User talk:Kelapstick/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Testing

Keilana I may have just made the best and most useful template ever. I just need to figure out how to get it to work with actual dates. And maybe get a free image of a raptor with a circle and slash, like a no smoking sign. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This office has been
100
Days since the last
Velociraptor attack
The previous
record was
200
days
71.000.000 x 365 = 25.915.000.000 days. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Ha! Still in testing mode. Much appreciated TQP. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh my god. Yes. Keilana (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I could throw a quick "no smoking" thing on that pic if you want. (photoshopish thing) — Ched :  ?  22:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I emailed you both the pic. — Ched :  ?  22:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Receiced Ched. If someone knows how to use a date entered format in the top variable, so it auto updates the number of days, that would be great. I'm imagining an expanded scope for this template. --kelapstick(on the run) 22:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering

Hi, I'd guess you'd be interested in [1]. I find it a bit disheartening, but it's good info to know. Any suggestions of what I may have done wrong would be welcomed and would be examined if I can.

Thanks for any feedback.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Smallbones, not sure what I am supposed to be looking for (as for what you would have done wrong), but the results don't really surprise me. Particularly around deceased persons and sports people, mainly because:
  1. Men's sports are broadly speaking more "popular" (i.e. look at the pay gap between professional men's and women's sports, if they were of equal popularity, it would be significantly less, in simplistic terms). Thus there are more sources, more coverage, more interested writers, more articles, longer articles, etc.
  2. Documented history (say pre-1950s) is largely dominated by men (think to the World Wars, 1920s business, early inventors). That isn't to say that there isn't a significant number of notable women from these eras, but the documentation is less common, and these people are not taught about in schools as much.
Regardless, it's interesting data, in January I wrote articles on four woman scientists (mainly geologists/paleontologists, and a botanist I believe). All from early 20th century. Sources (particularly online ones, which is what I am mainly limited to) are difficult to come by. It's much easier to write about a minor league baseball player than a geologist from 1914, and I think that you will find that (given the disparity of gender on Wikipedia, and the interests of the American people), you will find that more people are interested in the former than the latter..--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Sometimes I just need to hear somebody else say something before I get my mind around it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I didn't look at any of the math, or background data, however. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello Kelapstick! Sorry to bother you but I need your help if it's okay with you. I'm not sure if you remember this, but I believe that User:Unbuttered Parsnip has a new sockpuppet in the IP of 194.75.238.182. The user has been blocked indefinitely due to abuse of multiple accounts in December 2015. The IP in question has been removing content without proper notations or edit summary. Can you please advise on what would be our next step regarding this? Thank you so much. – HavenHost (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 was the checkuser, he may be able to shed some light on the subject. Semiprotection may be an option, I'm not at a computer at the moment, however. --kelapstick(on the run) 01:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23, forgot pinging doesn't work with my sock signature, as per above. --kelapstick(bainuu)
As a CheckUser, I'm not sure what I can do with respect to an IP problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
HavenHost, there you have it. Probably best to request page protection if it becomes an issue. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Kelapstick, Bbb23, Oh I see. Right, I believe it would be best to request page protection instead. Well anyway thanks for the help, both of you. I truly appreciate it. Cheers! :) – HavenHost (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giuseppina Pastori, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Rome. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I just don't know which University of Rome it is... --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi Kelapstick, I just need you help in creating an article which as been deleted. Can you please help me Amitabhaitc (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I can try, but you are going to have to be a little more specific in your request. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Kinross Gold & WSDavitt

I had taken the article off my watchlist a while back but it is the same editor with the same POV it appears. Looks to me like somebody with a bad share investment that he wants to settle on Wikipedia. Calistemon (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That was my thought. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

LinkedIn article

Hello, Kalapstick. While I appreciate the deletion of the above redirect, I'm confused why you changed it from G11 to A7. A7 wouldn't apply in this case since it's a redirect and not an article. Could you explain your rationale? -- Tavix (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Tavix, G11 was also correct, but it was kind of a hybrid article/redirect (there was text under the redirect), so it was also eligible for A7. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright, that makes sense. Thanks for your explanation! -- Tavix (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Wikipedia:Main Page history/2016 March 27, with thanks for your ARCA statement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A Kitten For Joy

This kitten means that although many fight diseases and other things, we all can stay strong and live through it.

BB cooltanki (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Garbage recursions by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)

Just like the past several years, TenPoundHammer made garbage recursions again. Mass delete?

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (3rd nomination)
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (3rd nomination)
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (3rd nomination)

Eyesnore 03:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

dihydrogen monoxide

Why? (no edit summary and not actually an april fools' day nomination, if that's why) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, my mistake, although I did have to remove a second parameter on the Old AfD multi template, where the result was flush. And people wonder why I don't like these April Fools Day shenanigans. Lots of BS cleanup to do, especially when people use automated tools for them... feel free to fix anything related that I may have missed. Thanks, --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Completely agree. The weird thing here is the nominator has been making the same absurd argument about that article for a while. Apparently a couple other people thought, appropriately, that it was a joke and added it to the April Fools' page. All too real, though. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

I did get a chuckle out of it. Good that you deleted it, though. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

We aim to please Tarlneustaedter. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

need a favour...

Could you please remove the edit-line from the last 4 articles I rvv? Starting with the edit-line at 02.34 at David Cesarani, Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, seems like I have been at this all day Huldra. Done, and thanks. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that, but no, all the offending edit-lines (against one named editor) are still there. Again, look at the edit-line at 02.34 at David Cesarani, etc, Huldra (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Ahh I see, I thought it was just your reversions that needed it. I'll get to it just now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! It is gone now... for as long as it lasts.... I suspect most of the articles needs to be semi-protected. Since most of them comes under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, that should not be controversial, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the third sock of that user I have seen today, so I suspect it isn't over for long... --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Heh, I´ve been living with this since 2010, so I *know* it isn´t over. However, I wonder which one it is....if it is my Aussie fan, starting as named editor, or is it "our old friend" (though a little bird sang to me that he had "retired" last summer), or is it just another copy-cat? Huldra (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Sandbox

Page protection did not seem to take. Needs it, and REVDEL. My sandbox and talk page archives likewise have been besmirched. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC) User:7&6=thirteen/sandbox‎ needs indefinite pp. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC) ALL of my archives. He says he has a thousand IPs to choose from. I hvae ten archives. User talk:7&6=thirteen/Archive 2. thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to have sucked you into this, so to speak. Physician heal thyself. But thanks for giving me new levels of protection. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Meh, no worries. Let me know if there is anything else you need. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Doing this kind of work gives one a very skewed view of the population. You would think they would get a life. And such wasted effort. Sigh! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Our Sandbox got some help

Protector of the Wiki
Keeping the Richards at bay. Good job 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The ArbCom Tool Award
Since tools is what we are--but at least you're a high-tech one. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I see that you're right, but who in the hell would want to check on that? Drmies (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I have a script in my Common.js which outlines Fair Use Images with a red border (among other things, such as colouring links to pages that are up for deletion hot pink), so I can tell immediately if an image is fair use (for just this reason). Thanks for the award, but are you trying to tell me that I am a torque wrench? --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Wow, that's fancy. Hey, being a torque wrench is a pretty high-up position in the toolbox. I'm little more than a broken pair of pliers. A dull utility knife. A hammer with a broken shaft. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Sandbox

Page protection did not seem to take. Needs it AGAIN, and REVDEL. Lots of REVDEL. Gross and obscene pictures that are right in the edit summaries. I sent this to oversight, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the shelter. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
rev id 713977223 by Special:Contributions/77.197.178.42 needs to be hidden as well. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Andy, it's tough to sort out what does and what doesn't there. Done. -kelapstick(bainuu) 23:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a lot of RevDel at Wikipedia:Sandbox and my user talk page

Done

I might be periodically updating this, but we have IPs vandalizing the sandbox with obscene images.

— Andy W. (talk · contrib) 22:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Should be done, feel free to just drop them off here and I will get to them when I see them. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Sandbox Part III

They're back. REVDEL please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Which, the text? --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help dealing with private info.

Maragm and I have been dealing with Siredejoinville, who has been creating articles that are mostly original research (mcade up) with a hint of truth. Example is Principality of Tricarico. All of the articles deal with Spanish related titles. What's interesting is that the current title holder in all the articles is the same person, "Jorge Reinaldo Ruiz de Borja-Haro Mariño de Lobeira y Trastamara-Aragón"... the person writing the articles.

The person is doing the same thing on other wiki's and is also being reverted.

This is where it gets messy... From clues, I know who this person is in real life. Maragm also claims to know who this person is, but doesn't want to mention because of privacy concerns.

Normally, ANI would probably be the forum, but with outing issues, I don't know what to do. Any ideas or mighty arbcom #()$*@% ???? Bgwhite (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, Bgwhite and Maragm, if there is anything else that isn't fit to print, feel free to send it to me via email (the email this user should work fine). But for clarity, you're saying these articles are being created by this Jorge cat, and is laying claim to multiple titles via Wikipedia articles? --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he is claiming these titles ...but I will send you an email to explain in more detail in a minute. --Maragm (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good, I am wading through this user's edits at the moment. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Finally, after seeing him revert today referenced info in Prince of Squillace (spent all day yesterday fixing it and referencing it with an ebook I bought just for this purpose), my patience ran out and I reported him. Let's see how this plays out. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Sandbox revdel

If you feel this is still necessary (I personally think so) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Add one: ‎*Special:Contributions/197.89.223.172 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit puzzling how predictable the time at which this happens. It's always around 14:30 and always on the same page. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 21:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Not really puzzling, probably a kid gets off school or something. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kelapstick, Zzuuzz, BethNaught, and Bongwarrior: Hi admins, I'm a bit late to the obscene User:Yourname sockpuppetry frequently at WP:Sandbox, but I started getting involved yesterday around the same time with some strange consequences. Today, I checked some history all the way back to approx. March 29, and found some additional IPs (to consider possibly revdel along with the rest of the IPs listed in a section above on this talk page).

Unsure:

I'll post these IPs on the sockpuppet investigation page, which has been inactive since April 1.

Please pardon me if this is out of protocol or anything. Just a user trying to help. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 22:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the turnover at the Sandbox, revisions get buried pretty quickly. I don't know if it's worth going back beyond the most recent 500 revisions (one page worth). --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 22:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Potential advertising

Hi Kelapstick, could I get you to have a quick look at the recent contributions of 128.184.132.73 please? The addition of Vodaphone mobile phone coverage to towns in NSW seems to be blatant advertising to me but I would like an admins opinion before reverting them all. I have notified the IP at they seem to have stopped so it's not a case for ANI. Just let me know what you think. By the way, I'm back in Perth again now, at my old place (got sick of flying interstate every week after doing it for the last four years) so if you happen to drop by come around for a beer. Calistemon (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if I would go so far as calling it spam, but it's certainly excessive. I would suggest reverting. I can see how the frequent flights across the country would become tiresome, should I make it down to WA I will be sure to drop in, say hi to the missus for us. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I would say the IP's intentions weren't necessarily to spam but it is still very one-sided advertising given that these places would have most likely had Telstra coverage for a long time while the edits made it sound like mobile phone coverage finally has come to rural Australia courtesy to Vodaphone. Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they go to Australia and you can see a stamp on a letter stating "20 years of Electricity" or something like that. I guess you get the same in Canada. Well, I have started reverting but I've got to walk the dog nowadays take the kids to some school holiday activity. Calistemon (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Gerard Way

hello i noticed that you deleted my Gerard Way nomination page. well anyway what i was trying to do was nominate the article to be the next featured article. and i don't know if i was going the right way about it but anyway that is just what i was trying to do. if i was doing it wrong could you put the nomination in for me or something? i don't really know how wikipedia works and it is imperative that this nomination goes through.

Hello Clockworkangels, I did delete the page, as it appeared to be a test page. However, also, it was a nomination page for the article to be Today's Featured Article, however in order to be Todays Featured article, the Article must first be a Featured Article. Currently the page Gerard Way is only C class, not FA class. So even if it was formed correctly, there is no way that the article would be Today's Featured Article. Can you answer why it is imperative that this nomination goes through? I hope this answers your question for you.--kelapstick(bainuu) 23:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Sardaar Gabbar Singh.jpg

I see you have protected this for persistent disruptive editing. It's okay. Today, we had a new theatrical release poster featuring the principle cast released in Deccan Chronicle. Here is the link. Considering that it manages to satisfy the condition provided by Template:Infobox film and also features the principle cast, i feel it would be appropriate to use this on Wikipedia.

Problem is, i cannot edit the file. Hence, i request you to do any one of these two: Either let me upload it, or i request you to upload a low res version after removing the extra white borders. Please do let me know what you do. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You can discuss the upload at the (probably article) talk page, when a consensus about which poster to use is determined it can be uploaded. I am not unprotecting, which will likely lead to a whole bunch more uploads, and then a bunch of work for another administrator to delete the old revisions. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not asking you to unprotect it. I asked you to help me upload it. I will follow your advice and shall start a discussion. But, are you sure that poster can be uploaded once a positive consensus is generated? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It can be unprotected once a consensus is reached. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

For blocking that account. Their contributions (after several warnings) scream WP:NOTHERE. And I know I shouldn't feed the trolls - but in this case it was really "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves" AusLondonder (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries AusLondonder, I am pretty sure it was going to be inevitable anyway, regardless of if you helped along the process. Same result, only quicker. Cheers, `--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Mammootty

Occasionally vandalized; extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I threw it on for another year George, although it might not be necessary. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

MPI image removal

Hi there. Just curious as to why you removed this image? It seemed appropriate to me. Thanks. --Natural RX 20:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natural RX, the image was deleted (by me) as it had been tagged for deletion by the uploader, also it was a fair use image, which is easily replaceable (by someone taking a picture of one of the engines in service). --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking back, it looks like an image with the same name is at commons, I have reverted my edit. Thanks for bringing this up. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Private mail to ArbCom failed

Dear Kelapstick,

I trust you are fine. I got an error message twice now while i was trying to send a private email to ArbCom.Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, the last email I have on record from you was dated Thu Apr 28 13:32:15 UTC (or about 6.5 hours ago). Not sure if this is the latest or not). --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The latest version was rejected 3 times in the last hour and I don't know what to do. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe try again in another hour or two. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Helpful again! Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yay! From me too. Did you happen to run CU on those cats on my user page? Anything interesting? Drmies (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Applicability of US amendments to Canadians

Well, when you visit 'merica the twenty first applies to you -- that's one of my favorites. NE Ent 09:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is true, I will have to take that into consideration when I head down there Tuesday. Cheers, NE Ent.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Dark-sky preserve

Hey K-stick on the run, have you arrived yet? Hope you and yours are well.

An edit on Dark-sky preserve I saw go by, by Brandmeister, suggested there's a bunch of articles to be written on Canadyan topics. Perhaps we can counter our ArbCom combat fatigue and write some up and get them up at DYK, so we can pretend that we're also regular folk writing stuff for the betterment of mankind blah blah. How about it? Drmies (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I guess you wrote to another user, but anyway I just noticed that the article uses hyphen inconsistently, sometimes as dark-sky preserve and sometimes as dark sky preserve :) Brandmeistertalk 15:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Brandmeister, I restored your message since it's useful. I didn't notice the hyphen; I suppose we can bring that up on the talk page. I corrected one of the wikilinks for a redlink, and wrote up a real short stub for McDonald Park. Your help is appreciated! Also, since Canada is on fire a brandmeister can be quite helpful. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
RGloucester, I think a hyphen makes sense. How about you? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't mind, I briefly thought it was my talkpage. I'm not sure which hyphenation to use, as I, for one, would support either. Brandmeistertalk 16:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Invading Canady, eh? I added the hyphen to the first line, and the RGloucester I pinged knows a thing or to about mechanics and grammar. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a tricky issue, I'm afraid. Traditionally, a hyphen would have been used in this case. Generally speaking, MOS:HYPHEN supports using the hyphen, though it allows for editorial discretion. I tend to support using the hyphen, and it seems that the "International Dark-Sky Association" also uses it in its name, but not in reference to specific parks/reserves/preserves, &c. Journalistic usage, on the other hand, is much more mixed, leaning toward omitting the hyphen in this case. I'd say that, if this is a matter that editors are "concerned" (as much as one can be about such trivialities) about, a non-targeted WP:RM should be held to assess consensus and allow for the presentation of evidence. The only thing that I would say with certainty is that the article should be consistent in usage. If the hyphen is used in the title, it should also be used in the body of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. That confirms my suspicions about usage here. But...but...TRIVIALITIES? Them's fighting words for some, RGloucester! Drmies (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I think that even that "some" would feel tepid at best in such a wishy-washy case as this...or not? Who knows. On another note, perhaps one of you fine administrators would care to do me a favour by closing a village pump RfC that is long overdue for such a closure? It is this one, if one feels willing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I gotta pass on that one--too big. Plus you wanted a fine administrator. Well, who's finer than Randykitty or Sphilbrick? Drmies (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Nice suck-up (or is it suckup?) I’m tempted to be snarky and say I’m not about to do a favor for someone who thinks hyphen usage is a triviality, but the real answer is that while I am active in some areas of admin work, there are a couple areas I’ve been quite deficient – anything and everything to do with SPI, and closing RfCs. I really ought to address that shortcoming, but if I do, I think I should start with something simpler.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A comment, which really doesn't belong here, but, too bad.

I'll offer one reason why that RfC hasn't been closed.

It is my experience that many arguments in WP have quite a back-story, and it isn't easy to jump into the middle. The writer of this RfC attempted to recognize this by starting with a summary sentence and providing some background. The goal is laudable, the execution, not so much.

The summary sentence:
"What guidance should WP:Disambiguation give for article titles that do not result in a conflict between two or more articles, but which are not inherently unambiguous to a general audience?"

My guess is that if you gave me an example, I'd do a facepalm, and agree that the summary sentence is a nice summary, but at the moment, I don't know what it is talking about.

I pressed on. The background starts with a link. It is to a diff, and I'm not sure which of the hundreds of words is the point. I'm actually interested in dab, and the concept of precision, but do not yet grok the disagreement.

I pressed on.

The next entry is another diff, removing something because they think it is not about dab.
I still don't know what the disagreement is about.

I stopped pressing on. I suggest that other admins considering closing this RfC may have run into the same problem - "what the hell is this about?"


I sort of want to know, but my main point is that while the closing admin is expected to read the whole discussion - if they cannot even understand the nature of the dispute early on, they may bail. While it is somewhat frowned upon to add material to the early part of an RFC late in the game, perhaps a summary with a clear example , and a note that it was added late, but turn on the light for me or someone else.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I will try to give a basic clarification. There is a dispute between those who view "disambiguation" on Wikipedia as something that only applies if there is ambiguity between various articles titles, and those who view "disambiguation" in the real word sense of removing ambiguity in general in the interest of "precision". As an example, one has a title like Flemish Giant. In the real world, "Flemish Giant" could refer to various things. The term itself does not clearly define what precisely is "giant", rendering it ambiguous. However, because there are not Wikipedia articles about other things that could be termed "Flemish Giant" (e.g. Flemish Giant cat), some editors believe that the article about "Flemish Giant rabbits" should be at "Flemish Giant" in the interest of "concision". Does that make the dispute a bit clearer? RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I'm there yet. I'll try a little stream of consciousness and see if it helps me. I can imagine that if I'm at a cuniculture conference, I would expect that a speaker could refer to Flemish Giant, without explaining that it is a breed of rabbit. I don't know whether every member of the audience would know this but they would either know this because they are familiar with the breed or infer this from the context.
In contrast, if I'm at a cocktail party where someone asked what I'm up to, and I tell them I'm thinking about acquiring some Flemish Giants, I need to add more information, as most people won't know the term. I'll presume, for the sake of this discussion, that there are no other items in the universe also called Flemish giant, so it isn't the case that they are unclear whether I mean Flemish Giant rabbits versus Flemish Giant aardvarks, they simply do not recognize what I am talking about when I use the term. If there were Flemish Giant rabbits and Flemish Giant aardvarks, then we would be talking about disambiguation—which of two possible terms do we mean by the shorter phrase. I think this is what someone is getting at when they say this isn't strictly a disambiguation issue.
However, when I'm missing is what problem is it that we are trying to solve. If I mentioned in casual conversation at a cocktail party that I am considering acquiring some Flemish Giants, I can't put square brackets around the term so that those who do not know the term can look it up. We are constructing rules for cocktail conversation we talk about protocols for Wikipedia. If some notable person decided to raise Flemish Giants, we could state that in an article, blue link the term and those that know the term can read on and those that don't can click on the link. I don't see a need to add the term "rabbit" to the text.
It is even less obvious why I need the term in the title. If I see the term somewhere and it is not explained I might decide to search for it. But, presumably, the reason I want to look it up is that the original source didn't mention that it was a rabbit so I'm not going to type in Flemish Giant rabbit I'm going to type in Flemish Giant. And I will show up at the right article.
It is possible I'm missing what is right in front of me what —namely that some people take my position but others take a different position and the disambiguation page is the right place to discuss how it ought to be handled in Wikipedia. I see that our article does have "rabbit" in the title, so at least one and presumably a number of people hold a different opinion. But now conflating two issues one the issue of how this specific article title should read, and the other is whether it is a proper subject of discussion anywhere and in particular in the disambiguation guideline.
So maybe it is sinking in to me. While I have one particular view on how it should be handled, and others have a different view, that isn't even the issue okay—the issue is whether that discussion is properly a disambiguation discussion or something else. Off the top my head, I can understand the position that it's not technically a disambiguation topic but since those who hold each of the opposing views have differing views on how the title should read (which is typically a disambiguation subject), I guess I can agree that it's as good a place as any to discuss it. I suppose one could argue it ought to be at Wikipedia:Article titles. I see that this policy does have a section on precision and disambiguation and this feels more like precision than disambiguation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Adding @RGloucester: --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
You're getting it. Essentially, the WP:AT policy asks us to weigh the importance of the given WP:CRITERIA in a particular case through editorial consensus. The question is, can the fact that the WP:DAB guideline suggests that "disambiguation" can only be used to disambiguate multiple Wikipedia articles, as opposed to removing inherent ambiguity in a given title, be used to support the removal of something like the "rabbit" from article titles, which is in "Flemish Giant rabbit" in the interest of precision and recognisability, i.e. in the interest of meeting the article title criteria as suggested by the article titles policy, as opposed to in interest of disambiguating multiple Wikipedia articles? RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Unban

I asked some of your fellow arbs about this and none were willing to discuss it. Doug Weller says nothing, GorillaWarfare says I can only appeal on or after "Jan. 19 2017" a strangely specific date that she doesn't explain, Guerillero haughtily tells me he has "no interest in conversing with me," DGG just archives my comment, etc. etc.

I was perma-blocked in 2012 on an allegation of sockpuppetry. I never did it. I cleanstarted (WP:CLEANSTART) on privacy grounds. My former account was in good standing in every respect. I tried to be unblocked but found myself stuck in an appeals system that doesn't work very well, and really is completely susceptible to being foiled by hounders. It is accurate that when my every official appeal avenue was cut off, I block-evaded via raw IP (like this) clearly disclosing my username. Some call that "socking" but if you look at a dictionary socking requires a deceptive element. They could just say "block evasion" but I feel the intent is usually to insult. At any rate I didn't even use IPs prior my original perma-block.

My value as an editor is shown, for example, by five or six articles I created in my previous account. Though I only had a couple months before being blocked in this account I did at least make Rain City Superhero Movement. Well, I'll limit myself to three paragraphs, but if you're willing to help me, or just have a constructive discussion, let me know. But please don't tell me "wait until next year" I feel like four years of being unjustly blocked is enough, and next year the same people will tell me wait another year, and most of them evilly smile to themselves when they say it. Colton Cosmic.

PS: According to your user page, you and I started editing about the same time.

Jan 17 2017 is probably one year after your last instance of sock puppetry. --kelapstick(on the run) 01:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I have never sockpuppeted Wikipedia and you should be more cautious suggesting such a thing. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.202.247 (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
You are aware that what you are doing now is block evasion, correct? --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course. When all official appeal routes were shut off to me (mainly by the same people) I decided that I could clearly-disclosed block evade to try to find a brave administrator that would help me. You are aware that "sockpuppetry" in the English language requires an element of deception? Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.206.194 (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not particularly in the mood to be lectured this morning, good day. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Yet apparently you were in the mood to lecture me. No hard feelings. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.206.194 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, you did come to my talk page. Regardless, good day. -kelapstick(on the run) <

Gamaliel PD vote error

Just a quick note that you appear have voted twice here. It doesn't change anything as it would still be 6-3 against, but just a clerical thing that should be cleared up. You are Opposes 4 and 7. I'd tidy it up myself, but I don't want to step on toes. Regards, The WordsmithTalk to me 18:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably just picked the wrong section, will have a look. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually it looks like I just messed up. Thanks for bringing it up. --kelapstick(on the run) 23:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for uprotection to recreate Matt Kalinski

According to what I found you have protected the topic Matt Kalinski in 2014 from recreation. Could you please unprotect it from it: 1) The other notable person can appear under this name. 2) Matt Kalinski notability is changing from year to year and is dynamic and cannot be protected forever. Mattedia —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Fo you have a draft article prepares to move to this location? --kelapstick(on the run) 14:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No I do not have any. I only want to clear "Matt Kalinski" for others (authors and Matt s Kalinski s) and have no longer intention to recreate on wiki at least years soon while the recent recreation under "Matthew (Matt) Kalinski" resulted in almost no "trial" for speedy removal. Mattedia. —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case, no I will not be unprotecting the page. It has been deleted four times, which suggests to me that there is grounds for it remaining protected. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin The Wordsmith's comments re: "...the ineptness of many current Arbs..." is certainly casting aspersions

Given the seriousness of this Rfc at User talk:The Wordsmith/GMORFC the ongoing threats to sanction participating editors seem to ring hollow in light of supervising admin The Wordsmith's astonishing comments regarding ArbCom members. The comment, which by any definition "casts aspersions," raises a number of questions that call for immediate answers, given the self-created deadline for comments.

The questions, which I hereby put directly to The Wordsmith, are as follows:

  • Exactly which ArbCom members are you referring to, when you describe them as "inept?"
  • In what way are these current community-elected ArbCom members, as you term them, "inept?"
  • Do you have diffs to support this sweeping claim, and can you produce them? If not, why not?
  • Since the thrust of this extraordinary Rfc seems to be to prevent "casting aspersions," in the Talk pages of GMO articles (as well as precedent-establishing proposed "locked in" multiple article wording regarding GMO safety) is this not exactly what you are doing in the past 24 hours towards members of the Arbitration Committee? Does this not disqualify you immediately from further participation?

To all concerned: I will post the above subsection on the Talk pages of current ArbCom members, per The Wordsmith's declaration, despite substantial objections, that they will be locking down the page a few hours from this posting, making further timely discussion on this page impossible. Jusdafax 11:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the concern his calling of arbcom members inept? That is certainly one of the least offensive things I have been called in the last five months. kelapstick(on the run) 12:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Please provide a list of all the more offensive labels so we can have it in one place. In fact, perhaps you could make a chart with all the arbitrators and all the labels. That will be helpful when we throw you all out on your ears and replace you with another group that everyone at Wikipedia can rail at. The proposed chart should be done by June 10 with you as the drafter. I don't have to tell you what will happen if you're late.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
As always Bbb23, your diligence in these matters is most appreciated. --kelapstick(on the run) 03:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protection for Steven Avery

What the hey?? There is no "IP vandalism" on this page. There is a legitimate disagreement among editors, with a rational discussion happening on the article talk page. There is also a request for comments on a related project page. Both were initiated by the "IP". That's hardly vandalism. BabbaQ should be reprimanded for grossly misrepresenting the situation. 32.218.41.207 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I protected it for disruptive editing, not vandalism. Regardless of who's correct, the back and forth is disruptive. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The back and forth ended two hours before you protected the page, at the same time the talk page discussion began. The only editor who made a disruptive edit was BabbaQ, whose knee-jerk revert of a well-documented edit was made without any explanation. And DoctorJoeE, the editor who threatened to edit war is a registered editor, who will be undeterred by semi-protection. 32.218.41.207 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Block evader

here. CassiantoTalk 21:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Cassianto, I will be out for the next few hours, so I may not be the best to come to for these for the next little bit. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks! CassiantoTalk 05:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Honeybadger62/sandbox

Is this made up? Drmies (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest idea, but I think it may. Although I don't watch soccer, ever. So I am not an expert. As far as I know the only national championship that is contested by provinces in this manner is curling (The Briar and Tournament of Hearts). --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser check

Please do a checkuser check on user:Fuck the Golden State Warriors! Sincerely, Tikeem and user:TikeemIsMyWorld and block the IP address where those accounts originate. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B919:A583:2133:8AAF (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I really want you to do this right away. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B919:A583:2133:8AAF (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I am kind of in the middle of something. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I am so sorry, but this really needs to be done now. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B919:A583:2133:8AAF (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I strongly suggest PayPalling at least $20 per CU demand. Also, it's already done. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

James Dockery

Thanks for restoring. Can you restore the talk page too. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course User talk:WikiOriginal-9, a slip up on my part. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD

Hi, so I'd like to object to your closing of this particular AfD. First, there were three delete votes to two keep votes and a redirect vote, as well as a reverted delete vote; I feel as if there was no consensus. Second, there are definitely many sources for this article, and not just covering a single event, enough so that when presented with these sources, one voter was eventually convinced to drop their delete vote.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Prisencolin, feel free to take it to WP:DRV, I won't object to a review (nor will I likely participate there), nor fight against it's being overturned if consensus is I closed it wrong. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks, I'll do that.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Block please

Can you block the following IP addresses ({{schoolblock}}) per OTRS request:

Thanks. — Music1201 talk 01:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure Music1201, if you finish the paperwork on the talk pages, I will go through and block each for two years (that is what the OTRS ticket asked for, correct?). --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Should be all done. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! — Music1201 talk 02:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...
mining and bacon
... you were recipient
no. 542 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt, always a pleasure to have you drop by. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You mean although I have such dangerous thoughts about amnesty of arbcom victims (no good word at hand). The witch of Pungo was pardoned after 300 years ;) - Seriously: giving all restrictions an expiration date would make humiliating appeals unneccessary, and leave the committee more time for better things. The best comment to an appeal so far was from Drmies ("!!!!", hard to top in brevity), second Floquenbeams "no foul, play on". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
No no no, Floq and I aren't even in the same league. Also because he gets to go on vacation, like he's the Beastie Boys. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

FREAKAZOiD

Can you please userfy page and talk page, I'll work on it. Sources such as [2] and [3] suggest he is notable enough for a standalone article. Valoem talk contrib 14:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing Valoem, you can find it at User:Valoem/FREAKAZOiD. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Frankie MacDonald

You've made a mistake in undoing my edits. Frankie Macdonald's Twitter account refers to his dancing videos and the quote is incorrect as it is taken from his video 'Major Snowstorm to hit Toronto Ontario on Wednesday February 27, 2013' Barrett1994 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies I meant to say his YouTube account refers to his dancing videos in the 'About' section no his Twitter account. Barrett1994 (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

block

You should block user:FUoCK OFF YOU BORING CoUoNoT 2602:306:3357:BA0:59EA:36D4:6B95:7DAD (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right... I should... And did. Thanks, --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser request

You should do a user check on user:THE LORD OF FFF UCKS and user:THE LORD OF FFUC KSS to see if they are related and if so, if there are any sleeper accounts. Also, block the IP address. 2602:306:3357:BA0:59EA:36D4:6B95:7DAD (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing I can see. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please enforce the word limits

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence#Please enforce the word limits in the interest of fairness --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Fart

Wikipedia:Fart, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fart and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Fart during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Kinross Gold

User: WSDavitt My comments:

I respectfully submit the deletion of my edits was inappropriate. It would be preferable if you were selective with your edits or reword particular sections rather than removing everything. The following information was deleted:

  • Kinross Gold was sued in numerous jurisdictions in Canada and the Unitied States for fraud. Kinross Gold settled out of court. The share price decreased by 90% because of the controversy.
  • The fraud allegations relate to the acquisition of the Tasiast mine in Africa in 2010. Kinross paid $6 billion for the mine even though the technical reports reported the value was under $2 billion.

Kinross reported in its financial statements that Tasiast was worth over $6 billion. In 2012 Kinross Gold, recorded significant losses related to value of the Tasiast. The total losses related to Tasiast was over $4.6 billion as the reported value of Tasiast was reduced to under $2 billion.

  • Kinross Gold has incurred losses approximately $10 billion since 2010.

All of the information was referenced to the various annual reports and news releases. The current Wikipedia page is out of date and does not mention.

Kinross Gold is one of the largest gold mining companies in the world and so I believe it's appropriate to have a larger article.

I would appreciate your comments. User: WSDavitt

Regarding all of these, where is it cited in third party reliable sources? --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


Kinross Gold Second Deletion

My comments: User: WSDavitt

Again your deletion of financial information is inappropriate.

The standard Wikipedia page for corporations includes a section for reporting the net income of the company. Your edit resulted in replacing the 2015 net income with the net income from 2013.

Regarding the comment that I am trying to make the company "look as bad as possible", two things:

  • 1) you are welcome to add information that is more positive.
  • 2) The information I have added is fair as it reflects the recent history of the company. As I noted in my edits, there has been a general decline for gold companies because of a substantial decline in the gold price. Like other companies in the industry, Kinross Gold's financial position has suffered. In addition, Kinross Gold acquired the Tasiast gold mine in 2010 for over $6 billion and within a few years the mine had lost over $4 billion. In addition, Kinross Gold has lost approximately $10 billion since 2010. I referenced all of these fact to the various annual reports and news releases. Kinross Gold was sued for fraud in both Canada and the United States. They settled out of court and paid tens of millions of dollars.

You have deleted all of this information. I am concerned about the suppression of information by corporations. I suggest that it would be more helpful to send me a note regarding your concerns and only deleting in a more selective manner.

I would appreciate your comments and would appreciate if you would reverse your deletion or update the Kinross Gold page. Thanks!

You literally overloaded the page with how shitty the company is performing, based on your interpretation of their financial results. This is called synthesis. So I repeat. Where is all of this cited in third party reliable sources? Who says the company is suffering. Who says that the Tassiast mine lost $4 billion? Other than "in this year it was worth 6 now it's worth 2" based on their records. I don't know what you mean by suppression of information by corporations, as I do not work for Kinross Gold. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Kinross

My comments: User: WSDavitt

Thank you for your questions.

Your question #1: Regarding the section Fraud Allegations, Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements, where exactly in this linked source does it say something that supports "In 2012, class action lawsuits were launched in the U.S. and Canada alleging Kinross Gold overstated the value of its Tasiast mine in its financial statements and made other false statements"? --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Response:

Paragraphs 4 of the Ontario Superior Court decision states: "[4] Musicians’ action is built upon three core allegations of misrepresentations: (1) in May 2011, Kinross ought to have reported a write down of its goodwill (there was an unreported goodwill impairment) associated with two West African gold mines, the Tasiast mine in Mauritania and the Chirano mine in Ghana (the “Goodwill Misrepresentation”); (2) Kinross failed to disclose that its drilling program for the Tasiast mine had revealed high amounts of low-grade ore (the “Low-Grade Ore Misrepresentation”); and (3) Kinross misrepresented that the expansion project for the Tasiast mine remained on schedule (the “On-Schedule Misrepresentation”)."

In addition, paragraph 158 of the Ontario Superior Court decision reproduces the plaintiffs allegations. Paragraph 158 states:

[158] Musicians’ allegations of misrepresentations are set out in paragraphs 84-86b of the Amended Statement of Claim, which state:

The Defendants’ Misrepresentations

84. Kinross’s financial statements, management discussion and analysis, press releases and other public statements created a materially misleading and distorted picture of the value of the Tasiast and Chirano mines.

85. The defendants made, authorized or acquiesced in the making of the following misrepresentations, all of which were false, inaccurate or misleading:

(a) they stated Kinross’s financial reporting complied with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and International Financial Reporting Standards (as the case may be), which it did not;

(b) they consistently overstated the goodwill in the Tasiast and Chirano mines by failing to record an impairment charge;


Your question #2: And in this linked source does it say "In 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreements which included a payment by Kinross of approximately $US 40 million"? --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Response: See page MDA 36 on 2015 Kinross Gold Annual Report which states the amounts for the settlements were: "All of the claims in the Ontario Action were settled for CDN$12.5 million" and "The action was settled for $33 million". $Cdn 12.5 million plus $US 30 million is equal to approximately $US 40 million. I will fix the link so that it goes to the PDF version of the document. Thanks!

Thank you, that is most helpful, it didn't show up when I looked on the original page, I am currently reviewing. In future, could you please use citation templates (I am thinking specifically about the Maricunga Gold Mine section). --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Found it, thanks, however is this covered by third party sources, meaning, who says that this is important? What makes this one any more notable than any other. Kinross, along with several other companies, are subject to lawsuits all the time. This one seems to have been settled without admission of liability, and covered by the companies insurance. Wikipedia articles are not regurgitation of financial circulars. First party sources (such as the financial statement or the court documents) are suitable for basic descriptions of the company, however when you start getting into lawsuits, etc, their importance must be sourced using third party sources (newspapers, magazines, books, etc). First party sources can be used to verify basic facts, however the notability of the lawsuit (for example) would have to be established prior to inclusion. Once that is done, the settlements (if not covered in the third party sources) can be referenced using the MDA. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Kelapstick. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your safety

I'm actually watching How It's Made for you: they're making ventilation things for in mines. Very exciting. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ventilation things for in mines, that is a rather... non-descriptive description. Is it the ducting, I toured a ducting factory in Saskatoon once, it is quite interesting. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, duct work, of two different kinds. Quite interesting--I just wished they also showed all the other mechanisms involved, and I wanted to see a schematic drawing of the whole system, with you drinking a beer and waving at the camera. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The mass revert and semi-protection made sense, even though some bias such as better known as... were revived after you killed off all the other bias he added. You may have gotten rid of the infobox I fixed up but overall you did a very good job. -- AI RPer (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sachin Jazze, I just protected the page though. Didn't do any reverts. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

TIME Internet - deleted page TIME Internet (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Dear @Kelapstick:, I've been trying to create TIME Internet page but constantly got deleted, would like to re-create the page again with proper citations this time. How will I be able to do so? Dewis Lurther (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

cc to you

I wish to write to you and every member of the Arbitration Committee. There is no mechanism to do so other than a formal complaint against a specific member or group of members. Please do not be bureaucratic and send me on a path of red tape. I will merely inform you and hope you have the ethics to try to resolve this matter.

The complaint is against certain groups of Wikipedians who do not keep the best interest of Wikipedia in mind but pursue political agendas.

A few weeks ago, I saw an article "Malia Obama (celebrity)". This was a reasonably written but still young article. However, it was deleted using false pretenses as an "attack piece". The problem is the President of the United States wanted to shield his daughters from the media but that is not a reason not to have an article. Evidence that there is wrong doing is deletion of this article as an "attack piece" and banning the editor permanently.

Please discuss it among the committee to stop this kind of Wikipedia manipulation. At the very least, the article should be restored, editor unblocked, and then someone can go through the regular deletion nomination. However, it is ludicrous that Malia Obama is deemed an attack piece or not notable. Another note is she is no longer a minor, one excuse used years ago for deletion.

Please find it in your heart to do the right thing. By bringing this up with you, it is very risky that I will be blocked indefinitely on some flimsy excuse but it is important that we keep Wikipedia (or try to keep it) a neutral and un-manipulated website. Afghandeaths (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This is being discussed on my talk page. Fences&Windows 18:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Kelapstick.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Kelapstick,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kelapstick. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about

Hey EshalImadian1 (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I wanna make a page for Ali Shanawa EshalImadian1 (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Shanawar* EshalImadian1 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And who said he is not notable. I am not Syed or from his religion yes i am muslim but i am not syed shia i want to support them thats all please allow me of doing such EshalImadian1 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Rita Jeptoo (cropped) 1.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rita Jeptoo (cropped) 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Here We Come A-wassailing

Merry Christmas! Better not open the box! The Bishonen Conglomerate talk 11:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC).

I always worry when the Bish and Co. come a mummering, they drink all my whiskey, and leave the house a mess. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks Doug, while I didn't get to be home for Christmas this year, I did make what turned out to be an excellent BBQ Turkey for some friends. And introduced stuffing/dressing to an Indonesian and South African. A successful holiday all around. Hope yours was a good one. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Sounds great. It's a good thing to do with turkey legs, must be even better with a whole turkey! Doug Weller talk 09:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
It was a lot of trial and error, but turned out great. Started out in a roasting pan, and ended up straight on the grill on indirect heat. Much of the stuffing was makeshift (and I had never made it from scratch before), because of limited vegetable options (like you can't get celery), so I just hacked off some random stuff from my flatmate's garden. Still turned out alright. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

COSMETICBOT policy

The policy is violated daily by many editors and bots because it is not explicit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kelapstick!

Happy New Year!

Kelapstick,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what this means

h.is.thatCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.152.68.108 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelapstick/Archive_8&oldid=1143110516"