User talk:K10wnsta

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

Re: Adoption[edit]

Feel free to ask questions on my talkpage, and I'll try to answer them when I get around my computer. For me, adoption doesn't need to be really that formal, so I'm quite flexible in terms of how to assist. I'm currently on medical leave, so I may not be able to respond as quickly, hopefully that is okay with you. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • You're actually right, we usually don't have latest news section in a biography article. Usually it would be combined together with the overall biography, and it is the result of some recent coverage. And sources have to be reliable lest it violates biographies of living persons policy, where poorly-sourced material demands its immediate removal. You should indicate BLP in the edit summary when removing, and have it discussed on the talk page why or how the sources should be improved (i.e. are there other sources relating to this issue?). If you feel that the other party reverting for this info to stay is violating BLP, try getting attention on the BLP noticeboard and hopefully more editors will look into it. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • For awards, it would be good if it is backed by sources, but editors don't usually insist on their removal unless they feel that there are controversies surrounding the person. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the late reply. Well you're right, I don't really think "major asterisk" would improve my understanding in the band either and it sounds like a peacock term. Unless it's an actual citation from a verifiable source, it should be shortened to just disbanded. And yes, there are times where the media are lazy enough to Wikipedia as the bulk of the information, even though they should be doing most of the primary research on their own. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 12:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

re:Billy Elliot[edit]


Thanks for contacting me. To be honest, I'd rather not touch any minor stuffs in the cast list, as it may contradict with the interest of some fans, some of whom I know very well. I will only touch the major casts and some formatting issues. My real opinion is to exclude any minor casts. This was previously deleted by a user, but somebody added it back. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Doing science articles[edit]

I hope you've not been discouraged by your recent experience with the Global Warming article. Sussing out legitimate science from questionable science can be a daunting and perplexing task. But, Wikipdeia is full of knowledgeable people and great resources. So, if you have any questions, or need any help, just ask. You can learn about reliable sources for science articles at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine. You can post questions about the reliability of specific sources on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Good luck.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rixburg, Idaho[edit]

Hi, I noticed this request of yours on Mailer diablo's talk. I find this case interesting and would like to provide some input of my own.

From your description, I don't think this is a bot. This looks like the work of a group of "concerned citizens", or one citizen with lots of time and a dial-up connection. If you want to make sure, try varying the text when reverting, and use a redirector service such as tinyurl. Try putting it in another section, possibly in an inappropriate section. Change the format of the reference, e. g. provide it as obfuscated plaintext, e. g. "http colon slash slash ...". A bot shouldn't be able to spot that. If it still gets reverted, that should be proof enough that this is manual labor.

Either way, that is a minor issue. To prevent further disturbance, you seem to have two modes of attack: Identification and pressure. DNS lookup might reduce the possibilities considerably, and gives you a few ISP email addresses to complain to. Who knows, maybe you get enough specific info to make a block feasible. Failing that, you could try to contact some officials in Rixburg. I'm sure that the press would love to follow up with a report on a case of vigilante censorship.

Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, per what Paradoctor has said, you might want to try that first. I ran this through Google and it seems that even the Salon article has attracted quite a hot response back in 2006, and is still being talked about. This might have played a part in it. I would want to see more editing record as it goes and see if I can make a pattern out of this. Usually automated reversions would have sort of a formulated timing as well. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

meant to[edit]

I'm sorry ... I meant to ask you if you wanted to take another look at the revised article at Articles for deletion/Muslim Mafia before the voting closed, to see if you might change your mind. Apologies for not getting to it.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, had I seen that revision prior to the AfD close, I have little doubt I would've struck and reverted my original recommendation. Fortunately, such a change wasn't required in ultimately (and justifiably) establishing consensus to keep it. I'm really impressed with your efforts in molding that into what is now a high-quality article. I wonder if the citation concerns raised in AfD had anything to do with that current list of references exemplifying what every Wikipedia article should strive to attain.
Regardless, keep up the good work! It can't be too far from GA. Hell, you oughtta find the record time of an article going from AfD to FA and shoot to break it. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask.  ;-)
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I have other matters to attend to, and I've no need to have that particular article be featured. But thanks for the kind words. The molding was all a group effort. Funny thing is, without the AfD, most of us wouldn' have had much interest in more than a stub, I expect.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming[edit]

I just wanted to say that I agree with your assessment that the Global Warming article is not neutral. Several years ago I approached this article with absolutely no agenda in mind except that it should be accurate and neutral. I immediately noticed that the definition found in the article did not match any definition found anywhere else and that it was not sourced. So I did a study. I found multiple sources for definitions of Global Warming and presented them all, and tried to craft a definition from authorized legitimate sources. I found that the protectors of the article would have none of it and wikipedia standards of neutrality be damned. Your concerns are valid but you will not be successful because there is a concerted effort by a group of people to protect the page and its non-neutral slant. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it was a gruelling two weeks researching something I cared so little about. But I realized that indifference on the matter put me in a unique position to give an objective assessment of the state of the article. Unfortunately, it also exposed me to blatant defiance of wikipedia's core values and dealt a crippling blow to my interest in the project as a whole (ie. If such an important general knowledge article can be held to such a low standard, why should I spend hours improving all the little, unimportant articles?).
It seems like there's quite a few people who are able to see the lack of objectivity in the article, so I'm surprised there's been no recent effort to bring it to arbitration. Although I imagine such an undertaking quickly defines new users as socks and seems too massive an undertaking for those who have already established themselves. But talk of standards and policy is not enough to defend Wikipedia's integrity. The countless hours of toil and effort in building this awesome compendium are all for naught if we fail to expect better of what is presented here. It is something I would champion myself, but at the moment, I fear any flaws in the process would be more than my morale could bear witness to.
--K10wnsta (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Of all the articles I've contributed to, it seems the Global Warming related articles draw the most heated and illogical contributors. NPOV is an ideal, a goal. Logical Fallacy and mob "consensus" is a challenge for wiki. In the long run, truth tends to prevail. Thanks for your contributions. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Your experience and disappointment mirror my own, exactly. I did not care much either way about global warming but when I ventured forward into the article I discovered that wikipedia will NOT live up to its own standards... it has an organizational and institutional bias against... neutrality!!! Even though Jimbo laid that down as the basic doctrine of the land. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of Monty Hall problem[edit]

Hi - Your response at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-06/Monty Hall problem has come after the request was closed with a suggestion to proceed to formal mediation. I'd be personally OK with trying informal mediation first, although there may be an effort underway already to write up a formal mediation request (see talk:Monty Hall problem#Does anyone object to Formal Mediation?). Before you spend much time looking into the issue itself, I think it might be a good idea to drop by and explain what you think you might be able to accomplish as an informal mediator and what the differences might be between informal and formal mediation. Based on the reactions you get you might make a recommendation regarding whether you think it's worth your time to proceed informally. Whether we proceed informally or not, thanks very much for the offer. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. I was in the middle of composing a message for the talk page when I saw your message yesterday. As a result, I scrapped it and began anew (with holiday events slowing me down a good bit). Having skimmed over the discussion, I'd seen the effort to get the go-ahead for moving on to formal mediation, but couldn't find a request posted. Regardless of what you guys end up doing, I hope you can work it out. Merry christmas!
--K10wnsta (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Per User talk:Martin Hogbin#Formal mediation, Martin has not started a formal mediation request. If you're going to try to help, I'd suggest you post a new section to the talk page and say what your intentions are (what you're able or willing to do, what sort of timeframes might be involved, how you would like to proceed, etc.), and then watch the talk page and (well) mediate. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Please update the informal mediation status. Are you interested in taking part in the formal mediation? Glkanter (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:You Obviously Enjoy Birds[edit]

Thanks for the compliments, my grandfather has shared his great interest in birds. And yes, I do prefer skiing over snowboarding, however I'd like to give snowboarding a try. Again, Thanks 1bevingtonco (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name[edit]


I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Ed Blakely[edit]

hey. thanks for the 3O on Ed Blakely. i will take your comments and suggestion to heart. i agree the reverted page state was a better article and would have reverted to it myself had i realized it was there; next time ill check out the history in more depth. ive made a couple edits to it to include references, and i think its good to go. thanks!Mdelvecchio99 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  • an update* Thanks for your help with the Ed Blakely page. Your version was fair and appropriate. I'm noticing that the Ed Blakely page has been changed again and now contains a lot of content that though based in fact is presented in a very biased way. I do have a conflict of interest, so I'm not going to change it. Would you be comfortable reverting it to the way you had a few weeks back? --PCB02144 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcb02144 (talkcontribs) 12:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Quicktip - rather than typing out your name after a post, you can just type 4 tildes(~) and the system will automatically insert your signature and a link to your talk page (or, on the editing toolbar, hit the button right next to the one with red on it).
I greatly appreciate your restraint given your circumstance. If every contributor who was vested in a particular subject approached it in the same manner (asking an uninvolved editor to assist them in improving it), the quality and volume of what we could accomplish here would increase exponentially.
Admittedly, I have not been by the article since a day or two after I made that reversion but I will set a couple hours aside tomorrow to see how it's shaping up. I'll keep an eye out for anything that smacks of bias and double check the reference material being used. If there are any specific statements or claims you have issue with, let me know and I'll see how they stack up with established standards on other biographical articles and our policies for biographies of living persons.
--K10wnsta (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presentation[edit]

Hey there, just wanted to drop you a line in regards to the Climate change arbitration case. The submission of new evidence is closed, but you are welcome to ask on the talk page or to the drafters directly whether or not your new evidence is required/desired. The Proposed decision has been in the pipeline for a while, so in my personal opinion new evidence is not something the committee is looking for, but truth be told the PD is still not ready, so your evidence may or may not fly. Let me know if you have any questions - those pages are complex - but the upshot is that the project Evidence page is closed unless it's decided new pieces are needed. ~ Amory (utc) 13:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Johnny Bankrupt"[edit]

I was just about to delete the same sentence about "Johnny Bankrupt". I really hope it was not there very long! Justin W Smith talk/stalk 01:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ugg boots[edit]

(the Dutch case, resolved in 2008, explicitly dealt with product counterfeiting, failing to address the merits of written content - §4.19) Just a moment, you seem to have overlooked §4.6 in the same 2008 decision: "One cannot establish the fact that this is considered a generic name in the Benelux based on the opinion of one or more companies in Australia."[1] Survey data was submitted in an American court case in 2005, indicating that an overwhelming majority of consumers perceived UGG as a brand name, not a generic term. (See page 6 of the federal court ruling.) [2] Both of these decisions address the merits of written content. These decisions indicate how courts in the rest of the world (outside of Australia and New Zealand) will react to the argument that it's a generic term. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI:ANI -- Ugg boots[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gnangarra 00:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, K10wnsta. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ArbCom notification[edit]

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently were mentioned in. You may be interested in the discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)