User:Kuru/archive-23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

How long does the notice have to remain?

I'm just wondering how long the AfD notice has to remain on Quickbooks hosting. I've pleaded my case and nobody replied to it... so I figured the case was closed. Nobody made an argument as to why it should be deleted, either.--Jboutin (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

An AFD will usually run for seven days or so. An uninvolved administrator will then close the discussion and act according to the consensus illustrated in the discussion. Kuru (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I also posted this on the article talk page, but will also post here to ensure you are aware, as your comments suggest you thought the discussion was supposed to occur on the article talk page. The AfD tag on the article points to this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page - the discussion is taking place on that page, where other editors have already voiced opinions. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey, just a question as i don´t want to get blocked for 3RR. On the article 2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup User talk:Yeaplc98 constantly changing the times and dates to his local time and i reverted him 3-4 times the last 24 hours because of vandalism, i hope this is not against the 3RR rule, if so sorry and i stop reverting him today. Kante4 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not consider that vandalism; please be cautious reverting over formatting issues. Wait and see if he'll respond to the request for discussion. Kuru (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Tesoro

Hello Kuru, I am new to wikipedia. I still get a server not responding message from a major European service provider. But people can find out themselves. Thanks for your message. Zitbart Zark (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

added semi-protection icon for Kuru.

Hi, Kuru. I added the icon to the SAU page. Did I do it right? Thanks for your action! --Kenatipo speak! 16:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Si. I tweaked it slightly to reflect the reason I gave in the protection log. Usually there's a bot that comes around and applies those tags, so I'm fairly lazy about it. :) Kuru (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Sí, señor! About how long does the bot take? --Kenatipo speak! 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding An Unregistered User and a Controversial Article

Hi Kuru, Mojoworker suggested I contact you regarding this minor (I think) concern. Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

Here is the section under present dispute.

Here for the talk page discussion.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I had already gone offline for the night. It appears that HelloAnnyong has taken action on this to your satisfaction. Kuru (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the material that i am posting on the articles.

I have added new content without changing the old one on the page URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_time_tracking_software why are you deleting it. its a genuine content, you can check it at http://www.timemerlin.com/blog/ or see the blog at http://www.timemerlin.com/blog/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clark1977 (talkcontribs) 07:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah, but since when do blogs become reliable sources? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, when you edit that page there is a notice that begins "IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE ROLLED BACK WITHOUT WARNING". It goes on:
Only place entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable time tracking software. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not time tracking software will be removed. If you have questions, use the talk page. Please try to keep entries in alphabetical order. Adding unnecessary links or text to any other section (such as the "References" section) will also be removed. Thanks.
This criteria was established to prevent the article from becoming a random directory listing and a spam magnet. You will need to establish an article on your software before adding it. I noted this each time I removed your entry. As Mr. Wilkins notes, you will need sources other than blogs to establish said article. Kuru (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for attention

Hi,

You have recently placed User:Dighapet under 1RR restriction, which means he should behave in a responsible manner (at least). However he made this move without even a note in the talkpage where he had been run out of arguments.

Could you please recommend the right action in the current situation?

Thanks, -- Ashot  (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be his first edit to that page; I do not see a violation of the 1RR. WP:DR is a good start for resolving content issues. I cannot participate as I have no interest in the subject matter. Kuru (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching that. I must have clicked edit instead of undo. I was distracted. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Kuru (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

MyndBook Entry

Hi,

We saw that you removed our edit to add MyndBook to list of mind mapping software. Could you clarify, please? Thank you.

Regards, MyndBook Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.130.36 (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Si. WP:WTAF is as good an explanation as any. As the list is designed to house notable entries, consensus on the talk page of the article has limited the inclusion of list item to software with an existing article on wikipedia. Kuru (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. How do we get an article on our software in Wikipedia -- do we initiate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.130.36 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First, we would have to make sure your subject is notable enough to be included, and find reliable sources (third-party sources required). Then the article can be written, preferably not by you because of the conflict of interest you have.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

TandM Production

Good work on the quick deletion of that page, good to see vigilance here. Zarcadia (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

However, the editor has re-created the article. Zarcadia (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Already taken down again. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Beat me to it! Zarcadia (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It was User:Favonian who got it. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Legal status of Texas and Republic of Texas (group)

An article that you have been involved in editing, "Legal status of Texas" and another, "Republic of Texas (group) has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent ruling at Edit warring

Kuru, you ruled "no violation" here..[1]

Given the hours I spent making my case, I was hoping that you could assure me that you read it.

You said that there was only two reverts but there is evidence of more.
For example
diff USchick, removes image with full explanation. Then Fistoffoucault, reverts it with no comment. diff

diff Fistoffoucault changed image from Young Women Drawing to Shaman with no comment. USchick then reverted it with an explanation and Fistoffoucault reverted with no explanation. I changed it back referring him to the talk page. He then again changes it back, with no comment and deletes the history section while he is at it.

I reverted it.

[2] Aroneol changes it back.

They clearly went against consensus, that is my point.

Is there any chance of getting a second opinion?

Dave3457 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit warring notice board is not designed to settle content disputes; it is there to prevent abuse. If you'd like me to look back a month or so, I can see that you've also reverted many times. There is clearly not a bright line violation of 3RR in this case, and the editor is communicating with you. Perhaps you could discuss the issue or move on to the one of the dispute resolution processes? Kuru (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You keep missing the point, this was not about 3RR it was about edit warring, which is...
when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion....The three revert rule is a convenient limit ... but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.
The links above alone are proof that he was warring.
It was also about him not living with consensus.
I was seriously asking you if you quickly skipped over what I wrote rather than having read it thoroughly. The evidence is overwhelming that he was overriding consensus about the image and not discussing things which is warring.
You say he has started to communicate but he only did that because he though he might get blocked. You're suggesting that someone can engage in this type of behavior as long as they change their ways when someone reports them. Meanwhile I'm out hours of my time. There has to be consequences for people like this or they will just engage in this type of behavior until they get reported, at which point they will agree to change.
Also, what does whether I ever reverted someone have to do with anything?
Do I have a right to a second opinion?
Dave3457 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I am well aware of what edit warring is. I cannot help you in your content dispute. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

number

You have 229th place in most edits (78632). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:

A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 23:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

www.homeequity.webs.com

Hello-

I am not sure how to post, so maybe I have been doing something wrong...I am new!!!

I felt my site http://www.homeequity.webs.com was quite appropriate for the credit score page, or the home equity page in Wikipedia. I have taken off the ads and still got denied...I am not sure why? Is there something wrong with my site?

I have attempted every which way, but it does not work?

Especially on Home equity, if you look in the links of the wikipedia article, there is a site- http://www.homeownerequities.com/home-equity-credit-overview/ which has a landing page that is clearly affiliate ads and google adsense.

How can this site be more relevant than mine? It sure seems that there are some shady practices going on on your end of things, like maybe people are paying you guys to stick their irrelevant links, notably the one I mentioned above?

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeka622 (talkcontribs) 23:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering to find spam links for us! There are thousands of links which violate our current guidelines, and it is kind of you to help with this effort. You can start by reading our guidelines for external links at WP:EL, then the outline of the specific problem at WP:SPAM. Remove links you don't feel meet the guidelines while leaving a note explaining your removal. I'm glad you've chosen to switch sides and help us with the problem instead of contributing to it! Kuru (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, and it was never my intention to be a spammer. I am still learning SEO and how all of this works, and what is acceptable to the internet community at large. I now understand that I must build up an authority on my own first, and will work hard to do so.

I am now unemployed, and have way too much time on my hands. Thank you for your patience, be well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeka622 (talkcontribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR all over again

No need to do the bureaucracy; I've blocked him for a clear violation on United Kingdom. He's well aware of the rule. I'm not inclined to block El0i as he was never warned prior to his violation. I also considered simply protecting the article, but I hate to do that on a high traffic article when there are only one or two offenders. Kuru (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change

I noticed that back on 19 July 2010 you created User:188.220.41.240 and placed the IPsock template on it. You also blocked the account for six months. You could have added the "confirmed" parameter to the IPsock template, but didn't. So now I'm confused about the proper use of that parameter; I would have thought that if there was enough evidence, there would also be enough evidence to apply the parameter. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I usually only put "confirmed" if there is a checkuser confirmation or self-admission. Seems pretty clear on that one at any rate. Kuru (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that it is a judgement call rather than having some clear-cut algorithm tucked away somewhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Si. I never found one, so I went conservative. Kuru (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please help me

Hi Kuru, I'd like to ask you if you could provide me with some feedback on Verax_NMS. I've already requested for feedback but there's no response... --Timeport101 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

After a quick glance, I would suggest finding some reliable sources as soon as possible. The only ones I see are directory listings, press releases, and blogs. Since the article was deleted at an AFD for just this reason, it will need to be improved quickly before it is re-deleted. Kuru (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please watch out for Serienfan2010

This user has started an edit war on Futurama (season 6). I impelled them to use the talk page and they refused. As a result, both of us have reached three reverts; I have pledged to refrain from editing the page for the next 24hrs. I have given this user a warning [3], but given that they have violated the 3RR many times and given that you were the last admin to block this user, I thought I should tell you. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: South Carolina Research Authority

I appreciate your note but would like to point out that the site I used as reference for information about the South Carolina Research Authority, called The Nerve, is the investigative arm of the South Carolina Policy Council, a 501(C)3 nonprofit. We also belong to the South Carolina Press Association. We have three journalists on our staff with combined journalism experience of more than 50 years. We were set up specifically to investigate South Carolina state government and our detractors have attempted to discredit us by referring to us as a simple blog. However, all our stories are referenced and sourced, and several have run verbatim in other newspapers in the state. --Carolina cottonTalk 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you appeared to be linking to a wordpress blog. This is probably not a good forum for you and your group to practice advocacy; it is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. If you think it is possible for you to manage your conflict of interest, you will first need to immediately stop edit warring to keep your material in articles. Two articles I can see have been fully protected to prevent your disruptive editing. If someone reverts you, please start a discussion on the article's talk page to determine if there is a consensus to keep the material. If you need more specific advice on how to avoid edit warring, please leave me a note here. Kuru (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Kuru, I agree with your decision on this. Carolina cotton has made similar edits to other pages and your post here has now brought the South Carolina Research Authority to my attention. I just wanted to let you know one thing about what Carolina cotton told you. I looked up and called the South Carolina Press Association and they said the The Nerve nor the South Carolina Policy Council are NOT considered reporters and are NOT members of the press association. They are Associate Members, basically they give a donation each year to receive a newsletter. The Press Association said that anyone who donated money can gain this status but are not considered members or reporters for doing so. This looks like just another effort of this blogger to mislead you and the Wikipedia community. EricJ1995 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Kuru, EricJ1995 is an individual who has been deleting factual information I've been posting to the page for Robert W. Harrell, Jr.. Further, the S.C. Press Association does not simply allow anyone to join as an associate member because of a donation of money, and my goal is not to mislead you nor anyone else. The S.C. Press Association awarded The Nerve's parent organization, the S.C. Policy Council, a first place and a second place for reporting done in 2010. (That information can be found here: http://www.scpress.org/Documents/SCPA_Winners-release.pdf). The Press Association takes its award process very seriously and doesn't hand such honors out to just anyone. The Press Association states that: "Associate membership is limited to persons, firms, agencies, and associations found by the Executive Committee to be appropriate with furthering the objectives of the SCPA. Associate members may include representatives of syndicates, trade journals, advertising and public relations firms, government agencies, and manufacturers and distributors of printing supplies and equipment." Further, the Press Association has stated clearly that it will not allow simple blogs to become members. Other associate members include: The Associated Press, The Catholic Miscellany newspaper and SC Lawyers Weekly. (Complete list here: http://www.scpress.org/associate.html.) In addition, I have contributed to well over 2,000 Wikipedia articles on a wide range of topics over the past couple of years and take the accuracy of my contributions seriously. I find it ludicrous that someone whose Wikipedia contributions consist almost solely of additions and/or deletions to a single S.C. legislator’s page would accuse me of attempting to mislead the Wikipedia community. --Carolina cottonTalk 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

All I can advise you to do is gather a consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm pretty conservative with WP:BLP; if you can find a group of editors that feel differently, then that is probably a better path. Right now, if you continue to edit war over BLP related material, you will likely find a difficult path ahead. Kuru (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition to corporate behaviour

Amorality is a type of corporate behavior and was properly described on the stub that was edited. Could you please provide me with a reason that this information could not be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.231.84 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't source it to an essay on someone's blog; you may want to use one of the many scholarly works on the topic and describe it correctly without editorializing. Kuru (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Clickjacking - Comitari free product

Hello, I have been asked to add information about Comitari-Free product only from informational source - and this what I did. Please advice how should I add this valuable information to the Wikipedia.

This is the only solution to Clickjacking attacks and it's free product - I think it have to be shown on this wiki entry. Shlominar (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Input requested - Talk:USANA Health Sciences#Correct company description (Direct Sales, Network Marketing, MLM)

Kuru,

We are still working through some hotly debated issues on the USANA Health Sciences article, which you protected last week due to content dispute/edit warring. One of the current issues, is which is the most appropriate term used to describe the company - I'm reaching out to you, because I brought your name up when you commented that MLM is often used as a pejorative term. I have provided some arguments and the other "side" has counter-argued.

If you have the time, it may be worth your read and comments/direction on the debate.

Thank you for you time.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 16:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Project management lay out

Hi Kuru, could you take a look at the latest discussion on the project management talk page, and comment. User:Tony1 doesn't seem to agree on anything I say, for example my first and latest statement:

  • Wikipedia is an interactive medium, and figures can be read by clicking on them
  • With lay-out we should look at FA as example

Now I know lay-out design is no exact science, but these are simple basics of Wikipedia article design. Could you comment on this. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ring Cinema

User talk:Ring Cinema seems to be up to his old ways, now with an editing dispute regarding the name of the article The Beatles (album). Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

In view of your opinion as stated on my talkpage, I'd like to hear what you say about [4] and [5]. Where another editor and another admin decided that by comments can be overwritten, even though they were most certainly accurate and neutrally worded. 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Nueces Watershed Map

I am working on a CIAP grant to produce an educational poster for San Patricio County Parks (on the Nueces River) and would like persmission to use your Nueces Watershed map on the poster. The poster will be free to the public, teachers, county parks and other county organizations and not offered for sale. Would you please advise me of the wording I need to use to give you credit for the image? Janice Minter, Grants Specialist, Naismith Engineering, Inc. Thank you.Texcoast (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how the credit needs to be worded for printed pubications; it seems something like "This map is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia image at Nueces Watershed; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 attributed to author Kuru" suffices. If using a psuedonym hurts your project, you can use "Sam Kuru" as the author. I can release the original to you as public domain if it is easier for you. Kuru (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University

There is a discussion about sourcing occurring and your opinion would be appreciated.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked account

Hello. You blocked IP140.251.15.145 at 13:52 UTC. It seems that they are vandalising again using IP140.251.15.179. Can you check? Denisarona (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Si. Fixed. If he/she IP hops again, I'll protect the target pages. Kuru (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Spamming by 70.230.200.194 and 70.230.192.82 in Insurance

Please note User:70.230.192.82's recent reversion of your revert of User:70.230.200.194's spam in Insurance. Jojalozzo 23:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least it's not marginally promotional; it's full blown spam. I'll try semi-protecting a bit. If he switches to another article we can add the URL to the blacklist. Thank you for your help! Kuru (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of user page

I noticed that you deleted User:Amit Prasad, and that it has been recreated. This is just FYI; no need to reply. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

74.178.195.23

Right back to the same behavior of adding unsourced information right out of the block to television station articles, didn't seem to listen at all despite the red box. Nate (chatter) 02:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Man, that's just odd. I extended the block. Kuru (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:82.35.202.156

Hi, I've seen you contacting User :82.35.202.156 in his talk page. His edits, I've encountered, are disruptive with random word removals and constantly inserting controversial materials without any creditable sources or none at all. If your an admin, can you do something about it? --LLTimes (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Jazb665

Thanks. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of legitimate links

I have contacted the proper administrators to resolve this issue. As the Executive Director of Earthwave Society, a legitimate non-profit organization registered with the federal government as such, I asked for reprimands for the treatment our organization has received for adding a LEGITIMATE EXTERNAL LINK TO AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION who worked directly with the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the US Army Corp, the Bureau of Land Management, the Missouri Dept. Of Conservation, NOAA, Nebraska Game & Fish, North & South Dakota Game & Fish, Louisiana Game & Fish Commission, Montana Game & Fish, and Virginia Tech in a cooperative effort to document the life history cycle of the paddlefish, crayfish, sturgeon, alligator gar, and piping plovers. I added a LEGITIMATE LINK AS PER WIKI'S EXTERNAL LINK POLICY, and have reported YOUR abuse along with Dream_Focus, and whoever else has incorrectly deleted the link. You need to refresh yourselves on Wiki's external link policies, and try to acquire a better understanding of the work and research educational non-profit organizations actually perform. You are out of line, and will be hearing from your superiors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talkcontribs) 03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if you were a non-profit or Exxon itself. You're adding links with no content and the intention of selling videos; that is very much prohibited by our external link policy. You are, of course, free to contact my "superiors". Kuru (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I did contact two Administrators. Earthwave Society is not selling videos any more than Wikipedia is charging for its services. We ask for contributions the same way Wikipedia asks for contributions. Teachers, students, and resource agencies can request a DVD at no charge, so you actually don't know what you're talking about. Regardless, show me where it says in Wikipedia's External Link section that you can't include a url where there is a charge for shipping, and duplication. If that were the case, you would have to delete almost every single Wiki page that has an external link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talkcontribs) 04:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

    • If I may pop in here, your links, Atsme, have nothing to do with the articles and are not legitimate at all. For instance, if you make an external link for 'gar', make sure the page actually deals with it (and in a reasonable fashion) or it will be deleted...Smarkflea (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. Links like this are nothing more than a plug for a product. Links not to the specific product page apparently are just to a generic home page with no content. You are more than welcome to add referenced content, but you seem to be very, very confused about our external link guidelines. As requested, please cease adding links to your organization. Kuru (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My block

Now that my block has finished, and I have returned to editing Wikipedia, I would like to say that even though I understand the reason for my block, that does not mean I think you handled this well. As to Yadua the Babylonian I still think that in view of the fact that I clearly was not aware of the nature of my transgression, and had stated my willingness to undo any problematic edit, you should have explained things rather than blocking me. And as to Serge Gainsbourg I think that you should have taken into account that the opposing editor was removing sourced content, and that he has a history of warnings for doing so. You might at least have posted warnings on the talkpages of my opponents, especially the latter. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I offered you an opportunity to revert yourself; instead you started a new edit war on a different article. I would have loved to explain the situation to you in more detail, but your subsequent actions dictated the outcome. If I could offer you some unsolicited advice, as you have, you may want to cease referring to your fellow editors as opponents. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


Excellent advice, Kuru. Atsme (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Beating me to the punch

How is it that when we are both in fighting mode you keep beating me to the draw? I have just followed you right through AIV and you got there first every time! (Not really moaning; it doesn't matter who does the work so long as it gets done). Happy wikying. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Too fast today, it seems; I messed one up earlier.  :) Kuru (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
We all do sometimes: this is why, notwithstanding various comments at RfA and elswewhere, we need a constant flow of new admins. As you may have noticed, they do not stay. It seriously concerns me that I am now one of the longest serving active admins, and I do not feel that I should be. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


If you are the same Anthony who has contributed feedback to my external link dispute, I just wanted to add my opinion for why you may be one of the longest serving active admins. Quite simply, you are good at it!!! Even though I may have disagreed with you on the issue, you were always polite and courteous. Wiki should double your salary. (wink, wink) Atsme (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Brownsville, Texas

Thanks for reverting the info on the article. It is greately appreciated. Keep up the good work, like you always do! Cheers! ComputerJA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC).

Hosfelt Gallery

thanks for the heads up. I was no longer watching that user's page. Have a good day. StarM 02:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Block request

Please block this person:[6], he is the same person as User talk:98.64.75.179 and has continued his racial attacks. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, semi-ed, and cleaned up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, let's see where he/she pops up next. I'll let you know. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, had stepped out. Thanks, Sarek. Kuru (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Project planning

@Kuru: Is it okay to cite Michael D. Taylor's work if Dennis P. Miller's work is not acceptable? Dennis P. Miller is also cited as a Further Reading in Work breakdown structure. The planning process described in Project planning is really not consistent with the planning process described in the Work breakdown structure entry.

Michael D. Taylor's "How to Develop Work Breakdown Structures" in page 4 describes a Verb-oriented WBS (among many) which is task-oriented and is consistent with the Project planning description. Taylor is cited as a reference in the Work breakdown structure entry. If citing this is not acceptable in the Project planning entry, can I then add a section in Work breakdown structure listing the different WBS types?

Pmresource (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Kuru. With successive typhoons, I had lots of free time these past few days. I went back to read Wikipedia policies and guidelines but this time with greater focus. I also read the discussion page of the Work breakdown structure article. It appears that a lot of debate were made on this topic already. I'm daunted to add a new section on WBS types since it would be a controversial edit-- at least for now. What I've realized though is the polite way you reverted my edits WP:SPS in Project planning. I've also seen your contribution on my first article. Thank you for being civil and polite to a new Wikipedian. Most of all, thanks for your work. I will be bold and give you this star though. Until I get a good grasp on how this Barnstar thing works, I guess this would suffice. I really wanted to give you something better and I doubt it if this is something proper but I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia.
Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For being almost everywhere on the Wikipedia articles that I read, thanks for your hard work and polite ways. Pmresource (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kuru.

I've now familiarized myself in greater depth with most Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays that relate to core content policies. Hopefully, this will enable me to better edit Wikipedia articles. Any tips from you are welcome to better improve my editing. I also want to create more articles in the future. Pmresource (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

With Applogize…

Sorry, Andering, at the moment it appears you've been "bold" by ignoring the discussion on that article's page, and have now been reverted by two other editors. It would be a good idea to stop adding the material, and conclude the discussion before edit warring further.

At the time the complaint was made, only User:Berean Hunter had reverted it. The sources have been presented; That I don’t understand how to put a citation in does NOT change the fact that it is here. Simply put, Berean Hunter is stalling.
I’d not reply after the decision was handed down under normal circumstances, but he’s trying to accuse me of a “bad faith” complaint. I apologize for my lack of civility in making said reply. Please delete this message as soon as convenient (not necessarily as soon as possible). A. J. REDDSON

Email

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

Jasper Deng (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and next task?

Hi Kuru

Thanks for making references more specific on value proposition page, I didn't know how to do that. I have been looking at the customer value proposition page for some time as it needs a major edit, a lot of it is old or incorrect content, but am too daunted by the task and not particularly proficient! If you are knowledgable and interested in this topic would you help too? Siztrust (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

CAN U PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE PAGE White Brazilian SECTION - The American impact on the study of race relations in Brazil

Hi i would like you to take a look at the page - White Brazilian section - The American impact on the study of race relations in Brazil

The new section is full of factual errors, and seems to be a biased attack on the U.S. It contains many criticisms of the U.S, and makes contrasts with Brazil, without makeing any criticisms of Brazil.

I have removed the factual errors , and provided my explantion as well as sources at the talk page but the user Darkness Shines keeps restoring them. The user Darkness Shines has not responded at the talk page, and yet continues to restore factual errors.

Could you please take a look? --Kay43 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is already a criticism on "race" relations in Brazil. The new section is a valid text (by the scholars Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, by the way), since it exposes the impact - not always positive - American thought has had on the study of "race" relations in Brazil. Since the wiki articles in English tend to be dominated by the Anglosphere academia (the articles for the most part quote just English speaking scholars), it is healthy to show that even the Anglosphere thought on sociology and "race" relations is relative and prone to bias. And it is a fact that the Ford, Rockefeller and other American foundations have been interfering in the "race" dynamics in Latin America.Grenzer22 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Velayudham

Hi, you have blocked this user for violating 3RR on the above mentioned page. I still do not know the duration of his block. He has made legal threats through email. --Commander (Ping Me) 15:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wheel_warring_by_DragonflySixtyseven. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The decision is yours, but..

Hello Kuru,

The decision is yours, but...but I would like to give you some enlightenment on this case [7].

In his request for unblock, Samofi told that [8]

  • I undestand my ban. I agree that I was guilty. I have not used sock puppets for a significant time. In the past I was offensive, I have not read Wikipedia´s fundamental rules. But I had a half year for a study of Wikipedia´s rules and for the studying English. I understand that Wikipedia is not battlefield and it can exists more opinions. I would like to contribute to less controversial topics and more discuss about my edits. I think I had a enough time to understand my faults to not make it again. I would like to have a chance to edit Wikipedia again

But there was a discussion in which an uninvolved user ,Divide et Impera, coming from the U.S.A. told that [9]


  • In my opinion though Samofi is following a battleground mentality in wikipedia. I saw him edit warring in Martina Hingis, because he couldn't accept any source that her mother was of Hungarian descent
  • Samofi disputed each one of them and did not accept consensus, forcing an admin to close the whole issue by semiprotecting and taking away the right to anyone to say anything about Carol Hingis descent (See admin's edit).
  • Samofi ran to send to deletion Fakirbakir's article Principality of Hungary on September 5th, and, after that, seeing that the AfD might have a keep outcome, he opened a request for a move from Principality of Hungary to Hungarian Tribal Union on September 7 without seeing the outcome of the AfD and without retiring the nomination.
  • Please notice that, at least recently, all Samofi does is to diminish the importance of the Hungarian population of Slovakia: He didn't get any clue from the admin intervention on Martina Hingis, but continued in the last week to make edits such as this, where the outcome is just to use a redirect, and to make the word "Slovakia" appear before the word "Hungarian".


But when Samofi asked User:Divide et Impera for a mediation, Divide et Impera told him that [10]

  • A mediation is used when both parties are likely to listen. You decided to not to listen to me: I warned you to delete your canvassing and you didn't. Now I poured my thoughts on you here.

But I do not want to get senteces out of their context, please read the whole discussion before taking a decision on this case: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#I_can_not_write_a_proper_comment_anymore_because_of_user_SAMOFI --Nmate (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also

Notwithstanding the fact that Samofi is being reported for edit warring for which he may receive an indef block as well, he is still edit warring on an another article [11].--Nmate (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop to canvassing a other users. All what I have made was sourced by a reliable sources. Show me the sources which says that mother of Martina Hingis was of hungarian origin. You lie all the time about me and you hates me. You just make a ctivities against me and other Slovakian users. Iam sad from you.. --Samofi (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea Handler's father's name

Hi,

In the introduction of Handler's new book, Lies That Chelsea Handler Told Me, she states that in her previous books, she used fake names to protect people and their privacy. She used Melvin for her father. Further, I cited her mother's obituary, where it states her husband is named Seymour.

Edit: here is a link to the book's introduction: link Cg41386 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct; apologies for the mis-read. Kuru (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring block of User talk:203.117.10.66

Hi Kuru,

I think you and I handled the same problem in different ways just now. I thought they were both edit warring, and protected the page so they could resolve things on the talk page, rather than block them both. I see you just blocked the IP. So should we:

  1. Block Woz2 as well and unprotect the page; (note I'm not in favor of this option)
  2. Unblock the IP;
  3. Is there something I'm missing where Woz2 is acting better than the IP, and we should leave the blocks as-is, and I should unprotect the page?

--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This was from a report at AIV; I didn't see any vandalism, but there was certainly editing warring. At first glace I did not see a 3RR from Woz2, but clearly one from the IP against multiple editors and a recurrance today. Concur that leaving the article protected makes the block non-preventative; the more "good faith" option to resolve the contradiction is to unblock the IP and see if a discussion starts. I'll do that and leave a note for the IP. Kuru (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's where I saw it too. It's likely the IP violated 3RR and Woz2 didn't, so you probably had a good point; I tend not to focus on the bright line aspect of 3RR the way I should. I like your solution, thanks. I think they really just need some outside input from other knowledgeable editors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You rock! Thank you! NinaSpezz (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox person discussion

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kuru. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox person#Nationality.2Fcitizenship_documentation.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Confused if this is an edit war

Hi Kuru.

I wanted to post the message below on my dispute tag for the Schedule (project management) article. Is this the right way to do it? Kindly delete the message if this violates Wikipedia guidelines. If it doesn't, I'll proceed on posting it in the article's discussion page. Thanks in advance.

Pmresource (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello once again.

After substantial time familiarizing myself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in greater depth, I have decided to delete most of the above message. I think it's civil and prudent to do so.

Thank you.

Pmresource (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)