User talk:Kww: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:53, 28 January 2016

Archives at:

BENN JORDAN

This person is not notable, and certainly doesn't need 14 seperate wiki articles on each of his works, none of which are notable or sourced, nor is he. He appears to be a hack bedroom producer that simply uploads his content to illegal file sharing sites. I've nomined him for speedy deletion. Please also assist removing the other 12+ pages he has made himself, apparently.

Nelly Furtado

Nelly Furtado has a portuguese passport, she said it in an interview to The Independent in 6 March 2004 (she was interview by Aoife O'Riordain), but The Independent has erased that interview probably because it was done more than 10 years ago (the interview was located here: http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news_and_advice/story.jsp?story=498282). What you call a fansite is a forum where the interview was "copy pasted". I don't know why you guys are trying so hard to hide the fact that Nelly has portuguese citizenship, but that's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockmaker00 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I found that source! The Independent (UK) 6 March 2004, Nelly Furtado interview by Aoife O'Riordain. Title of the interview: «My Life in Travel: Nelly Furtado.» Blockmaker00 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was an interview in a portuguese magazine in 11 November 2006 (Revista Única), where the journalist ask: "Do you feel more canadian or portuguese?" And Nelly say: "I have a Canadian and a Portuguese passport, but I feel more Portuguese because of my roots." Check http://nellyfurtado-ninhas.blogspot.pt/2008/02/revista-nica-portugal-2006.html and you will find a photo from the pages and the title "I feel more portuguese". That sentence is mencioned all over the net (google "Nelly furtado" and "passaporte português"). Wikipedia should be a place for facts, but that's not the case. Shame on you.Blockmaker00 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems I found AGAIN that Nelly Furtado is Portuguese. In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCqT2PIsDzo (@01:55 - an interview to a brazilian program), Nelly say: "Sou canadiana, mas portuguesa também. A minha alma e o meu coração são portugueses". Let me translate it for you: "I'm canadian, but also portuguese. My heart and my soul are portuguese." That's a primary source, don't you think? Will you change the article to Portuguese-Canadian or do you want me to do it? Blockmaker00 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will need to evaluate the YouTube video later, Blockmaker00: I cannot access YouTube from work.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Take a look at this video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYGKj3WPhQk. It's an interview to a mexican program. Nelly say @02:30: «Yo me siento hispanica y latina también, porqué yo soy portuguesa». In english: «I feel hispanic and latin also, because I am portuguese». I will continue to look for more videos, but I think we have the evidence we need in these two (Nelly say she is portuguese in 2 different languages). Blockmaker00 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB38fLBZc8I (portuguese program). @02:38 Nelly say: «Descobri a música mais moderna de Portugal. Música que vinha de Lisboa: Pedro Abrunhosa, Santos e Pecadores, Madredeus... Coisas que me faziam sentir orgulhosa de ser portuguesa. Fiquei ainda mais orgulhosa de ser portuguesa.» In english: «I discovered the portuguese modern music. Music from Lisbon: Pedro Abrunhosa, Santos e Pecadores, Madredeus... Things that made me feel proud of being Portuguese. I felt even more proud of being portuguese». Blockmaker00 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to see the other videos. See this one in english: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ezIHQ0pkTE. @01:25, Nelly is asked: «You are not spanish, right?». And then, the answer: «No. I'm actually PORTUGUESE-CANADIAN....» Not a fansite, not a blog: the truth from her own mouth. Blockmaker00 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to see a video that isn't a copyright violation, Blockmaker00. None of those are authorised copies.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can find one video that isn't a copyright violation. But I will try. At least, now you know the facts: she is portuguese and she said it dozens of times in newspappers, magazines and TV shows. It's really sad to see «is a Canadian singer» in the Wiki page after hearing Nelly say repeatedly she's portuguese-canadian... Blockmaker00 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arb case request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Kww and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)#Request for comment

You were one of editors of the article. I invite you to an RFC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However the case ends, do know that you've definitely had a positive impact on Wikipedia overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling music artists

List of best-selling music artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please can you unprotect that page. You protected it about 3 months ago; there's no indications that it still needs protection now. Thanks. 88.104.25.154 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that page has been protected for years, and can't seem to survive unprotected. What you see in the log is me moving it back to semi-protected after a brief period of full protection. So, sorry, won't be doing that any time soon.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Kww. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sportsguy17 (T • C) 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Gomez's "associated act"

It's for long-term relationships with multiple collaborations. See Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts for an expansion, Justasaddream.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 13 July. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, I'm really sorry that much of the input at arbitration has favored you losing the mop. Hoping that doesn't happen. Not sure what you'll do if you become desysopped, but I wish you all the best for the future, and definitely don't think you've been as bad of an admin as some users seem to suggest. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though, thanks for your past five years of your administrative efforts. Eye snore 02:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you as well for your service as an admin. You definitely have been an overall net positive to the project. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration proposed decision

Hi Kww, in the open Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted

MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anonpediann

Hi Kww, I think you're aware of Anonpediann although I thought I'd bring him up anyway. He's got a retired sticker on his talk page, yet he's going through talk pages and removing comments like here. I'm surmising that he is removing them because he believes they are his (I note that User:Justasaddream redirects to his user page), but this is obviously disruptive if other people have responded to them. Thoughts? I'm a little confused by this scenario. I think that maybe he was signing comments as Justasaddream even though that account didn't exist? I found a proper name change request from Urjustaghost --> Anonpediann so that one is clear to me. I'm still warming up to my newly "earned" admin tools. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewarn, revert, and block if it repeats.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a vacation?

When was the last time you were on Bonaire? Atsme^📞📧 00:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This spring. Believe me, I'd love to be able to just move back home.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back to the US - was on Bonaire for 10 mos. Wish I had known you were there!! Atsme^📞📧 01:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Kww (talk · contribs)'s administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship
Kww (talk · contribs)'s edit filter manager permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysopped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire. If he is not desysopped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.
The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters, and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For defending the verifiability policy, even at personal cost. Reyk _YO! 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

Kevin, I am sorry to see this. Setting aside all the disputes and disagreements you and I have had, I'm sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too am very sad to see this. --John (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So am I. You will be missed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Missed, SNUGGUMS? Kww hasn't left, has he? But I'm very sorry to see the result of the case. Kww, even though I've sometimes felt your style was a bit like that of a steamroller, I admire your work. Few people have done as much as you for the site, and I will certainly support any time you want to go for a new RFA. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

He stated in this edit he's not going to be very active anymore, Bishonen. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt I will be very active from this point on. I've always been frustrated by Arbcom's ability to miss the point of every case set before it, and this case was no different. I view this as an extension of our Eric Corbett problem: once an editor is popular enough, the blowback from a block is hazardous. It was somewhat entertaining watching Arbcom try to distinguish the BLP violations TRM was blocked over from other BLP violations, try to rewrite WP:V and WP:BLP to justify their position, fail to do so, and still find that blocking TRM was so unjustifiable that I required a desysop. An edit filter that allowed an IP to talk about his edits rather than simply blocking him was some nefarious scheme of mine to avoid scrutiny? A failed experiment, certainly, but hardly a nefarious scheme. An edit filter that prevented the addition of completely unsourced tables to awards articles was so problematic as to warrant a desysop? Not in any universe that takes WP:V seriously.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely shouldn't have lost your mop, I'll say that now. Very few other editors I know of are quite as attentive to sourcing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry about this. You've done a lot for the project, and the bravery I've seen in standing up to malign folk should earn you plaudits, not this. I've long since given up on ArbCom as something necessary for the project I hope you stay. I understand if you do not. In any event you have my great respect and gratitude.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's disappointing that you were desysopped and I think it's a shame that you're scaling back your time here. I can't think of a more productive, effective and efficient admin in the music articles than you, Kww; it won't be easy for others to fill in for the work that you've done. Acalamari 13:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked and dismayed by this news. Although I am not involved in this dispute, I wish to echo the sentiments of Acalamari and others. I have come to consider you the MAIN MAN when it comes to music articles and have learned much from observing your edits and project activities. One thing that I remember learning from you particularly is that Bubbling Under charts are not true extensions of their parent charts, as songs cannot fall back through the BU positions after the song has been on the parent chart.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too am very sorry to see that this has happened. I am not as active on Wikipedia anymore, so this comes as a huge surprise, as I could not foresee anything like this happening. I say this because our previous experience has shown you to be extremely diligent and effective, with you being able to route out problematic editors of any kind. You will be sorely missed. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STARKILLERS

Hi, I've made several edits to the music wiki page of starkillers only to have been reverted by a rookie editor. I seek your assistance. This article is full of wiki:puff including talks of funding from (fictional) gangsters, unsubstatiated claims of chartings, an un-notable podcast internet radio show, etc. Its clearly authored by the dj himself as in the ASSOCIATED ACTS section, when you check to edit it, it states 'please don't add associated acts here as starkers is a freelance producer'.

It is a ridiculous promo piece.

Please check it out and revert the page back to my edits.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housexpose (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unrelated to anything you've done (if you've even done anything; I don't know) before or after the decision was announced. Basically, several people were confused by remedy #2, so I've filed a request to get Arbcom to clarify what they meant. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant. Thank you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification since you have been mentioned on AN. Well, technically you're mentioned on Technophant's talk page which is partially transcluded on AN (long story), but the end result is similar enough that I feel it warrants the usual notification.. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mate

If you give up, perhaps we all need to. Thought of losing an admin devoted to verifiable content saddens me. Best wished. Hope all that was needed was a break, not retirement. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

If you don't want to cause drama and strife, please do not post on The Rambling Man's talk page again. I can't put it simpler than that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't want to to respond, Ritchie333, he shouldn't intentionally ping me while insulting me. I don't know how much simpler than that I can put it.—Kww(talk) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to go to TRM's page and advise him of the same, but he has scrubbed the message off his talk page, which I take to read he wants to forget it about it. Seriously, all that happens when the two of you bang heads is trouble; walk away from it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much have walked away: in the conflict between the content-creator cult and those of us that value reliable sourcing, the content-creator cult has won. I remain flabbergasted that an admin that intentionally violated WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLP, and WP:NPA had such widespread support, but a dissent-free Arbcom decision made it pretty clear that I'm no longer welcome. I only monitor my talk page for the occasional ping that I receive to take care of any issues that I may have left open.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration clarification request archived

The Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration clarification request dated 4 August 2015, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived to the Kww and The Rambling Man case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Counting to 100

I know that, but look at other discography pages. They all have numbers greater than 100 for songs who peaked in "Bubbling Under Hot 100." WikiBrainHead (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kardashian RfC

You previously gave an opinion about the filmography section at Kim Kardashian. Please see Talk:Kim Kardashian, where a request for comments has been started. 31.54.158.76 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED --Guy Macon (talk)

Hello

I'm not sure if you remember me (you're probably more familiar with another username, which you can see on my user page), but I'm sorry to hear that you lost your administrative privileges. I only just now found out while keeping up, though I'm not participating, with a discussion regarding possible tool misuse by an administrator. (Do a CTRL + F for your name "Kww." You're mentioned three times.)

Both you and Apparition11 frequently tried to help me when I was in my "stubborn era," and as you can see from my block log, I never really "soaked" all the advice in, so I was out for a while. Amaury (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with disruptive IP

Hi Kevin. I'm having a problem with an IP at the article The Stone Roses (album). They continue to restore their controversial edit to the article, without responding to content of their changes at the RfC (I opened for them), calling WP:BRD an "irrelevant doctrine" and refusing to leave the article in the condition it was in before their bold edit was made, like BRD states, instead reverting and edit-warring once again. Could you please help restore some order to the article? It appears it is the same who disrupted the article in November of last year when they forced several RfCs at the talk page in an attempt to introduce similarly synthesized material into the article using the same sources. Dan56 (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No admin tools left here, Dan56.—Kww(talk) 09:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi Kww, I'm sorry to see you won't be around any more – for various reasons, Wikipedia has lost quite a number of longstanding excellent editors like yourself over the last 12 months, and that can't be good for the project. Anyway, just a quick question if you are still reading your talk page: are there other editors who will be maintaining the Singlechart and Albumchart templates in your absence? Best wishes for the future. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I keep track of pings and messages. Not as quickly as I used to (depends on how bored I am). No one in specific has taken over the templates I used to maintain, but there are a number of editors that do OK with them.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks, I'll direct my query there then - the German chart website has changed its layout and consequently screwed up all the links that pointed there. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi Kww! I just wanted to ask you for help because in the page "That's the Spirit", at the composition section, backing the genres, there are a lot of sources which reliability is not clear at all. Could you help me to clean up this sources i'm talking you about? Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Anonpediann (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Penikett

Could you unlock the article had been protected so I can add some details not for vandalism, is for own good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.199.242.44 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit this page to reply to me, please read the message that comes up.—Kww(talk) 21:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP

Hi. Would you be amenable for me removing the protection on this talk page you added back in March? [1] Another IP (unrelated to this one) wants to discuss something, and it's pretty rare that we lock talk pages indefinitely to anyone. PS: I know you don't have the tools anymore, but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why anyone chooses to discuss it any more, Ritchie333, but if you want to put up with it, feel free to put up with it.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration evidence

Hi Kww

Your section on the evidence page has been moved to the evidence talk page as it does not meet the requirements for inclusion as evidence. This has been undertaken as a clerk action and should not be reverted.

For the Arbitration Comittee. Amortias (T)(C) 12:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User LikeDude23 5SOS page vandalism

Hi,

User LikeDude23 keeps vandalising the 5 Seconds of Summer page, by constantly changing the genres of the band to pop and classing them as a boyband. Their acts have been extremely annoying and as you protected the page, I ask you to do something about the user's constant disruption to the page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafire94 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jdogno5 Socking as Lucifer Morningstar

Hi there. I was on the Lucifer DC comics page and noticed that a user Lucifer Morningstar, is adding information that Jdogno5 previously added to the page that is speculative. Looking at his contributions show that he had been editing pages that Jdogno5 use to and adding the same/similar information, similar grammar and wordage, etc. As you previously blocked Jdogno5, and it is rather blatant that they are the same person, I fighters I should let you know to see if there is socking going on. Sorry to bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.76.228.45 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Seasons greetings

Happy Holidays to you, your family and friends. May you have happy editing!

		Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
		May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

archive.is blocked

happy new year, kww! i tried to add an archive.is link to the ian murdock article as no reference otherwise but a pastebin link confirms that he announced his death. but i get an error that archive.is is not allowed. i read the rfc and i would be annoyed as well by some bot adding links to a users own archive service. but in this case i find it not so practical. i read on the rfc that it is not on the spamlist. can you please detail the exact conditions when archive.is would be allowed and when not? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. It's never acceptable under any condition for any reason. If you can't find a reliable source to point at, don't add the information. If you can find a reliable source to point at, feel free to use a reputable archiving service to archive the link.—Kww(talk) 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring of your statement at WP:ARC

Hi Kww. The clerks have redacted parts of your statement at WP:ARC. You are welcome to rephrase removed content in a way that is not inflammatory and does not contain personal attacks. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know on my talk page. (Specific actions may or may not have been taken by me personally.) Questions may also be directed to the clerks' noticeboard, the clerks' mailing list (clerks-llists.wikimedia.org), or the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org). Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)- now that's just silly. How is someone supposed to say another editor is being disruptive on purpose if they're not allowed to say "being disruptive on purpose"? I think you clerks are far too overzealous with the redaction. Reyk _YO! 14:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond silly, but every interaction I've had with TRM has involved Humptydumptyism of one kind or another. He's a well-respected former bureaucrat and long-term administrator, you know, which means that we no longer expect him to be held to the same standards as mortal men, like actually following WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to discuss this with L235, but you're not welcome to just reinstate it. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Penikett

Tony Penikett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: Expiration Date. Mo

Why don't you responding unprotection of Tony Penikett few days ago?

Because anyone that read the edit notice when they made the comment on my page would know that I can't do a damn thing about it, for one. For two, I don't believe that there's any need for anonymous editors to edit articles about living people.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do it for god's sake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.132.63.52 (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to read indicates that no one should unprotect any article that you are interested in. Please go away until you become literate.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Penikett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: Expiration. Mo

Let's repeat this: I cannot unprotect the page. It's impossible. Every time you leave me a message, you get a message explaining to you why it's impossible. Since you have failed to explain to anyone at any time exactly why the page should be unprotected, it's quite unlikely that anyone else will do it either. So go find something else to do.—Kww(talk) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to you, your,re the one protecting the article I been not editing the article for 2 years so its your responsibility do it I say and no gets hurt GOT IT?!

@@ Line 312: / Line 312: @@
 '''Unprotection:''' Expiration. Mo
 :Let's repeat this: I cannot unprotect the page. It's impossible. Every time you leave me a message, you get a message '''''explaining''''' to you why it's impossible. Since you have failed to explain to anyone at any time exactly ''why'' the page should be unprotected, it's quite unlikely that anyone else will do it either. So go find something else to do.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
+* Listen to you, your,re the one protecting the article I been not editing the article for 2 years so its your responsibility do it I say  and no gets hurt GOT IT?!