User talk:Kuru

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

Block evasion

FYI, it appears that the user you just blocked for two weeks, rast5, is evading the block using an alternative ip - [1], [2]. The articles in question are quite obscure, so the appearance of a new IP so shortly after the block and on a new years day is unlikely to be a spontaneous occurrence. The insistence on having Armenia/Armenians figure in the text is also something they share.--Andriabenia (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the articles you requested and moved the edit restrictions to his master account. Let me know if any other IPs pop up and we can block them individually. Kuru (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Danceyman

Hey, maximuman (Max Logan) here, I just created an account to tell you that on the subject of Danceyman's block, it was all my fault, I'm heavily against Axl Rose and Nickelback, and danceyman himself has a very neutral view on rock, I don't want you to hold the block against him because he's a really nice guy, at the moment he's blaming himself, there's only been one time where danceyman has intended to write something very stupid, which he now deeply regrets, and it wasn't much, I just don't want to see him down-hearted like this, when he's not been working at university he did his best to help wikipedia, and now I'm sure he's prepared to help again, please accept my apology, I really messed up for him, I was really drunk, I'm really sorry Maximuman (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

External Links...

Hello Kuru,

Do you feel the link: http://www.productionplanning.com/ at External Links section is commercial? The host is a ommercial SW provider. --Alvar Hexalokom (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Horrifically commercial (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's currently "down for maintenance", so I can't evaluate it. Will check later. Kuru (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is still a dead link, so I've removed it for now since it has zero value. Someone can re-add when it can be evaluated. Kuru (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Buzzjack

Please can you confirm that http://www.buzzjack.com/ is a reliable source to take music sales from as it has been widely used in the past Maximuman (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea - I'm not into music articles; looks like a user generated forum, which is not a reliable source, though. Kuru (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Tips for success

I added the following, which I feel definitely adds to the subject, yet it disappeared from the page. Any idea what I did wrong? I put a link to the article that I got it from.

Tips For Success

From an article posted 1/5/2012 [17]

1) Take every opportunity to learn. To become good at anything, you have to learn all you can about the subject. Someone who wants to be a doctor or lawyer can't just put up a sign in front of a building and expect to perform with an ability to make money. It is the same in Internet Marketing. Just putting up a website with a product for sale is NOT going to make you money.

Take the time to learn. Watch all the sales webinars and take notes. Every video you watch and ebook that you read gives you resources of knowledge that you will be able to use later. ...

2) Do not be afraid to spend money. See money spent as a "cost of education".

You can shorten the time needed to learn Internet Marketing by BUYING an education. Lawyers and and doctors spend years and tens of thousands of dollars to learn what they need to make a six figure income. With Internet Marketing, you can buy training books and videos for just a few hundred... and the potential income is easily what doctors and lawyers make. On top of that, if you truly WORK at learning, you can be making their kind of money in a few months instead of the years they had to put in. ...

3) Do not be afraid to fail. Every failure is one step closer to success.

Learning what does not work for you is part of getting you closer to what does. A fellow name Thomas Edison failed over 10,000 (TEN THOUSAND) times before he found the metal that worked. What if he had given up after 9,000 failures?

In Internet Marketing, you have to learn what works for YOU. The only way is to try different things - get a feel for what you are comfortable with. I do not know any successful Internet Marketer who can claim NEVER having failure. There may be one or two out there that hit "their" thing on the first try, but I assure you that they are few. Most all of us, in any realm of life, are the culmination of what we learn from (and how we handle) our failures.

The only true failure is to quit - unless you include never trying.

TheRheagl (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You may not add your own personal commentary to articles; this is an encyclopedia, not your blog. The "advice", such as it is, is vague, off topic, and frankly of questionable accuracy. Please do not add this again. Kuru (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I can see where the delivery style of my information is not sterile enough for an "encyclopedia" format. I do feel that the info is spot on AND relevant; but this is YOUR page, so I will not re-post. TheRheagl (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia page User talk:JGlisson has been created by Kuru

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JGlisson

Hi Kuru,

I apologize for the mistakes. It was not my intent to place spam. I really intended to add good content. Regardless, I now realize that I should not have placed any links in the text since it removes the neutrality of the content.

It is acceptable to add links in the External Links area isn't it?

Please let me know if there any other problems with the edit other than placing the links in the text?. Please let me know all problems so that I will not make that mistake again. If I make a test edit in the sandbox will the edit be approved first? Please let me know the best and safest approach so that I will not make errors like that again.

I thought the text I placed was good otherwise but I noticed that it has all been removed. My intent is to help all investors by suggesting that they practice their investment strategy to gain experience before risking any real money. It is a very safe investment strategy for all investors. I have placed the text I had in the edit below:

(rmv material)

I appreciate your time.

Thank You, Monday, 9:00 P.M. JGlisson (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding material promoting your site; your intent is to obviously promote your own interests and is not acceptable. If you would really like to contribute, please read WP:V and WP:COI to begin with. Kuru (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Weigh in on FAC for Brian Halligan?

I'm wondering if you'd be so kind as to weigh in on the FAC for Brian Halligan? All he action is happenin' over at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Brian_Halligan/archive1. Thanks in advance! Woz2 (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hyperlink

Hello Kuru,

As I hope that you have not checked the website which I had linked from Wikipedia. For your kind information www.minglebox.com is a education networking website which has latest news about MBA and MBA exams everyday, as the result I preferred the link from wikipedia to website. One more important thing please dictate the link properly and then come to a conclusion as I am more interested in user to see my website visible rather than search engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gururaj11 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to "hyperlink" a random occurrence of the word "MBA" in the middle of the article to a networking site about Indian schools; this appears to be a promotional addition. As you indicate this is your website, you may want to review WP:COI. Kuru (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

/* WikiProject Texas */

I would appreciate it if you would have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas, specifically about the Redesign of the project's main page, and about it joining WikiProject United States. For all intents and purposes, this project has reached a comatose state of involvement. Editors are creating and contributing to Texas articles. But the project site itself has been pretty dead for a long time. Anything you can add to the current discussions on that page would be appreciated. Maile66 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

188.238.55.104

Would either you or a stalking admin please shut off talk page access for this IP? Jasper Deng (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Done... Kuru (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Jasper Deng (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

List of Companies of India restoration

Since I have not given the world rank of Indian companies listed in Fortune Global 500, the changes made by me should be restored.As the list of companies will grow,it will be more informative,and it is not intentional and not promotional. I have only listed the Indian rank of companies in Fortune India 500 list.The list contains only listed companies in India,which are 500 in number,so I will try to expand the list without any promotional section or edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghajinidetails (talk • contribs) 05:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. Dunno where those two came from. Oh well, whatever. Thanks again. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Puppets, Revertions, and Page Moves

Hi Kuru, User:IggyAu has returned, possibly with puppets ([3] and [4]). The following has happened:

• The Chile-Peru relations page was unilaterally moved by User:MarceloPR. Despite his few edits, his experience is greater than a newbie editor. IMO, deserving of a temporary ban.
• IggyAu again continues to use the War of the Pacific talk page as a forum, despite being warned not to do so ([5]).
• Changing the former redirect of Chalaca (which went to Bicycle Kick), with nationalist overtones: [6]
• Oh, and of course, the classic usage of the IP puppet ([7]).

I do apologize for bothering you with this matter, but this user (or users; IMO they're all the same person) obviously is intent on continuing to vandalize Wikipedia. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems clear; I've blocked the two sock accounts and left him a warning at his main account. Kuru (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kuru and, again, my apologies for such a silly incident.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kuru. This is getting a bit comical, but Iggy seems to have created yet another puppet account ([8]). Notice that all of his puppets end with a couple of capital letters at the end (whether he does this on purpose or if he actually thinks that no one will notice, I don't know for sure). The new account has not done anything worthy of notification, but I am not sure what the exact rules are on having puppet accounts (I know that some are valid). In any case, sorry again for continuously bothering you with the same situation.

The problem apparently seems to be concerning a reference in the War of the Pacific article ([9]). I think that I am handling the situation correctly (ie, asking him for at least one source), but perhaps I am doing something wrong? I am trying to be as friendly to him as possible, but he seems to take my attitude as "condescending". His point is that since only Peruvian authors mention the incident, then the whole thing is false. However, up to now he refuses (or cannot) provide me at least one source to sustain his conclusion. Since this is more-so a citation/wiki-rules problem, I would appreciate your input on the matter. Cordially.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur that it is another sock; it was created as the autoblock on the other accounts expired and went straight back to the same two articles. The similarity between the name patterns, grammar, and cheesy first edit to remove the user page red-link stigma are convincing enough. I did not block his main account before, but I've blocked it for two weeks now. I cannot see the underlying IP, so expect more socking when this autoblock clears. Sorry you're having to deal with this. Kuru (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not much of a problem (It's keeping me busy for the time being). I appreciate you taking the time to deal with the situation. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Saul Tepper

=Kuru, I have tried to recreate the Saul Tepper page using proper sources. My apologies for not be more thorough, but will use extra caution in the future. I hope that my contributions(exceeding the occasional breaches) have been of benefit to the wikipedia community. Ksk2875 ^Talk

User:Fixnichols

As the insulted party, I shortened the block length to two weeks. The article was merely an expired prod, and it is possibly worth a debate, but he is not currently able to debate rationally. If you disagree with any part of this, let me know tomorrow. I do this so rarely I'm not sure how to apply the right templates, and I want to do this tonight before I go to sleep so I'd rather not look them up just now, so please adjust if needed. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have done it except the article has been here for a while, and a weak case could be made for it. Certainly reblock if warranted. and let someone else resurrect the article if they care to. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

VulgarMedia.com

Just FYI, I already raised this here[10] as a matter of "formal process". -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 18:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. That link seemed to be fairly straight forward blog spam; will comment there. Kuru (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the user who noticed Publicmoney's contributions and made the initial removal (anonymously). FWIW, I'm not affiliated with any school district (I work for an orthopeadics company in Indiana), but I think that's irrelevant. As mentioned on the Noticeboard, I'm curious about the % used and its relevance. It's a statistic with no context. I'm not sure if "only X%" would be considered a weasel word, as well. Although the math is factual, the fact that the user's contribs are based on an advocacy position (to eliminate free public education in the US, as per other blog articles by the same author) make me question the use of this statistic. I think the (lack of) performance of Texas schools based on TEA's criterion is a good thing to highlight, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The fact that this statistic is not posted for other Texas districts, including those with lower percentages based on the same math, such as San Antonio ISD and Waco ISD, makes me question the intent. For instance, if I went to [11] and added the statistic (from [12]) "non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009", does this stat belong, even though it's true/factual/verifiable? There is no mention of "prison" or "incarceration" in the entire article for 'Black people'; "jail" is used once.

I don't want to get involved in a flame/edit war, so I'm thinking that it may be more appropriate to remove the references on individual ISD pages and create a page for the TEA admissions testing similar to [13]. Or perhaps the actual provided % (at/above criterion divided by # tested) should be used. This may provide a context for the statistics. For instance, even the term "graduates" can be misleading because it does not include special needs / resource students as per the TEA supplement. I'd appreciate any input, as well. Thanks! Teitho (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have contributed to block me, I am a (not so) beginner, I seek help

Hello, I discovered the 3RR rule, and during my ban, I read about a few other rules, like 1RR. I have brought new arguments to the debate. The page I tried to modify was subject to a decision of the ArbCom and I didn't know that. I have indicated the decisions taken in the talk page of the article Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates (at the end as of feb 14 21:20). It is now fairly clear to me that the rule is to do the modifications I propose. My question is : I have been banned for a 3RR, can I now modify the page (after the 24h talk period) ? Would that be another violation of the 3RR rule ? Must I report the case to the enforcement of arbitration decision committee before ? Kevin KevinPerros (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

On an article such as that, where there are a considerable number of interested and knowledgeable editors, it would be a very, very good idea to gain a clear consensus before making any changes which you know are contested. I'm not sure what the arbitration issue is; you'll need to attempt to resolve disputes before they will listen to any cases. Use the article's talk page; conclude the discussions. Kuru (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of link from Power Of Attorney Page

Please read the Article Talk page [14] as i have something there which i need your attention as soon as possible.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefind (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Would u be replying...

I have asked u a simple question about removing the link and classifying it as Spam...would u care to reply to me on the Power of Attorney talk page..reply as soon as possible.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefind (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please Block my illegal account

It is socket puppet of sridhar100. I myself reveal the truth. Because I want that I had not remain unlawful in wikipedia.--Gundu1000 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why delete my request for block

• 72.230.135.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP is continuously adding incorrect information and undoing constructive edits especially on Greater Rochester International Airport and Buffalo Niagara International Airport. This IP has been warned many times and was already blocked once and needs another for a longer period of time. Kairportflier (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you at least block this IP from editing Greater Rochester International Airport and Buffalo Niagara International Airport. Kairportflier (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another administrator declined your request as the editor in question has not edited since your warning, and you were warning him for something three days prior to that. If he starts again, report it to AIV if it is clearly vandalism. Kuru (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Neogeolegend

The one-week block is helpful; thank you for that. Would this display of frank bias be grounds for more severe action, such as a topic ban? Hertz1888 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, I'll remove it per WP:POLEMIC at a minimum. I'll have to research and get advice on other options. Kuru (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

many thanks

for the unblock, cheers Dean B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

Reporting Vandalization - already followed three-revert rule

Hi Kuru,   I need to report Carolina cotton as a vandal to the page for Robert W. Harrell, Jr. for multiple cases of vandalization on a Wikipedia Biographies of Living Persons page.  I have followed the three-revert rule and have also notified the user three formal times that their posts were not only a violation of Wikipedia policies but clearly cited which policies they had violated.    Each time, Carolina cotton ignored Wikipedia guidelines along with the warnings on his talk page and the warnings on Robert W. Harrell, Jr. history edit page. The same exact vandalization warned against was repeated by this user.    Carolina cotton's most persistent vandalization centers around continued posting on a Biographies of Living Persons page by citing a self-published Wordpress blog.  This "self-published" issue is freely admitted on several talk pages by Carolina cotton, as he openly states that he is in fact the author of the blog he continually cites as a source.  Wikipedia's guidelines page regarding Biographies of Living Persons clearly states: "Never use self-published sources" and continues " 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs"   After the second-revert, Carolina cotton deleted my warning notifications off his talk page.    Any assistance you can offer with this user and this continued vandalization is most appreciated.  I hate to ask for any Wikipedia user to be blocked, but this user's repeated violation of Wikipedia's rules, on this page and others may have risen to that level.   Thanks for your assistance. EricJ1995 (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This sounds familiar; will take a look in sec. Kuru (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. EricJ1995 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

While I am happy to abide by Wikipedia’s policies, I am unclear why my Wordpress blog is not a reliable source for referencing material on Wikipedia. In the case of Bill Buckner, the inside-the-park home run that inserted into his biography was an event I witnessed first-hand, in addition to writing about it on my blog. Further, I researched it for my blog, to ensure the details were correct. The link I included for the entry on Józef Kowalski was inserted because at the time I did so, there were no other English-language links on his page. In addition, my blog post included considerable background on the Soviet-Polish War, rather than simply being a rewrite of The Associated Press story. The information regarding Charles H. Taylor had to with background on Blue Ridge Savings Bank, which Taylor owned. I spent many years as a financial journalist and thought that it important to note that the bank in question had eventually failed. As for Chris Chelios, at the time of his retirement, there was no information about him having received a scholarship offer from a relatively unknown college in San Diego. It was an interesting fact, considering he went on to a Hall of Fame career. To the best of my knowledge, nothing I have linked to or posted on Wikipedia has been incorrect or biased, nor have I deleted information that is factually correct. I often spend considerable time researching my posts. I do understand, however, if my blog is not considered a reliable source for referencing material on Wikipedia. I simply wanted to let you know where I was coming from. Thanks. Carolina cotton (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The best idea would be to use the reliable sources you used when doing your research. We simply cannot use self-published sources like this, especially when dealing with living people. Thanks for understanding. Kuru (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional Request

I would also like to report user EricJ1995 as a vandal to the page for Robert W. Harrell, Jr.. On numerous occasions during the past seven-plus months, he has deleted factual information detrimental to Robert W. Harrell, the Speaker of the S.C. House of Representatives. The organization I work for, the South Carolina Policy Council, publishes an online investigative news site that has, on occasion, included information about Harrell, along with numerous other elected officials in South Carolina. EricJ1995 has not only repeatedly deleted factual information that has put Robert Harrell in a less than flattering light, he has accused me of violating Wikipedia’s protocol regarding biographies for living individuals. Of course, since EricJ1995 uses a pseudonym, I have no idea who he really is, but it would seem clear that since the vast majority of his Wikipedia entries are related to Robert Harrell, he likely is connected to him in some way and is likely not an unbiased source. When I have asked EricJ1995 to stop deleting factual information from Robert Harrell’s entry, he has responded by threating to have me reported to Wikipedia. I have asked him to stop deleting information from the entry from Robert Harrell, sent him formal warnings and he continues to insist that my organization’s website (http://thenerve.org) is a Wordpress blog, which it is not, and in violation. I have followed the three-revert rule and have also notified EricJ1995 three formal times that his posts were a violation of Wikipedia policies but also clearly cited the policy he had violated. He has responded in the past by deleting my warnings from his talk page. Any assistance would be appreciated. Carolina cotton (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate to engage in conversations such as this on other people's talk pages as this is not the proper place to do so, but I feel that I must make this statement. 

Carolina cotton, your blog is a Wordpress blog.  Here is a copy and paste from one of your own edits that, in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons page, cited your Wordpress blog as a source: Lawmakers Cost Taxpayers Millions, The Nerve, October 5, 2010

Again, Wikipedia has rules against you using your blog as a cite source for page posts.  Wikipedia's guidelines page regarding Biographies of Living Persons clearly states: "Never use self-published sources" and continues " 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs"

I have been fixing your improper postings because I don't agree with your deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by using posts to push your blog's agenda and increase web traffic to your blog.  The violations on Robert W. Harrell, Jr.'s page were the first of yours that I came across, most likely because this is the page where your violations are most concentrated.  I'm still trying to clear up your violations on this page before I move on to the other pages where your posts are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. EricJ1995 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Since we're all being civil here, let's both stop calling every edit vandalism; that has a specific definition here, and the edits of all parties seem to be good faith, just contra-policy. The first problem I have is that both of the links you were inserting are dead links (page not found). Presuming that can be fixed, I would strongly suggest starting a conversation at WP:RSN, which is our noticeboard that specifically addresses the validity of sources. I'm not sure "the nerve" qualifies unless you can show some evidence of strict editorial control; and again, that is a biography of a living person which has very strict standards for sourcing. But the good folks at WP:RSN can help sort it out. Edit warring in any way is a bad idea at this point; please do not make any more edits with that source until the validity is sorted out. Kuru (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(Can i know the reason as to why the delete log appears)

(Hi Kuru, I was wondering as to why the delete log and the reason to the deletion still appears when there is a updated page on that name . Why should it lead the reader to the deleted log first and moreover i request you to remove the reason for deletion log for that page and directly lead the reader to the updated article.I request you to once again remove the speedy deletion tag on the first article of Coaching foundation India Ltd.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm.cbs (talk • contribs) 04:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reopening report

Talkback: I reopened this edit warring report per your instructions[15].--Taylornate (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

David Lifton (and registered user MartinEden5)

Hello Kuru: I have sent you a private email. Thank you. MartinEden5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinEden5 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

GreenHalcyon block

Your block of GreenHalcyon at 3RRN has not been entirely effective -- see here. I think the message hasn't quite gotten across. In fact, if you look at the IP contribs, there's more, including edits to the actual article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd remove this complaint, the issue has been resolved and do not want to be blocked again. As you may notice I identified myself as a sock puppet editor when contributing to the discussion. Cheers

Was not online when this occurred; you may not evade your block, even if you "identify" yourself. As this is in the past, I don't see any reason to place a longer block; please do not do this again. Kuru (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

B.vikram.b (talk · contribs)

Hi. Since you were the blocking admin for this account on violation of 3RR, could you please look at this account: Maheshwarim (talk · contribs) which is so likely to be a sock of B.vikram.b as the accoun't only edit happens to be what B.vikram.b is edit warring in the article for. Thanks, — Abhishek  ^Talk 13:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Rollback Privilege

I understand why I deserved the block, but isnt removing my rollback privilege a little extreme? The article on which I broke the 3 revert rule went up for discussion with many editors agreeing that my revision was factually correct. I only use the tool to maintain the quality of the encyclopaedia. I'd appreciate it if you could restore the tool. Thanks Aunty-S (talk)

No thank you. The revert tool is not to be used in any kind of content dispute, no matter how right you are. If you're still confused about the usage of that feature, then restoring it would be a poor idea. Kuru (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion - ip:User:99.226.198.78

The above user you blocked on 6 March for 3 months as a block evasion for User:Syjytg appears to be using various University of Toronto addresses to push a blog on 2011–12 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season.

See [16] for latest occurrence. They appear with the same edit on other IP addresses from University of Toronto. noq (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to clearly be him; I've extended the named account's blocked and blocked that IP. Kuru (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Now popped up at 128.100.32.125 noq (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed the account and blocked latest IP sock. If he continues, we can semi-protect the small number of articles he is edit warring on. Kuru (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hello Kuru. Please can you spare some minutes to look over this again? [17]Rain the 1 01:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I don't see anything that needs changing, other than for the invested parties to discuss their content dispute in another location. If you have a specific request, please let me know. Kuru (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That is what I meant though, that George Ho ignored a discussion. I have only used the board once before, I always find discussion better. So that is why I posted the background without realising it was not needed. As you are an univolved party, please could you weigh up the situation and behaviour of George Ho. If there is actually cause for concern - inform the those at the user's mentorship scheme. An outside view usually gains a better perspective.Rain the 1 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to mither you again Kuru - another uninvolved party has left at a note with George Ho after they weighed in on the situation. There is perhaps no need to fulfull my earlier request. In any case - thank you for your time.Rain the 1 02:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

for the unblock. Ordinary Person (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Kuru (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Return of IggyAU? And question over my block...

Hi Kuru,

I'm still somewhat bothered that Chris blocked me after I followed the right steps to encourage discussion on the Pisco Sour talk page. I don't know what I did wrong; perhaps you might have an insight on it, or do you think I should ask Chris directly?

On other news, User:IggyAU seems to have returned. Here he is insulting you ([18]), and these are his most recent edits: (writes that I suck) then (writes that I hate everyone and calls me a "pedofile") and then(upgrades me to a convicted "pedofile"). Somewhat comical, but the comments are highly inappropriate. I think the IP may be from Australia (considering the edits), and it's probably a shared IP (maybe at a library or school); per WP:DUCK (behavior and IP similarity), I'm sure he is Iggy.

Sorry to bother you with these things. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not realize his block had expired. Since the IP is obviously his, I've reapplied it for a longer duration. I'll look into your other situation in just a sec. Kuru (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the edit war at Pisco Sour, that's really a tough situation. While I appreciate the fact that you've tried everything possible to discuss the situation with the other editor, the goal is to refrain from further reverts while the discussion is occurring (the exceptions would be copyright vios or a BLP problem). Both editors clearly broke 3RR, which puts the reviewing administrator in a tight spot; he can either block both parties, or protect the page to stop the edit war. In this case, he chose to block both. An unblock request along the lines of "oops, I see the problem and will not make any more reverts for x period of time" would likely have been successful. Remember, 3RR has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong; there are two long-time and good-faith editors involved, and admins won't take sides in a content dispute. I hope that makes sense. Ask Chris if you need his train of thought, but I would imagine it is similar. Shrug it off; keep making cool contributions... Kuru (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation makes perfect sense. I know that Chris didn't mean anything wrong with it. If anything, I'm angry at myself. I'm 100% sure (again) that Selecciones will revert the article and (instead of discussing it) will tell me to get a third opinion or an arbitrator (while it is him, not me, that is challenging information from the article). At such a situation, what might you suggest I do to resolve this in a peaceful manner (I don't want to repeat the 3RR or get blocked again)? Perhaps I should go directly to AN/I?

Thank you for fixing the problem with Iggy. I don't understand the reason for his childish behavior, but my guess is that he is still at grade school. I remember also being a bit of a disruptive editor back when I used my IP to edit Wikipedia (not once did I get blocked, but I got some warnings). Hopefully he will reform. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Stanbidder1

Hi Kuru, I see you turned down Stanbidder1, I interacted with them after I found their vandalism. I was also the one who opened thier SPI. Their comment on there unblock request about stalking people, I follow editors contribes if they have vandalised an article to make sure it hasnt happen on other articles. I am sure I do nothing wrong but if Stanbidder1 wants to report it is there a way he could be let, solely for the purpose of the project being unbiased? Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's really not necessary; you did nothing wrong. I'd ignore him and move on. Kuru (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

external links

Hi Kuru

I appreciate your message. I just think that people who actually do stuff like social media marketing for hundreds of clients have so much to offer and based on that experience, why wouldn't you want to share some of that experience? As long as the blog is not filled with heaps of advertising and has very good content, I think that should be fine. But yeah I just wanted to let you know it wasn't about gaining a link, it was about sharing my experience with lots of clients especially when it comes to brand awareness with social media and how social media marketing is affecting the way companies are talking with clients and customers.

I've seen on Wikipedia some terrible citations to some really terrible material when I've looked up stuff so I just wanted to add some good content where people can get more info.

I encourage you to have a look at the blog and the content that is on the blog which talks purely about the subject at hand.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapture11 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your blog is not going to qualify as a reliable source, and appears quite promotional. You are welcome to find published material that supports your assertions. Kuru (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kuru

No problems that's fine. Thanks for clarifying. I totally disagree with you though. There are other blogs out there (e.g. search engine land) that get referenced alot and they have pro memberships to become members of their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapture11 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Historylover4

Was that really a breach of 3RR? I nearly reported it myself, but it seemed a more general problem of the user simply wanting to include full, unedited paragraphs from any source they found, rather than a straightforward reverting to the same version of an article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be exactly the same. I've noted the four reverts in the report that are clear reverts to of some material he had previously added. In each case, he is undoing the actions of the previous editor; a full or partial revert. This is a perfect situation where the proposed addition should be discussed; especially in a hot topic area such as that. As always, I'm open to second opinions and will reverse the action if there's a good reason - just not seeing it yet. Kuru (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, again

Thank you for continuing to deal with IggyAU. I am surprised by his persistence. I've read the Humala sources he brought to the Anti-Chilean sentiment article, and none of them support what he argues. The sources demonstrate, nonetheless, that Chileans apparently thought Humala to be anti-Chilean. However, his speeches were nationalist (not anti-Chilean), and the most aggressive thing he ever stated was that he would "treat Chileans the same way they treat Peruvians". That Chileans found that statement "offensive" indicates two things: (1) They know that they treat Peruvians badly; and (2) It shows a certain degree of a superiority complex from Chile, in the sense that they seem to be offended by the inferior Peruvians trying to equal themselves to them. In any case, since Humala's election Peru has maintained a positive relation with Chile. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice

Hi, KUKU. Thanks for your notification and I will change it as soon as possible. Sorry for my mistake and unthoughtful action. Xz98 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem; please be careful. Kuru (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Also thanks from me, Admins don't always think to contact the ambassador, I really appreciated it, even though it self-resolved in the end. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please can you have a look at the previous edit warring of Eleventh1 at the noticeboard. The two accounts should be treated as one.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Si. Already done - was working backwards through the outstanding requests. Kuru (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No-fault insurance

Hey, what's wrong with blog posts as sources? Isn't that enumerated here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources Seems like a static interpretation of what a blog is. Thanks for consideration Effie.wang (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Lots. You've linked to a page that starts with "This is a failed proposal." - it's a historical attempt at loosening the restrictions on self-published sources. It was not accepted by the community. The current guidelines are at WP:RS. The blog link you added does not come close to the restrictions there, and appears to be promotional at any rate. I'm sure there are thousands of published sources for material about insurance; please let me know if I can help you find some. Kuru (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Starcade2

This sock is now abusing the talk page. Time to revoke it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Si - done. Kuru (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Page Protection Request

I hate to bother you again, but, would it be possible if you could protect my userpage from anonymous editors editing it? I'm being bothered by IP vandals again.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Applied again; seem to be recurring pattern at this point.  :) Kuru (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User Cmach7

Hi, you blocked Cmach7 today, and in case it is relevant I thought I would bring your attention to these posts. Apparently he is a 13 year old high functioning autistic who had sometimes made some useful edits. I don't know whether Wikipedia policy is to take this into account or to judge everyone by the same standard, but just in case it matters I thought you should know. Richard75 (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We treat everyone by the same standards with regard to policy, but it would certainly help to know this when communicating with him in the future. If he can put together an unblock request that simply states he recognizes the problem and will abide by 3RR in the future, there should not be an issue. Kuru (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

EC

Sorry for edit conflicting with you on User talk:Von Restorff. No harm done. Rcsprinter (state the obvious (or not)) 15:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Si, same result. :) Kuru (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tamara Toumanova

Hi, the page was unprotected 2 days ago and the banned user OxfordGeo=Biographyspot=Andriabenia's IP continues his POV-pushing [19]. Could you please made that page semi-protected for any IP's? Gazifikator (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly our friend. I've blocked that IP and extended the protection. He's certainly dedicated. Kuru (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

E-Marketing Collateral

I've had to decline your PROD because of the previous failed PROD in December. Please feel free to take this to WP:AfD. Whouk (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

report decline

Hello you decline my report [20] but involving different material is editwar also. Second edit is evn same tag on top. --Highstakes00 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

coi editing

Hi Kuru,

I want to bring to your attention to Yaratam. AKA Kuttares AKA Jonkerz AKA Altairisfar He may have other aliases on wikipedia.

All of these names belong to one individual in Romania who sells his services publishing articles. He was briefly in the employ of our firm.

He goes by the handle Nicu A. (Nicu Andronachi) on Elance but his real name is (redacted).

X feels he is owed additional money and is waging a harrassment campaign against our various firms and individuals associated with our firm. Whever he sees something that might be related to us or to any of our associates, he goes on the offensive deleting references and vandalizing pages.

Today he sent an email attempting to blaickmail us into paying him some US$500 or he will see to it that all of our articles are deleted. One such article, which he originally published and I think you are aware of, has to do with banking in Tunisia. This is why I am reaching out to you.

X asked us to employ him to write the article. It was his idea to use academic papers written by one of our associates as references. After he quit the job, he deleted the references. Be advised that we have no interest in Tunisia or banking.

Also today X vandalized the work of someone else who wrote an article that is not about us or any of our associates.

As an admin, we hope you can provide guidance on these matters. At the very least we need X to stop the harrassment immediately. DazzBand (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Our apologies if our previous message should not have contained identifying information. We are new and learning the correct procedures. We will be filing a complaint against this individual for vandalizing our pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DazzBand (talk • contribs) 04:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of your group and I have a long list of articles and editors to review when I have time, mainly based on the fraudulent editing by Adotrde (talk · contribs). I usually don't have a problem with paid editors as long as they are completely transparent; that does not appear to be the case here. I'll file something with WP:SPI later today. Kuru (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, be advised that user Ardsarea is another alias belonging to Yaratam.DazzBand (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For the interested parties, I opened a discussion here. Yaratam (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

On April 10, 2012, Yaratam aka Tayzen on Elance, sent us an email demanding US $4000 within 12 hours or he would destroy our reputation on the Internet and target anyone associated with our firm, including anybody on wikipedia who writes an article that could be associated with us. This attempted blackmail followed an earlier email demanding $500 or he would ensure that all wikipedia articles of interest to anyone in our group would be deleted. He then vandalized references on articles annotated by another wikipedian, simply because Yaratam associated him with our group. When Yaratam vandalized the references, he singled out a single author, the one associated with us, but left the other references intact.

While Yaratam was employed in March, he sent us numerous emails expressing his fear that he would be caught for improper conduct at wikipedia. This is the reason he gave us for not improving the references to the Tunisia article he published. Note that we have no interest in Tunisia. Yaratam asked us to pay him to write the article so he could use references from the author associated with our group. Now he wants to destroy the author as payback for not rendering the payment Yaratam feels he is worth. He said as much in his messages to us. Any wiki admin with an interest in this case may contact us privately for copies of his emailsDazzBand (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Now that blackmailing seems to be a violation of our policy against legal threats, and is alone an excuse for having that person blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you please have a look?

Hi Kuru, I noticed that you closed the 3RR case opened by user Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) at wp:ANEW as "no violation" and you added the remark "Random accusations of "vandalism" are not helping". In that context, could you please have a look (and perhaps comment) at the ANI-case I had opened here.

After you closed the case, yesterday user WTF yet again has accused me of "vandalizing, trying to own articles, edit warring, lying" and doing something with "his" list and tempate, that I never even touched?

Today in this comment: "DVdm has proven nothing other than that he has no respect or regard for the people around him" and "FALSELY, by a vandal".

Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

JCAla 3RR case

Heya, I answered with regard to TopGun's "edit war" report. Maybe you want to check that out. I did but one revert and I explained it there in detail. Have a nice day, JCAla (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kuru. Please see WP:AN3#User:JCAla reported by User:TopGun (Result: ) where an editor has expressed a desire for you to comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've responded there. Kuru (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this then cleared and declined? It was not a violation. But from yesterday onwards one month I will do what Ed proposed for Pakistan as a good faith effort in the topic area. We will see if TopGun is also willing to show some good faith efforts to ease the tension. JCAla (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've offered my suggestions there. I'm not interested in investing more time in the topic area and/or mediation between you and Topgun. Future reports to ANEW will be handled accordingly. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Forget my last sentence. My question is, did I understand your suggestions there right? I agree with your suggestion to show good faith, but I want to have the record straight and clear. This was no 1RR violation as nothing was restored twice, and I'd welcome for someone to confirm that. This is important for any future reports to "ANEW" to be handled accordingly and it would also show some respect to the editors involved (which are working on this very complicated topic area here on wikipedia). Thank you. JCAla (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to Banking In Tunisia article

Kuru, Thanks for your inputs here, but, even if your intent is proper, I think you're merely aiding a vandal in this case. Check the edits history on the editor who first redacted my citations. He/She only redacted a few of my inputs to this article, targeting references to a specific author's work. Viewing his edit history, he/she seems to have surfed Wikipedia looking for opportunities to delete citatios by this particluar author and his associates. I'm not sure what his beef is, but it looks like calculated vandalism to me. You may want to check it out.

About this specific set of page edits, I'll reiterate what I put on the talk page:

Actully, I'm not an expert on SSRN, but I guess you must be? They seemed to me to provide exactly the type of serious venue we want to cite to expand and improve Wikipedia. I assume from your comment that you must have investigated this venue thoroughly, and that you therefore have independent knowledge of SSRN's policies and procedures that is not evident on their public website. Can you please share this, so we all can be better informed? Thanks, Jdc wms (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Also,

As an update, I've requested SSRN's editorial guidelines from that organization's president and board of trustees. Whatever info they can provide will be more definitive than anything you or I can glean from a visit to their public website. Jdc wms (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Calculated vandalism. Right. You may want to be more transparent with your conflict of interest here. Kuru (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Shantanu Narayen

You took out my addition to the Shanatanu Narayen bio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shantanu_Narayen&oldid=486656870

You asked for a secondary source? There's over 700 comments and votes on that Change.org protest. That would seem to avoid the concern of it being an opinion of a single individual. Not sure how I can this any more factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Mason II (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You can make it more factual by providing independent coverage of the petition in reliable sources. You've added your own analysis of the comments and of the nature of the participants; we require much better sourcing on our WP:BLP articles. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Recreating the page Qarea

You have recently deleted the page Qarea and as you were saying the reason was about advertising. I think there was a misunderstanding, because the article I've added to references on the page Offshoring has been really written by one of the respectable workers of the company Qarea and that was a result of long research. I was thinking that this information could be considered as a useful and reliable source. If it can't, OK, I'm new to Wikipedia and maybe I don't know all the rules. Nevertheless, I would like to recreate the page you've deleted, because the information it contained could be useful for Wikipedia users and I consider its deleting to be unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneStewart123 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The external link I put to the Process Analytics page

Kuru,

I got your message and understand that people should not be promoting products and services in a wiki page. One of the major areas of Process Analysis lacking in todays world in my opinion is using analytics to the improvement of business processes in process improvement initiatives. Whether someone is using ITIL, Lean or Six Sigma as their methodology, nowhere in any of these methodologies(other than Lean), do they discuss using variability, time and cost to a process map to generate metrics on cycle time, takt, execution metrics, etc to get a better understanding of how the current state process is handling demand, etc.

What we have done is build a simple interface in Microsoft Visio that allows anyone to put in a few metrics regarding variability, process time, duration and who does the work in the steps in the process and they can get meaningful results. The product is 100% free.

In your professional opinion, how should I get the word out about using simple analytics in process analysis?

Rkurzarc (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hire a professional marketing team. You may not promote your product here. Kuru (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

my recent link

Kura

I fully understand that spam and commercial links are not wanted on Wiki - I would like to ask what is the difference in your words between that and a link to a pefectly decent article which contains furter information on a page (such as the benefits ralsation page), where the article contains important and contains orginal work, and is intended to define a topic which to date carries great interest but very little understanding in business?

kevin

PS - if you paste the link into copyscape you will see that many people have found the content of the said page relevant enough to copy the enitire page verbatum - waybackwhen.com can demonmstarte that we are the originators and true copyright owners of this article