should not have been created. Generally speaking, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources establishes the purpose of creating articles on Wikipedia. The fact that the song was covered in two [12] [13] sources that are independent of the album is indicative of notability. Feel free to Afd the article if you wish. Till 06:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those is significant coverage in independent sources. They are brief promotional blurbs, targeted at promoting sales of the parent album, appearing in websites that specialize in repacking PR material for advertising dollars.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The song is addressed directly in detail in both sources, so yes the coverage is significant. As for independent, Digital Spy and Idolator are both secondary reliable sources specialising in music-related content, not PR material. I can Afd the article on behalf of you if you wish. Till 15:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if you just redirected it an merged it yourself. It is not dealt "directly and in detail" by the sources you have provided. "Then there's 'Thank You For The Heartbreak', a snappy electropop number that could have slotted quite nicely onto the Change album. There's a definite 80s feel to it, but it still sounds distinctively Sugababes." is direct, certainly, but "detailed"? Same with "Thank You For The Heartbreak” is less of a stab at American radio-friendly R&B and more of a return to what Britain’s ‘babes have traditionally excelled at: taking their sass and snappy tell-offs to the dance floor.". Promotional blurbs are not direct and detailed coverage.

There's really no need to haul things like this through AFD all the time, and getting into giant pissing matches about sources all the time. Put a statement in Sweet 7 that says "'Thank Your For the Heartbreak' got positive mention before the album's release, with Digital Spy saying that it had a definite 80's feel while remainingly distinctively Sugababes, and Idolator saying that it represented the style of music at which the Sugababes have traditionally excelled." There's no justification for wrapping an entire article around a trivial nugget like that.

I'm not specifically pointing a finger at you: the pop music area is riddled with things like this. The question people should be asking is not "now that I've found two sources can I figure out how to build an article around it?", it's "what's the shortest and most efficient way for me to convey this information?"—Kww(talk) 15:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Referencing Error

Hi Kev,

If you get chance could you please help with Talk:Glassheart#Reference 137? Thanks — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page 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 a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas
	May your Christmas sparkle with moments of love, laughter and goodwill, May the year ahead be full of contentment and joy, May the good times and treasures of the present become the golden memories of tomorrow, Merry Christmas To U & Ur Family. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

91.154.xxx.xxx

You may want to watch this rev. hist. I think this IP is Mathiassandell (talk · contribs). The behaviour of this IP (the lattest known) is similar to AlexisNeva (talk · contribs)'s. They may be the same person, but there is no stronger evidence, but you should keep an eye in with this person. I'm not going to be active this week so some eyes are needed. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 09:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That's him. A little bit of internet sleuthing confirms that one Mathias Svendrup Sandell is a Finnish high school student. I'm going to see if I can't get an edit filter put in place that will deal with him and Dance-pop/CharlieJS13. Should be possible to at least deal with the IPs.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

He seems to have yet another new account, Froxen11 (talk · contribs). Widr (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Another new one, Mmunz2 (talk · contribs). Widr (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Another, Froxxen (talk · contribs). Widr (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems with your close of AfD

I have a number of issues with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157, but there are two main issues. The first is that, in your closing statement, you made a number of opinionated assumptions on people's votes and, indeed in places, seemed to be putting your own arguments in against them rather than the arguments that were actual made in the AfD. The most obvious example of this is your dismissal of Odie5553's argument with a statement that was made nowhere in response to the user, which means you came up with it yourself. Because of this, it would have been far more appropriate for you to vote in the AfD if you had an opinion on it, instead of closing it and instating your own opinion on whether the article should be kept or not.

The second major issue is your involvement in various MMA discussions, including the recent attempt to create a proper guideline for MMA articles. Because this AfD was as contentious as it is, it should have had a completely uninvolved admin close it. And you are clearly not an uninvolved admin in this topic area. Silverseren^C 10:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Dismissal of Odie5553's opinions? I praised them. Go back and read again. As to "opinionated assumptions", I think I explained my weighting pretty thoroughly, and, when the weight I gave to an argument was low, I explained why.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You praised it, but then rejected the argument with an argument that was not made against him. Silverseren^C 21:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I still have a significant issue with the fact that someone involved in MMA discussions made the close for such a contentious AfD. Silverseren^C 21:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the discussion because I had closed other AFDs in the area. I discussed whether the proposed guidelines would address the issues that had caused me to delete previous articles in this area. Admins are required to be open to the community as to the reasons for administrative actions they have taken: it would be perverse to use such required discussions to mark them as involved and incapable of taking further action.

As for my weighing of Odie553's position: he took a position that required the presence of diverse sources, but didn't make note of of whether there was, indeed, a diversity of sources. I'm required to take the accuracy of an argument into account. Think about the converse case: if someone argued that all sources for an article failed WP:RS, wouldn't you expect me to consider whether or not the sources were actually reliable when I was weighing the argument?—Kww(talk) 22:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I suppose it's best to wait until UFC 157 happens anyways, since I know there will be a lot of sources covering it. Silverseren^C 22:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You specifically said " The flaw in his argument is that he presumes that USA Today represents "diverse sources", so other keep voters are going to have to fill that in by actually finding diverse sources." Did you actually read/consider the branched comments or just each initial comment? The six citations below are a cut & paste of what I wrote in one of the branches exampling available sources, some of which I placed in the article. Furthermore from the formatting this should have been rather difficult to miss:

• Orange County Register: Rousey to make history in MMA (full article, non-routine coverage, and over two months out at that)
• USA Today: UFC unsure of Ronda Rousey's PPV draw, banking it's big (ditto, and different from the article you linked above and a rather long article)
• The Atlantic: This Girl Is Not Afraid of You and Will Beat You Up (fairly short article but much more than a blurb and from a high-brow magazine that does not do routine sports coverage at all)
• Queerty.com: UFC Signs First Openly Lesbian Fighter, Liz Carmouche (short article but from a high-profile gay & lesbian-issues news site that has no routine sports coverage)
• International Business Tribune: Ronda Rousey: Women's MMA Star Set To Make Her Debut At UFC 157 (non-routine article about the debut of the UFC's women's division, specifically mentioning Rousey's mainstream media attention as a catalyst)
• Daily News (Los Angeles) (longish, non-routine article on challenger Liz Carmouche and her social media tactics to land her the title match)

Considering you found a lack of diverse sources to be a prominent enough issue to be one of exactly two issues that you considered worth noting as your rationale for AfD, and apparently the lack of diverse sources was bad enough that you specifically used the loan example USA Today and MMAJunkie as redundant while not mentioning any other given sources, lack of diverse sources as an argument seems extremely fallacious when there were far more than just those two. Thus I am forced to ask, how are the above sources not relevant? Furthermore, while you argued that notabilty of an event is not inherited from the participants, the two fighters' extensively documented notability is in part inherited from this event in the first place (particularly in Carmouche's case; in contrast, Jessica Aguilar is both openly gay and the consensus #1 fighter in the world in her weight division but she's never fought for a world title as a true one does not currently exist for Women's Strawweight, and thus she has never had anything approaching this sort of coverage).

On top of that, regardless of whether you tried to be more open with your reasoning than in the past, this was still an overwhelmingly contentious debate and you are anything but uninvolved. I do not see how the fact that an editor reached out to ask you for comment/closure changes that or in any way overrides those things and it seems quite problematic that you wouldn't simply recuse yourself. Beansy (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Closing the 157 article without any attempt to have it redirected to an omnibus page or any other solution is a clear example of the willingness here to just make MMA coverage worse without any compromise, while applying extremely high standards to notability. Byuusetsu (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Kww, I was not particularly invested on whether the article was deleted or not. However, I can see others have taken to this matter with a lot of passion. In terms of an alternate solution, would you be open to having another admin, who is not involved in the current affairs of MMA on Wikipedia, reassess the closure of the UFC 157 AfD? I only say this because I was surprised it was not closed as no consensus considering the debate going on at WP:MMANOT as its clear that WP:NEVENT does not seem to satisfy all the systemic problems going on with MMA coverage. Mkdw^talk 00:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) If even after KWW's comments above addressing that very point and considering all of the four versions of the new guidelines being discussed at WT:MMA all said that future events would not have standalone articles you still feel that the close is wrong then WP:DRV is the place to go. Mtking ^(edits) 00:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was suggesting WP:DRV when I said 'another admin reassess the closure' as only an admin could review the deleted article. I came here first as a courtesy to Kww because he is a well respected admin and editor on Wikipedia. I would not submit a DRV if Kww was not supportive of such an action or submitted further cause as to why not to do so. Also, WP:MMANOT is not even finished regardless of whether it would suit a future event. The article was not closed because of FUTURE but NEVENT. But I do appreciate your input though not technically a question directed at you. Mkdw^talk 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not insulted when a deletion is taken to DRV. I doubt this one would be overturned, and I see no reason to void the close.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article should not have been deleted before an omnibus article was created to put the information in, at the bare minimum. Byuusetsu (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't have been created before that omnibus article, certainly. The content was trivial, and already contained in the articles about Carmouche and Rousey.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's pretty easy to argue that what's happening at 157 is not trivial, but more importantly, I'd prefer pages were kept up to date instead of the really inconsistent and lazy work involved so far. Byuusetsu (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:ANI post

I didn't misrepresent anything. The exact quote was I have NO IDEA where the idea of putting macrons on Japanese people's names has come from -- this to me indicated a lack of understanding of the Hepburn romanization system. The macrons are there to represent long vowels, in names of people, places, general vocabulary, etc., and Wikipedia uses the Hepburn system because it is widely accepted. In fact, it also has general acceptance in WikiProject Japan -- even JoshuSasori, and his proposal's other supporters, only suggested rejecting one part of the Hepburn system for the names of post-Meiji people (presumably leaving the rest of the articles untouched). Regardless of what Japanese people you know do with their names, they almost certainly spell their names in some form of Hepburn. And most Japanese actually don't use the roman alphabet to spell their names anyway, except when interacting with foreigners. I know a good few Japanese (in Japan) who use the macron, and I have also seen "ou" and "oh" on numerous occasions; but our personal experiences are irrelevant on Wikipedia, where some form of consistency is generally seen as best.

Anyway, arguments about spelling are pretty pointless. The rules are what they are, and I don't intend to change them. I have posted a peace offering on JoshuSasori's talk page, and I don't intend to create any more bad blood between the two of us. His actions led me to believe that he has an agenda against Wikipedia's current naming conventions and is deliberately flouting them in his edits; my actions led him to believe I was following him around Wikipedia and deliberately undermining his edits. I know he was wrong in the latter, and I am willing to say that I was wrong in the former.

elvenscout742 (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Restore UFC 157 to my user space

Hello Kww, can you please restore UFC 157 to User:Oskar Liljeblad/UFC 157 (or my talk page)? I intend to create a 2013 omnibus article for UFC. Thanks in advance! Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

While at it, will you restore UFC 156 to User:Oskar Liljeblad/UFC 156 as well? Thanks. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Subtropical-man continues

Hi Kevin, just want to let you know that Subtropical-man has re-created our consensus based removal, see User:Subtropical-man/List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records).--Harout72 (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Taio Cruz page - conflict of interest?

Hi, as you are aware I have been trying to replace a picture I took on the Taio Cruz page but got involved in an edit war with 78.25.222.231 who you gave a warning too, although unlike me this user was not blocked. The page appears to have become a sales site for not only singles and albums, but also sunglasses, clothes and other Taio Cruz products, and when I removed an unsubstantiated reference to some supposed celebrity sunglasses wearers it was interesting that the reference was replaced (although in amended form) by a user: 78.25.222.226 - which appears very similar to the edit warrer about the photo. I am also concerned about the user ClarityFacts who seems to be pushing the same line on the photographs - pushing the use of a studio shot, released into the public domain by Taio Cruz Ltd. Is there any way it can be looked into whether these editors (and maybe others on the page) have a conflict of interest? Holly har (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I personally find your continued assertions that the other editor is a PR person across a wide range of spots to be past the point of personal attacks and hounding. Having reviewed all of the contributions of CF, I see nothing that suggests any form of PR at play. Without an inkling of proof, you're disparaging another editor. There is the conflict of interest noticeboard, but you would need some actual proof. Otherwise, start using dispute resolution processes (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not made any assertions that any particular other editor is a PR person. There must be some confusion here. Holly har (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You most certainly are. Your most recent post on the Taio Cruz talkpage continues your accusations. I would suggest that if you don't either start providing proof, or stop with the accusations, that you'll either no longer be editing Wikipedia, or as a minimum you'll be no longer editing any articles related to Mr Cruz (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is amazing how this site seems to state a willingness to reach consensus on content through discussion on talk pages (I have attempted to do this but so far my postings on the Taio Cruz talk page appear to have been largely ignored) but actually to operate by threat and action. Anyway, as I said, I have not made any assertions that any particular other editor is a PR person. However, I have mentioned my concerns about the type of activity that his happening on the page. How would you explain that information about touring (which would seem relevant to the history of a performing artist like Taio Cruz) is deleted, but details about celebrities wearing his sunglasses brand are almost religiously preserved? Holly har (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want also to look into the activities of editor 78.25.222.237 on the Taio Cruz page (another very similar number to the two mentioned above). Holly har (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my bad

Re: the Every Teardrop Is a Waterfall move. I happened upon the article and saw a mishmash of capitalization use, and standardized it all, not thinking to check out the MOS. My bad. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Respecting ANI discussions

Kww,

You read the ANI and AN discussions. You saw that there was consensus against blocking Malleus now.

Please rescind your block asap. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No.—Kww(talk) 00:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you taking it upon yourself to over-rule the consensus of ANI? Ironholds should be respected, at least. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

From my reading of the relevant block log, your block lasted seven minutes. That seems like a pretty good indication to me that it was an unwise block. In your defense, it was two minutes longer than the previous block lasted. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You should be using HTTPS.

Or a sign of incredibly poor judgement on Floquenbeam's part. I know which one I believe to be true. The only reason Malleus is so much trouble is because people let him be. If people would stop unblocking him, the troubles would cease.—Kww(talk) 04:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. If a block could stick, perhaps it would be effective. Though you could equally say "if all the vandals got bored and stopped vandalizing, the troubles would cease" or "if everyone focused only on article work, the trouble would cease." Everyone has to operate within the confines of reality. It's difficult to get an indefinite block to stick to any long-time contributor, but a quick look at Malleus' block log quickly indicates that in his case, it's impossible to get any block to stick. This is Giano all over again, of course. The only thing you've guaranteed with your block is that you won't be able to ever block Malleus in the future, as you're now considered involved. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

From WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area".—Kww(talk) 19:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Vested or vestal?

"If people would stop unblocking him the trouble would cease"? What a load of shit! That's like a corrupt judge complaining that another judge set free an honest man he had unjustly imprisoned. The only "trouble" here is you and your ilk. If the next admin (and you can bet your ass there will be one) to issue a bullshit block to Malleus (or anyone for that matter) was indefed and desysoped, I promise you there will be no more trouble. Then maybe those of us who are actually here to contribute, rather than flex and pose, could make some progress. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The vested contributor discussions have been too important not to perfect them.

Instead of vested contributor, it would be better to call them vestal contributors. When there is a political crisis, such as dropping numbers of contributors or too few RfAs, it is obvious that a vestal contributor has forsaken their vows, such as civility, and a vestal contributor must be sacrificed to appease the gods. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)