User talk:Kuru: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:28, 27 December 2017

Kuru's Talk Page

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Please note that I will usually respond on this page to keep the conversation together. If you have a question about a particular edit/reversion, please try to include a link to it if you can.

WARNING: If you've come here because my name was used in a solicitation for a paid Wikipedia article, you are being scammed. In no way, shape, or form would I ever operate or advise as a paid editor. I also do not typically assist declared paid editors; I'm here as a volunteer to improve the project, not to help you turn a buck.

Click HERE to start a new talk topic.

Archives

2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009

2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013

2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017

2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021

2022 • 2023 • 2024 • 2025

Sumana Mukherjee

Just wanted to know why you have deleted write up on Sumana Mukherjee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.183.234 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request

It would be great if you please let me know what kind of websites are very 'appropriate' to be specified as references for business topics, since government websites have very limited or no content related to new terminologies. Are International bank websites considered trustworthy? since everything they do is authorised by the government.HarishMP (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A brief commercial pitch page is not in any way acceptable. You can read through our guidelines at WP:RS. If you are unable to find reliable sources, then the material is likely not worthy of inclusion. Kuru (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this. Clearly one revert wasn't enough xD DrStrauss talk 17:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - happens sometimes! Kuru (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Kuru:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Question about Formsbank

Dear Kuru, It has come to the attention of our analytics team that our domain name is currently blacklisted on Wikipedia.org. After a thorough investigation we have found out that our hired SEO team had been posting spam-like links to parts of our website in the reference section of Wikipedia’s articles. This kind of approach is not something our company practices: the responsible employees have been suspended and as of today we have taken the necessary steps to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.

We value our brand name - our goal being to provide genuinely good content - and we accept full responsibility for this mistake.

I've read that generally WikiPedia doesn't de-list sites based on requests from site owners or representatives. But are there any steps we can take in order to be delisted?

Thank you in advance, Igor, Formsbank team.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.180.68 (talk • contribs)

As you note, we remove blacklisted domains only when there is a reason to do so. Most spammed domains are unlikely to have a legitimate use here, so they are seldom removed. I can't dig into this at the moment, but would be happy to look at this later today. Kuru (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally like to thank you for taking the time to look into our situation.

Formsbank is an up-and-coming project with a goal to help users make their paperwork easier and we take pride in doing our best to provide quality content and good service.

We try our best to be a people-oriented and genuinely useful resource - launching our blog several weeks ago - and do hope that our efforts can help people out in some way or another. Igor, Formsbank team.

Hello again, Kuru. I'm sorry for disturbing You again. Still looking for your answer. Thanks in advance. 74.117.180.68 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Igor.[reply]

i have some free time today, will look at it. Kuru (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At your request, I've reviewed the activity related to this link. The link was spammed thirty-odd times from IPs in Russia, Czechoslovakia and Germany over a period of four months. The additions were intentionally deceptive; pretending in many cases to be "references" when there was nothing at the link to even support the material. Since the spamming occurred across many articles and across several IPs and warnings were ignored, the only choice was to blacklist the link. If there is something at the site which can be used as a legitimate reference, then you can request whitelisting of a specific URL at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Kuru (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BKFIP

He's currently editing as Special:Contributions/95.97.85.50. I honestly don't know how to respond to his personal attacks so I thought I'd alert you. Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed,blocked - his last five IPs have been in the Netherlands. Presumably another trip. Kuru (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your message

Thanks for your message. I have no problem at all with what you have done. You got there by following up an old edit that I didn't take much notice of, since isolated IP edits from a long time ago are often irrelevant, but on this occasion it clearly wasn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a new topic need to occur for a listing that is unique in the dataset?

GoSale is the only price comparison website in the dataset to include Price Alerts, Extensions for 4 browsers, price history with graphs. No other combination exists. Why do you suppress this information, Sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.2.229.88 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what it offers. I do care that the list has been spammed many times. Please only include additions that have existing articles and reliable sourcing. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by ViamarisBalbi

Hi Kuru. Since SPI is moving at a rather slow pace, this is to let you know that ViamarisBalbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been evading his block with two other socks. CalinicoFire, one of the socks, has all but confessed. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViamarisBalbi. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I get a block of time. On a quick glance, that looks pretty suspicious, but I'm not sure if it's a meatpuppet or a sock without digging through all the diffs. Kuru (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block of time. That was a pretty good turn of phrase. :) No problem Kuru. We still have time, and in any case, there is no pressure. I just wanted to let you know because with the slow-moving SPIs this could fall under the radar. If you don't have time, don't bother. All the best. Dr. K. 03:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dug through all the histories earlier; I'm pretty convinced. I added another example from commons and here that's pretty clearly sock behavior. Since you've done the bureaucratic heavy lifting of filing a check-user, I think it's best to let one look at it. I saw at least one other account that's likely the same farm and may pre-date the others. Dental metaphor incoming: I can fill the cavity, but I suspect the checkuser will be needed to do the root canal. Kuru (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much again Kuru for your advice and for taking the time to dig up the additional info about the action at Commons and also the additional sock. Thank you also for the funny metaphor, although, no warning was needed about its incoming introduction. After the block of time, I was almost certain more may be coming. Take care. :) Dr. K. 17:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have nothing else to offer from a CU perspective, but that's just for the en-wiki of course. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, no need. The suspicious older account I was alluding to above was Hughesshots, which you've taken care of. Thank you for the pixie dust. Kuru (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Beach

Hi. That user is continuing to change genres without discussion or sources when saying "generalizing genres". [1][2] 183.171.180.234 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what conversation this is following up from. The idiosyncrasies of modern pop genres is something I usually seek to avoid. Kuru (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile payment

Hello, Kuru. Thanks for pointing out the issue with external links I’ve added to the Mobile payment page. The video I reference was made in collaboration with Discover, while the content about EMV liability shift was created by Visa. I think we can both agree that those are two very credible voices in the payment industry, including on the topic of mobile payment. I believe removing those sources was a mistake, since they are both unbiased and used purely for the purpose of informing general public about recent shifts in the payment industry, which, by extension, is applicable to the subject of mobile payment. The current message above the article asks to "update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information,” and my brief update provides that. Given that circumstance, my edits are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thank you. Payments123 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Payments123[reply]

You've linked to a puffy youtube video uploaded by "Transnational" to pitch a product. You then linked to a corporate content marketing blog at "Transnational". You then decided that, somehow, Theroadislong's removal of you material was an invitation to link directly to the pitch page at "Transnational". I'll be more clear: do not add any more material that is not supported directly by third-part sources that meet our threshold for reliable sources. Especially cease adding links to anything to do with "Transnational." Thanks. Kuru (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page

Just thought I'd let you know that I've tagged their userpage for speedy deletion as an attack page. Hastiness (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I've deleted it. Kuru (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orix Marketing

Please do guide me to add that information to Wikipedia and I'm sorry you have thought that I'm doing paid contents as I am free mind never want to spam any media.

Please do review it and add that company if you find that is informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakeer101 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I do not find it informative. Please stop adding material related to that firm. Kuru (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

change.org

The question I am trying to source became the subject of a petition. The statement in the article was that Kyle Kulinski was a Left-Libertarian and it is getting criticized because it was sourced to a youtube video posted by the subject, a primary source. The premise of the petition was that he was the best at representing that point of view . . . obviously meaning he has it as supported by the signators. change.org/p/joe-rogan-get-kyle-kulinski-from-secular-talk-on-the-joe-rogan-experience-podcast-8cef24d7-6b13-417d-8efe-cc22c0aa3637 How do we use that as a source? Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. A user-created petition is not in any way a suitable source for a contested claim on a WP:BLP. Kuru (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Pai

So, you took my edit of the Ajit Pai page away, please explain why. Nothing untruthful was included. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenWaldorfian (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, as it turns out. I agree fully with the reversions. Your edit was garden-variety trolling. 21:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Kuru,

Thank you very much for your remark. I understand your concern regarding a mirror citation from an article in wikipedia published in another language. Information/article from wikipedia published in English is defined by [[ ]]. Unfortunately, a link to unique, reliable article published in German is not recommended. In some cases, however, it is practically impossible to find such a unique (and exact) information in pages published in English. Such a difficult situation occured in two cases: (1) for individuals who passed away several years ago. Thus, the only available information is published in German, e.g. an article about prof. Werner Koster exists in German wikipedia, only. (2) for modest scientists who are still active in the field. Frequently, they do not reveal personal information and it is too early for obituary and/or rememberances. This is why it was considered that an independent information from German widikepia is the best solution.

I would be grateful if you could advice how to obey the general rules and allow a precise/direct citation of unique information available in German wikipedia. In the case of scientists, the number of availabe citations is limited (a scientific paper cannot be cited here).

Thank you in advance for your help and suggestions

OmegaMS