User talk:Khukri/archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
←Archive 6 (251 - 300) Khukri's talk archive 7 (301 - 350). Please do not modify Archive 8 (351 - 400)→

NI Flag Userbox[edit]

Thanks, I've left a note for the previous user who deleted it on their talk page. How do I go about preventing it from appearing on that list? beano 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Richardson[edit]

Thanks for the block, was getting personal attacks left right and centre for a while there! Liverpool Scouse 12:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk archive[edit]

Just noticed you placed an archive in mainspace Khukri/archive - this should probably be moved to your userspace. Darksun 15:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good spot. Many thanks. Khukri 15:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG ADMIN ABUSE DESYSOP HIM NOW! mmm, what's up, beside that? It's been a long time since we last crossed each other onwiki :) -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[edit]

I'm sorry I'm just a little confused. I notice that you emptied this report but not only is it registered to an education institution, but it's been blocked more then once for vandalism. If it really is just that they need to be warned a couple more times before they fit the criterion for blocking, then I apologize and please disregard this message. However if you look on this history I can find little or no constructive editing. Thanks for your time. --Amaraiel 15:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy on blocking is quite clear at the top of the WP:AIV page, that an editor must have received a recent final warning prior to a block being issued, though this may be wavered in extreme cases. There were no warnings issued and only 2 offences in 6 months doesn't put it any where near being a problem IP so I removed it. Being an educational establishment we have to assume good faith and that there is a chance the kid might not know better, so we have to give them at least one warning to point them in the right direction before a block is applied. Any further quests don't hesitate to get in touch. Khukri 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr Richardson[edit]

I replied to your comment on my talk page. Perhaps I should add that I saw your block specified incivility, so I was unsure if you were aware that the user had made blatant vandalism as well. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Do you know where i can go to suggest creation of a user-warning template (on title) or should i just go ahead and do it? Simply south 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Go here and state what you want the warning for and the guys there will point you in the right direction. Cheers Khukri 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User pages[edit]

I have come across numerous user pages where, they have only be created to advertise. I was wondering what to do with them. Oysterguitarist 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Put a speedy delete tag on them as spam. I'll take a look if you wish. Khukri 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Oysterguitarist 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Solar Cell vandalism[edit]

Hi, i requested to block from both ip's the whole range, can you explain why you didn't and removed the request [[1]]? Mion 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because looking at the article history a rangeblock is not required, and is only done as a last resort. If you are unsatisified with this please take it to WP:ANI. Regards Khukri 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
no, i thought maybe an admin thats to lazy to do the job, np others have to keep reverting all the time. Nevermind. I'll stop reverting.Mion 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Steady on, it's nothing to do with lazy, and if you stopped to think about your comment it's more work for us to investigate each IP's action than do a range block, so I suggest you think before you type in anger. A range block is only used as a last resort, bot attacks etc. 20/30 cases or so of similar vandalism from varying IP's over 1 week does not warrant blocking hundreds to thousands of IP's. Khukri 17:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
haha, yes i know, its about the same amount of work to block them all as i have to put a blatantvandal template on it, so i understand, that, about lazy i'll take it back, as you have enough to do at the antivandal page, lets hope its stops by itself -:) Cheers Mion 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've protected the article for a month, that should cut back on the problems OK. Khukri 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Perfect solution, thanks for helping out. Mion 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


You reverted my recent edit to {{uw-test1}} using popups. Since this did not leave a meaningful edit summary, I'd like to ask you what you found objectionable in the change. Personally, I simply feel that it's somewhat disingenious to tell a newbie, for example, "Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Trade and usage of saffron on Wikipedia", when we most certainly don't want them to continue experimenting on that page. I felt that my edit, which moved the article name (if given) to the following sentence, made the intent of the message clearer, but I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I did mean to leave you a message, but got caught up in a huge amount of vandalism. Firstly all the uw- series of warnings have been gone over in some detail. Though we in no way will stop anyone editing them it's better to pass by WP:UW first, as these templates have been harmonised (all 150 of them) and read in the same way etc. The level 1 templates are very much assume good faith, level 2 is no assumption of intention, and 3 and 4 are for the wrongdoers. This template is issued to those who we are unsure of their edits, they have no history of vandalism, nothing suspect, so we do thank them and gently point them in the right direction, hence the reason I reverted your change. They have been discussed in detail when we started these warnings, though please bring up your ideas at WP:UW. Cheers Khukri 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've proposed it there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks. I'm overwhelmed. I appreciate that very much. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Barnes[edit]

Thanks. Can't say I'm his greatest fan, but the article should be well written. :-) Shudde talk 08:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is more that could be mentioned, but much of it is regarding Paddy O'Brien and how referees have been appointed. The whole thing about how much touch judges are allowed to intervene etc etc. I have resisted putting this in the Barnes article because it's not really specific to him and I don't want to content fork. I posted a message at Talk:2007 Rugby World Cup#Controversies regarding all this. There is no dispute the pass was forward, and I think that is clear in the Barnes article. Certainly feel free to expand the article regardless though. It's just I'm trying to be careful about what I add because I'm a Kiwi! - Shudde talk 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Antebellum Bulldog[edit]

You recently deleted Antebellum Bulldog as a copyvio from; however, on comparing the two I can't see a resemblance other than being on the same subject. I've undeleted the article for the moment at the request of the author as I can see no valid deletion reason, but if there is something I'm missing here could you let me know? iridescent (talk to me!) 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Still looks like copyvio to me from here, just with a few words changed round.

Article: The Altamaha Plantation Bully is a long bodied stocky, strong-looking dog. Its coat is short and either white or white with patches.

Wikipedia: The Antebellum Bulldog/Altamaha Plantation Bully is a long bodied stocky, strong-looking dog. Its coat is short and either all white or white with patches.

looks very similar to me and it's not the only wording that's been lifted from this article.

Cheers Khukri 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on further inspection you're right. I hadn't noticed just how much they'd just swapped paragraphs around, I thought they'd actually re-written it in their own words. I'll re-delete it. iridescent (talk to me!) 15:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Cheers Khukri 19:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
≤I hope that I am doing this in the correct manner.≥ ≤I am the author of both articles and would like to request they be re-established. I apologize for the inconvience that my lack of knowledge in properly placing the GFDL where ever it needed to be. Kudos to you for finding my mistake so quickly, however is there any way you can re-install my work with out me having to completely re-build it.≥ ≤I has taken me days to figure out how to find and talk to you and it was embarrassingly difficult to build the wiki page.≥ [Thank you for understanding Cole MaxwellCole 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)]
No problems at all, I've re-created the page here for you to work on. Remove all of the copyrighy infringements, and I'd suggest also trying to make it more encyclopedic. Phrases like Altamaha Plantation Dogs can make great family dogs despite their large size and intimidating looks. An Altamaha Plantation Bully is typically a laid back and friendly bulldog. They are an assertive bulldog that is at ease with family and fine with strangers who are welcomed by family or as they get to know the stranger in question. read very poorly and if you are going to add that they are a friendly dog etc I'd cite references as well, from organisations such as the kennel club, etc. Once done, let me know I'll have a look and if OK move the document back over to article space for you. Khukri 05:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on it. Please be patient with me it will take some time and I will get back to you and Iridescent.Cole 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Update, I followed the Wikipedian instructions
"2 Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published especially online, and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of

copyright, stating that you are the copyright holder of the work on the article's talk page helps, but will not likely prevent deletion. It is sufficient to either: Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication; or Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation."

I sent an email to permisissions-en at wikimedia dot org from the web site. Hopefully this will resolve getting the copyright problem out of the way. I intend to still follow your expert advice on writting the information in an encyclopedic format. Any advice or criticism would be greatly appreciated. I have pretty thick skin and would like to promote the quality that Wikipedia represents.

Very Respectfully, Cole 01:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

weird message re D&H Canal[edit]

It was meant for a user's talk page, to which I have removed it. Daniel Case 03:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article Help[edit]

Sorry, I'm new at this. You deleted my article on the "Woodbury Corporation" because (I'm guessing) I failed to state why the organization was noteworthy. I would like an opportunity to fix the problem with my article. I gathered from some of the help pages, that I need to check with you before doing this. Please let me know when I can try again. Thank you! --Twoodbury 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)



Hibiscus india.JPG


Heya ;). I've just seen that your page beared the semi protection padlock, but the protection has faded. Just to let you know ;). -- lucasbfr talk 09:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers buddy, I've commented it out for now as I'm not that active at the mo so not being targeted by the vandals, though no doubt in a month or so when I start back up again, I'll need to put it back. Cheers Khukri 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: hey from R[edit]

Please see here for a reply. Thanks --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 04:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Old CERN edit[edit]

I'm glad you're not semi-protected.

You made an odd little revert at:

...about a month ago. It looks like it's all cleared up now though. I had to change it three times before people stopped changing it back. There's a section in the talk page. I may yet be defeated.

- Misha (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw the changes, as naturally it something in my watchlist. The article is a linguists nightmare, it's supposed to be based on British/European English though the title of CERN is Americanised English i.e. Organization as opposed to Organisation. Though as someone put on the talk page it use centre instead of center, and in that regard the other editor is correct. I would personally go for led, though I disagree with the spelling as it was, I reverted it due to what's called manual of style change, but grammatically the argument can go on for ever and unfortunatly in this case Wikipedia's style guide is of no real help here, hence the reason I've not pushed the case. On a side note if you wish to link to an article in wikipedia it's not necessary to add the whole link you can write it like [[CERN]] which gives you this CERN. Any problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khukri 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


He was warned many times, Beh-name removed the warnings and placed it in his archives so to fool others. Please see his archives for further!--[[--Hurooz (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote and the message, there was no final warning your warning was over a week ago which is not recent. This problem is a content dispute not vandalism, please read here and as I suggested earlier take it to WP:RFC. Khukri 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Do not assume anything with your edit summaries on my talk page, I saw your change in the edit conflict, noted it, but overwrote it. I have a better idea about what may or may not be done with a talk page, and the fact that everything is stored in the history, means I do know better. Khukri 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
ok sorry!--Hurooz (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-)[edit]

View of loch lomond.JPG

By your command[edit]

Thank you, sir! I am honoured by your faith in me, and would be most honoured to be nominated for admin service. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Khukri. Have you started working on this yet? I would like to add a co-nom.--Kubigula (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We're just getting the ball rolling at the mo, and I certainly have no probs with a co-nom. I'll most probably start the page over the weekend. If Kral is OK then not a problem. Cheers Khukri 22:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No worries from me ... well, depending on your response to either of my two emails. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Slon in Sadež deletion[edit]

I tried to explain why the page Slon in sadež shouldn't be deleted, but it was, before I could put up the {{holdon}} sign so I shall explain it here again.

I can't see why this article should be deleted. The band has been active for 6 years, issued 3 CD-s and has its own radio show. Also, the slovenian page has been there for 2 years without anyone questioning the band's significance. Infact, this page was started from a red link at the page List of Slovenian musicians.

Even if the article still doesn't fit Wikipedia's importance policies, I would ask to get the source back. Cptukbo (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not to do with importance, but it's about demonstrating notability. Having a quick look around the web I could only find lyrics downloads sites, and nothing to demonstrate notability, and it looked like any number of other promotional articles we see everyday for non-notable bands. However I like others make mistakes so I suggest raising this article at Wikipedia:Deletion review and they will be more than willing to examine my deletion. This is the last version. Regards Khukri 15:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Tagging.[edit]

Hi there, I've been going through checking on the speedy delete list and saw you tagged Otherkin. I'm not sure if you checked the history, though it looks like it's a fringe subject that did have an article that had been previously vandalised, and had gone unnoticed. I've now put the document to an earlier version and removed the speedy tag. Cheers Khukri 15:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal. I just checked the said article and it looks like it is a legitimate article before it was repeatedly vandalized. I was supposed to undo my mistake when I saw your message on my talk page. Cheers. E Wing (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No probs Khukri 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA support[edit]

One of my favorite places Dear Khukri,

Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. Thanks for your willingness to co-nom. The thing just took of with a life of its own. Thanks for your confidence.

Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


When tagging new images in the upload log I have noticed that there are some users that continue to keep uploading images with no source information, I was wondering if and how I should deal with these users, also I have noticed that some images that are uploaded are uploaded just to be inappropriate and was wondering what I should do with them(those would be the one's that actually have source information). Oysterguitarist 17:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply in detail tomorrow, just passing through. But in brief images with no licence usually get picked up by a bot, and the uploader is notified, if not they are usually given 7 days (I think) to provided source info before it's deleted. For inappropriate images the speedy crtieria can be found here, but remember Wikipedia isn't censored and an images appropriateness is often subjective. Cheers Khukri 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Oysterguitarist 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris Hunter (author)[edit]

Hello Khurki,

I noticed you deleted my article on Chris Hunter the author of Eight Lives Down. I work for his publishers and the entire biography was sanctioned and came straight from him. The notice on the page said it did not state how the subject was notable - isn't an author a valid entry in an encyclopedia? He also differs from the other billions of authors by being the first person to write about being a bomb disposal operator in Iraq, a relatively new genre. Please explain the reasoning to me.

Thank you

--Lynseydalladay (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI & WP:NOTABLE. Khukri 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid if possible I'm going to need you to clarify. There is no conflict of interest, as it was an entirely neutral biography, not designed to draw attention or increase book sales but designed as further reading for anyone who had an interest in the subject. As for notability, the subject was worthy of notice especially in a topical way, as the only bomb disposal operator to have spoken of his time in Iraq, which has no bearing on popularity, fame or importance. So if you could please clarify as I did dispute the deletion before you deleted and you seem to not have a valid reason. Thank you --Lynseydalladay (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually when a publisher wishes to add a book it's not for encyclopedic interests, but to further their own goals. If this is not the case then please accept my apologise, and take it to deletion review where other editors will be able to assess the notability and if they believe it has conflict of interest or not. Regards Khukri 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Khukri, I just made a rather lengthy entry to support keeping this article on the AfD that you started. Just wanted to say outright that I think your "speedy" was justified based on the information you had to go on (besides the obvious COI problems) and I would have done the same thing if I were sysop. Thanks for bringing it so cordially to AfD. Just wanted you to know that although I have written what looks like a screed, in no way do I think your nom was bad faith. (I surprised myself by deciding keep :-) Cheers! Keeper | 76 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem at all, and thanks for the message. However I didn't put the initial speedy on the article, I just agreed with it when scanning through the candidates for speedy deletion, but took it to ANI for further input. Cheers Khukri 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, absolutely right. I made an assumption there. Either way, thanks for doin' what you do. Looking at your talk page here, it looks like you get all sorts of the "hey, that article was mine, why did you delete it. Keep up the good -- Keeper | 76 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not as bad as it looks I do turn down some articles that have been put up for speedy..... honest. Khukri 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Lol. I wasn't being accusational, but praise-ational. You do good work. (and I did check contribs. You rock.) As a humble non-admin, non-anything gnome, I'll just say I'm glad you're here and do what you do. I'll even add...


Happy editing, Keeper | 76 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Al-Mulla and Behbehani Motor Company[edit]

Hello Khukri,

Can I just ask why the above mentioned article was deleted so quickly, without giving me time to complete it? Despite not being fully completed, I understand it was marked for "speedy deletion because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable". However, I used the "hang on" tag to give me more time. Nothing was discussed as to why it wasn't worth having either. The article wasn't finished and I spent over an hour putting the beginning together, simply because it ties in with Chrysler LLC's operations abroad - specifically one of the markets in the Middle East. I created the article because reckoned it would be worth having under a Middle East sub-category, under the category Chrysler (just like there is one for the UK, Europe, Canada and Australia). Despite being a minor Chrysler-related article, it still fitted in.

Also, what is the criteria based on, which determines whether or not an article is worthy to be Wikipedia? If anything somebody reckons isn't worth having will be deleted, maybe I shouldn't waste any more of my time contributing to something that will be taken off sooner rather than later.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M75 (talkcontribs)

Simply put it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Let me put it this way in what way does this garage differ from any of the other ten's of thousands of car dealerships in the world, or in the middle east? If you feel this article does meet the notability guidelines I do make mistakes, so please take it to deletion review stating your rationale. cheers Khukri 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My article[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Matthias Hinze. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kitty53 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the article on Matthias Hinze. Would you be so kind as to restore it, please?Kitty53 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As you have asked for a deletion review I will leave my comment there, so I will not restore it. Khukri 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Daril Hutton[edit]

Regarding this edit, I'm presuming this was the same article. Created by the same user. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK didn't show up in the deletion logs due to the syntax, I'll have a look at the AfD. Ta Khukri 11:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting of Details[edit]

Hi Khukri,

I've uploaded details of my upcoming Graphic Novel which i have already purchased the necessary details such as a website. Must i provide more information as well? pls advice. Thanks.

Cheers! Fabian G. Hendricks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thearchofheaven (talkcontribs) 09:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all your novel fell foul of three things conflict of interest, notability, and what is known as crystal ball. For an article to be noteworthy one of the many criteria is it has to be verifiable by 3rd party sources. Now ask yourself a question, is your book of encyclopedic interest, and what makes it notable that it should be included, or are you using wikipedia as a form of publicity? Unfortunately I/we see hundreds or article created everyday that are important to the editor but are not valid encyclopedic articles, and breach all of the above guidelines. Sorry. Khukri 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang[edit]

Hello there - I have re-added the speedy tag. I wasn't complaining about the title, it is a duplicate page of the article Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (Torchwood episode) which exists as a redirect page. StuartDD contributions 10:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No problems with that, but you have articles for all the series one articles, would it not be better to move this article over to the redirect page? cheers Khukri 10:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't really know enough about the episode to warrant a separate page just now(the current page shows that), so a redirect is better till just now. I'll add the information to the episode article just now, and we can start the page later. StuartDD contributions 10:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, no probs deleted. Khukri 10:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Meteor Vineyard deletion[edit]

Dear Khukri,

We use Wikipedia and greatly value the trust we can place in it as a resource. Of course, our intent is to honor the principles and policies of the site. Yesterday, I tried to enter to completely new postings that I thought conformed to your requirements. One is for Dawnine Dyer, a wine world pioneer. The other is for Meteor Vineyards. I think I may have erred in posting a photograph of the Meteor Vineyards wine.

Beyond, that, I was utilizing verifiable information and third party quotes in keeping with your practices.

I have researched other similar properties on Wikipedia, I have properly cited by material, and I included newsworthy and pertinent photos that have been approved by a photographer. I do not understand why this has been deleted.

We are not trying to blatantly advertise Meteor Vineyard, but rather to post encylopedic information about a vineyard that is considered remarkable by numerous esteemed wine properties. I researched and you have other wineries and winemakers in Wikipedia such as Stags' Leap Winery and Francis Ford Coppola. Why can't Meteor Vineyards be an addition to your Wikipedia wine collection?

I look forward to your response and consideration.

Sincerely, Ashley Teplin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio707 (talkcontribs) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Studio 707 is a Napa Valley public relations firm; here's a partial client list, which includes Meteor Vineyards: --Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, notability hadn't been asserted, and now looks like COI as well.
In response to the original question, I haven't seen those articles, and the status of those articles isn't at issue. If you feel that you are not trying to use Wikipedia to publicise these vineyards, your relations company doesn't have a conflict of interest and that the vineyards have notability, then please take it to WP:DRV. Khukri 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Can you take a look at his unblock request here, thanks. --Chris 07:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I've unblocked, usually vandals aren't that insistant on being unblocked but it could be a precursor to a vandalism spree. If you could keep and eye on him as well would be appreciated. Cheers Khukri 09:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, they'd like to know if you would please undelete their userpage (request here). Thanks! SQLQuery me! 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers Khukri 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Watt[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michelle Watt. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (I closed the initial AfD).Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Power Symphony[edit]

Hi, I saw you deleted the Power Symphony page. What was the reason? I believe it was appropriate content. Thanks Sklivvz (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Because there was no assertion of notability or verifiable 3rd party sources to show notability. To make it easier, if you can imagine the numbers of bands/groups in the world who think they're important and wish publicise themselves on Wikipedia, read the link and define what make this group notable compared to all the others. Cheers Khukri 13:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. To be honest I did put a comment in the talk page with a claim for notability (2 albums released by a label independent from the band -- Crash Music --, worldwide distribution, currently on sale on Amazon and iTunes -- I am mentioning this just as reference, I have no interest in promoting the band, I just want to help Wikipedia). Does this satisfy the criterion of notability? If not I will not push the matter further, especially because I'm in C.O.I. on this. Regards, Sklivvz (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
OK as you've asserted there is notability, means the article cannot be speedy deleted, and must go through the formal AfD process to have a wider concensus. I'm not going to do it now, as I've only just got in but will sort it all out in the morning for you. Cheers Khukri 23:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will provide more details and references on the AfD discussion if it is useful. Regards, Sklivvz (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that nobody has to object and the article is considered notable... can I remove the AfDM notice from the article? Regards, Sklivvz (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Stell still exists after it's article was deleted[edit]

A tag has been placed on Talk:Steve Stell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Associated article has been deleted.

JERRY talk contribs 03:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)



We need help at the Singh article because it is constantly being vandalised by some IP addresses and a profile called User:Harrybabbar.

Sikh Historian and myself, Gurkhaboy, are trying to work on an article which brings a balanced approach to the name Singh which is used by both Hindus and Sikhs in the subcontinent and can be found among many fighting groups including the Gurkhas.

Individuals such as Harrybabbar have been making claims that Singh was not used by Rajputs as a common middle name and that Singh is more of a Sikh phenomenon. He changes statements in the article to discredit Rajputs and make Sikhs look more martial which is not only unprofessional but completely incorrect. Even the Phulkian states (Sikh royalty) claimed Rajput descendency as is recorded by the Dutch East India Company archives (which can be viewed on line), but also is mentioned in the History of the Sikhs by Joseph Davey Cunningham.

If one looks at the Dutch East India Company archives kept in England, the geneologies of the royal families of India and Nepal are recorded with Singh being used by many families and the House of Udaipur using the name right from the 7th century. I could go on, but there is not real point to waste your time on providing evidence now.

Then comes the claim that the majority of the British Indian forces were Sikh thus making the Singh name famous. He fails to understand that there were many famous regiments, far more famous were the Gurkhas and the Rajputs to the point that Sir James Guthrie's painting "Statesmen of World War I" present only one Indian among all the White Anglo men and that General Sir Maharaja Ganga Singh of Bikaner. To this day Gurkhas serve the British forces.

Furthermore, although the Sikhs made huge contributions to the British Indian Army, Sikh Historian agrees with me on the fact that the name Singh belongs to many martial groups and all should be represented with the truth and not hijacked by the Sikhs.

Please do help us.


Gorkhali (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have zero expertise in this area, though I have issued a warning and will watch for further activity. Normally you would issue the warnings and maybe take it to WP:AIV though if you are not sure if it's vandalism you could take it to WP:RFC or in worse case WP:ANI. Regards Khukri 13:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Khukri,

I appreciate your intervention. I did not know whom to report it to or how. In any case, I am glad you have givne him a warning and hopefully this will stop. I saw that your name was Khukri and figured you would understand the Gurkha side of the arguement. Sikh Historian and myself are trying to make it a balanced article and accurate with references, however Harrybabbar comes in and tries to make it mainly a Sikh article with outrageuos claims.

Thank you again for your intervention, Sincerely, Gorkhali (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Khukri,

Harrybabbar has disregarded your warning. He is putting up his POVs and vandalism once again.


Gorkhali (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Khukuri,

I apologise for bringing this up on Christmas, Harrybabbar is up to his usual POVs and vandalism again. He also asked me to put up my photograph "to compare who the Real Singhs are" and has also asked me to meet him for a "coffee" and "discuss" this issue in person.

I am not sure, should I just give up and allow him to do what he wants to Singh article and distort to his POVs. He is persistent, I give him that, but his lack of knowledge is overwhelming and his willingness to deny the truth of history and the history of many people of the subcontinent (including Gurkhas) is amazing.

Again, I sincerely apologise for bringing this up today. I just did not want to forget to inform you.

All the best for the holiday season.


Gorkhali (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

edit warring[edit]

Hello Khukri, I blocked User:Ophois for edit-warring (1 week due to the number of articles, number of reverts, and he was blocked before for that), and intended to do something similar for User:Electrobe, but saw that you removed him from AIV. As it is unfair to thread them unequal: How should we proceed. Regards --Oxymoron83 10:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've assumed good faith, and as they (or at least electrobe) wasn't warned that they deserve at least a message/final warning saying that someone is keeping an eye on them. I'm going round all parties now, leaving messages to take it to discussion pages before it goes any further. Cheers for the heads up. Ah just looking I'd left him him a message. My thoughts would be remove the block, and give them all a final warning. Khukri 10:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Argh, 1 minute too late :) I'm going to leave another warning on his talk page, if he proceeds, someone may reinstate the block immediately. --Oxymoron83 11:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I'm going round leaving messages to all parties and User:Electrobe has agreed to discuss any more changes, though I will be keeping an eye on their contributions for the next couple of days. Khukri 11:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response regarding User:Electrobe. Sorry for the misplaced report... I was planning on filing a 3RR report, but the number of violations and the refusal to discuss seemed to suggest a more direct approach. Hopefully, the user will take your suggestions to heart. Any suggestions as to the proper forum for reporting such actions in the future (not just with regards to this editor, but in general)? Thanks in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 10:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Parser functions[edit]

Hi, Khukri . How are you? I hope everthing's fine with you. I'm having problems with the show/hide functions of the templates. For example, i prepared almost a year ago Template:Equipment of the Turkish Navy. Although the contents was hidden at the beginning, now it shows the full contents list and clutters the pages where it's being used. I could not fix it. Could you please help me to fix the show/hide status of the template? Kind regards. E104421 (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved: Khukri 13:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. So fast, so good. Best wishes. E104421 (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Aliya-Jasmine Sovani[edit]

Please forgive me but I am a newbie to creating wikipedia pages and am still learning everything there is to know about posting properly sourced and written articles. That having been said, I am writing in regards to the 'Aliya-Jasmine Sovani' page which has been blocked from creation. I would like redirect the 'Aylia-Jasmine Sovani' page to the correct spelling of her name. If you could help me that would be great. Please delete the incorrect spelt one. 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Jamie

====Aylia-Jasmine Sovani====
Aylia-Jasmine Sovani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was deleted ,however,the incorrect spelling of her name Aliya-Jasmin Sovani page is still up. I would like to redirect this page to the correct spelling of her name. Jamierush (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Jamie


Hi, Khukri, how do you define the word "recent"? MSGJ (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I saw you left your message on the bottom of the talk page after I'd removed your report to AIV. Normally final warnings are of the WP:UTM type and so it's clear to see, so yes you did give a final warning but I missed it as it was a written message (no problems with that though). After I'd realised you had warned, I kept an eye on the vandal for about an hour to see if there was any further activity and then I would have blocked, but nothing came about. Blocking isn't for punishment, it's to stop further problems for the project, and most probably who ever it was has moved on to another lesson now. Now in answer to your question I started a discussion here about the same thing. To me it's if its from an IP where there's a chance that the same editor is going to return in the near future and continue the same thing. From static IP's or high vandalism institution I'd maybe block if the final warning was up to 24-48 hours, normally however I only block if the activity is within the last 12 hours. Any other problems don't hesitate to give me a shout, and again sry for the confusion. Khukri 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletions[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me why the article Sofa (Canadian band) was deleted by you - the deletion log reason was "Content is...". I nominated it for speedy deletion a few days back, and it got rejected as just scraping notability. What changed? mattbuck (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see where your CSD was refused. There was one a year ago, which was declined incorrectly by a non admin, but I can't see your request being delcined. Also I can't see any assertion of notability as to why it would be overturned and is a classic nn-band in my opinion. Khukri 10:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Query on blocks[edit]

Hello. Everything has been going quite well with my newly minted adminship and I have really enjoyed helping out at WP:AIV, however something happened today to give me pause and make me wonder if I am blocking correctly. Unfortunately the admin who planted this seed of doubt in my mind apparently does not want to give me constructive feedback, so I was hoping that you could review the situation and tell me where I screwed up. The whole thing boils down to my confusion, the answer that did not, and my unanswered followup. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you've run into what is becoming more frequently common on Wikipedia and expecially AIV, where admins own beliefs are deciding on how a block should be issued. Classic example is the I take a dim view statement, this is expressly not forbidden but is Daniel's own interpretation. There are many admins who have their own criteria for blocking, and whilst there was nothing wrong with Daniels actions (lets face it was vandalism though I did prefer his kidding around outlook) to me it shouldn't have been blocked. We have a glaring statement on the top of AIV about recent warnings and in my opinion does make us seem a tad gung ho if we can't stick to our own rules for applying blocks, and leaves us open for all sorts of accusations for abuse of power. I have gone in to remove many a warning to find myself in edit conflict with the bot, as someone has applied the block when there was no final warning or it was a month old and were blocked for innocuous vandalism.
Though you have to remember in all of this that there are no rules in place in WP:BLOCK or WP:VANDALISM just the criteria that could warrant a block, so in essence you could block someone for a first offence if you so desired. My recommendation is you have your own criteria for blocking either in your head or as a personal statement and stick to it, it's very easy to go down the slippery slope of splashing blocks around in the "I can so I will" mentality. And when you come across someone that has blocked or has removed something you would block, shrug your shoulders and say to yourself OK so they have different criteria to me. You will tend to have a list in your head of admins who you will find have similar criteria and those who you disagree with often.
Now me personally with IP's I very very rarely block if the recent warning is more than 24 hours old, unless there's clear evidence it's a static IP. I've tried to get a couple of discussions going at AIV about what constitutes recent, how many blocks should be given, when is it OK to use an IM warning etc. I would like to see an essay with a load of case studies that tries to define greater boundaries on when we should and shouldn't block, but I will lay money the same as with the icons in WP:UW, that alot of editors/admins will refuse such an article and screw assume good faith, but most don't have reasons why they don't want things, except it's a change. At the moment we all roughly sing of the same him hymn sheet, though some just sing differently than others. sry can't be of much more help. Khukri 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You may not think so, but I found your answers to be quite helpful! This essentially confirmed my growing suspicion that I need to keep my own set criteria in my head, and also that I appear to be erring on the side of caution (which as a new admin, I feel is far more preferable than going the other way). It also seems that you and I share a similar view on IP warnings and blocks; too many AIV reports point to a "last warning" that was issued weeks ago ... which is pointless for a dynamically assigned address. Thank you very much for help. As always, it is greatly appreciated! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir! Pls. Allow Obaid Azam Azmi[edit]

Obaid Azam Azmi

Respected sir!

Please allow me to edit Obaid Azam Azmi .

Yours Faith fully


Please HELP[edit]

Dear Khukri,

Me and the other Sikh wikipedians have real problem with vandalism and we need your help PLEASE. The Template:List of Sikh Gurus is being vandalized by anon ( who keeps on removing the 11th Guru of Sikhism, the holy Guru Granth Sahib from the table. Please revert his edits when he removes our dear & precious Guru - the Guru Granth Sahib from the table. He has also been vandalizing the other Sikh Guru articles including Guru Nanak.

Action you can do to help = Please can you semi-protect the template so only an established & respected editors can edit it.

--Sikh scholar (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Dear Khukri,

Please do not delete or block me just because your fellow Nepali tells you to do that, I have not vandalized the Singh article I have just put the things in right perspective....I have just added that Hindus used the name as SINH (सिंह) and Sikhs use the name SINGH.

Why don’t they just explain why it’s written as सिंह (Sinh) in Hindi when it could have been written as सिंघ (Singh).

Harry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybabbar (talkcontribs) 15:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Khukri,

Thank you for putting a block on editing.

Harrybabbar is not just contesting the Sinh and Singh aspect, he is also making erroneous statements on the article, altering footnoted sentences, and deleting references so that everything fits his POVs. He then goes around insulting other editors of the article.

He has previously made claims that 50% of the British Indian Army was Sikh:

"Singh as a name became more popular and better recoganized then Sinh after Sikhs became Singhs(as in Punjabi dialect), Sikh used to constitute almost 50% of British Army due to this Singh got better reorganization from British, Punjabi Diaspora across the world and Punjabization of India (in Films, Fashion, Food Habbits, Sports, Attitude) also helped in getting Singh as a name Internationalized, its actually at the start of 19th Century Rajputs and other Hindu (From Northren India to Nepal) communities discarded Sinh and started using Singh instead to match the brand name Sikhs had created for Singh name . Before 19th century also only very few Rajput kings used to use Sinh as there middle name e.g. Maharana Pratap, Prithvi Raj Chauhan (The legendary Rajput Kings) never used Sinh or Singh as there middle names."

This is from Harrybabbar. Its very ethnocentric, lacks any validity and clearly shows how he wishes to push his POVs.


Gorkhali (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Sikh scholar is a great Sikh Wikipedian. Harrybabbar insulted his religion, his family and his personal honour. In Sikhism this is highly offensive and people in India would find harrybabbar's perosnal attack highly offensive. If he harrybabber did a personal attack on me like that I would probably react in the same way. Harrybabber need to be permenately blocked for vandalism and personal attack on editors. If he does vandalism again block him permenately.--Sikh historian (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The edit history does not seem to match this interpretation. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Because you are not a Sikh you don't have the religious cultural knowledge of the highly offensive religious cultural insult he said to Sikh scholar
"do not refer yourself as Khalsa and insult such a pure word of our community" = To say this to a baptized Khalsa Sikh is the equivalent of saying his mother is a prostitute.--Sikh historian (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Khukri, someone has blocked Sikh scholar please unblock User:Sikh scholar one can understand his emotional outburst after the highly offensive religious insult he was subjected to. Lets not lose an expert Sikh Wikipedian over a vandal, only Wikipedia will suffer long term to lose a long time expert Wikipedian such as Sikh Scholar. Please do justice unblock him.--Sikh historian (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please speak to the blocking admin over this matter, it is not accepted that one admin undoes the block of another without VERY good reason. Though I have to say, whilst editing one should always take the moral high ground and follow correct channels for these types of issues, and not resort to threats etc. Regards Khukri 11:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


You keep erasing the strangelet material based in the non-true fact that is original research. Can you at least tell me how people solve a dispute of this type. I DO NOT QUOTE MY WORK. Do i have to raise this to wikipedians and show them my true identity? or there is a possible mediation without going so far? What is the normal procdure. Do you know it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See the articles talk page, and it has not been erased. Khukri 09:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


I became an admin on another wikipedia, and was wondering, when you put template in a block message it shows that in the message right? and can I use <!-- --> in tags too? thanks Oysterguitarist 06:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, when you block it's done through an admin only page and usually you leave one of the standard templated messages such as {{uw-vblock}} on the talk page. Can you give me more details? Cheers Khukri 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't have that in ours and I'm not sure how to change it. Oysterguitarist 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)