User:Kuru/archive-2007

My apology

I’ve had email discussions with Mr Dawkins and I find that this man is not open to any agreement, for instance he wrote a book review on a book which didn’t dismiss the theory of evolution, it just discussed the problems with the theory. The review he wrote was appalling he didn’t use real science and he poked fun at the author. When I wrote to Mr Dawkins just to ask him why he didn’t dismiss the author scientifically . He wrote a very rude message to me without actually using science. I think there should be a critics section on Mr Dawkins page, this is due to the fact he does not defend his believe he just attacks others.

For the record I am not even a creationist. 83.245.18.248 22:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry for any upset. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.245.18.248 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, none of us get to use Wikipedia articles to push our personal grievances against Richard Dawkins or anyone else. What you did is not acceptable in these parts, and could easily have gotten you banned from the site. Fortunately, we tend to be forgiving of one-off acts such as this, but you won't get many more chances if I have any say in it. I don't know whether Kuru is an admin, but I am ... and you can see that I followed up on your action when I saw it, tracked what else you'd done, and found your messages here. Your apology is noted, but you're off to a bad start. I suggest you get a user account and start to make some constructive edits, then we can forget about the whole thing. Metamagician3000 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that vandalism...

...on the Gaia page. I appreciate it. (Also, you may want to archive your Talk Page; it's a bit lengthy.)DroEsperanto 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I usually only archive once a quarter - so today just happens to be the big cleanup day.  :) Kuru ^talk 01:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You.

Please do not target one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking, as you did with User:Tlim7882. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kuru talk 04:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Just letting him know that he was wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.249.148 (talk • contribs).

That's a poor way to do it. Please use his talk page and start a discussion. Blanking people's user page is not acceptable. Kuru ^talk 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. He insists I was wrong, yet I researched the issue and found no record of the names he added, and the ones he took out were genuine Long islanders. Thanks again, Tlim7882 07:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - considering you beat me to about ten reverts last night, I was surprised you didn't beat me to that one.  :) Kuru ^talk 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Audio Books

The links I placed are all relevant and well known companies within the audio book industry. Just because a audio book site has commercial value does not mean it is spam. How you classify these links as spam baffles me. Perhaps this should go into some sort of arbitration rather than you threatening me with being blocked. freeb26 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else there is to explain. Zzuuzz has patiently and repeatedly pointed out Wikipedia's guidelines on external links and the policy on what Wikipedia is not. The links you are adding is simply a list of audio book vendors and providers, of which one is your own. The links add absolutely no content or context not already covered in the article. Additionally, there is already an external link to a very specific category in the open directory project, in which you may submit your own links. Feel absolutely free to use any of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, or to seek the opinions of other editors - I would welcome any additional input.

Unfortunately, you seem to be adding these links over and over again and they would appear to be simple self-promotional and commercial links. I would encourage you to add to the existing discussion on the article's talk page before any other edits to the article, and warn you that any other violations of our three revert rule will lead to a temporary block, as will continued re-insertion of inappropriate external links. Kuru ^talk 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the article Book to an older edit for me.

Masky 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - I think that's one of the few times I've actually walked into an article blindly to read it (as opposed to watching the recent changes log) and found it completely vandalized. Kuru ^talk 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the spam cleanup.

I noticed your cleanup on the mortgage page. I am new at this, so I had to ask the village pump what should be done. I have given the user a welcome message, and was about to remove the link, when I saw that you had already taken care of it. Have a great day, CodeCarpenter 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not see your post at the pump; mortgage is just one of the articles I have on my watchlist as it is often a target for spam. Thank you for your actual additions and content cleanup of the article - that's ten times more valuable than my spam mopping! Kuru ^talk 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

XO

I'm wondering where the user might be, as the page hasn't been vandalised now in a week :o But it's nice to get something else done on wikipedia besides checking that page :DD Thanks and Happy New Year! -Yupik 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

your message

Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia and I thought thats what you do. I picked a few articles and thought thats what I was supposed to do. thanks for letting me know Ldonna 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dallas Cowboys edits

A note on my edit of the Dallas Cowboys page. The very first sentence on the page read "The Dallas Cowboys are a bunch of faggots based in..." I went into the edit this page tab to delete this comment, but could not find the infringing word. Rather than spend all day trying to find it, I deleted the first few sentences. I apologize for the confusion. And on that note, could you teach me how to find these 'hidden' comments which seem to be embedded in several wiki entries? -- 70.113.97.222 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That particular article has received quite a bit a of vandalism of the last few days. That particular line was removed very quickly, but it looks like it was stuck in your browser's cache. You can play around with the "history" tab and see a list of all the edits; that helps to determine who made what edits and when. There's really not a way to "hide" text and have it display on the page (unless someone vandalizes a template being used on the page). Thanks for looking it to it, please leave me a message here or on the article's discussion page if you need any other help. Kuru ^talk 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

USA events

That Wikipedia is full of events only Americans care about? 201.50.175.80 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to "1863 - Yorkshire County Cricket Club is founded at the Adelphi Hotel in Sheffield, England"? Please do not remove content from the list without a valid reason. Kuru ^talk 05:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about cricket. That could be a very important institution in the history of this sport as far as I know. If you know it isn't, please remove it. That's as valid a reason as any. 201.50.175.80 05:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Of interest only to a specific country" is an unquantifiable and subjective reason for deleting content. If you'd like to propose some sort of guideline for culling articles based on world wide "interest", then feel free to debate on the article's talk page or at the village pump. Random deletions are a pointless waste of time. Kuru ^talk 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not. Wikipedia policy encourages people to edit without asking for permission and without discussing it before. If someone disagrees, then we discuss the issue. That's what I'm doing. 201.50.175.80 05:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've directed you to the appropriate places for discussion; you can also try the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year if your point is limited to the day of the year articles. I'm afraid that you've provided no other content to your edits that I can discern from your one line responses - if you'd like to draw up something more substantial, or respond to my assertion that your guideline is unquantifiable and subjective, I'd be delighted to hear it. Kuru ^talk 13:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

152.117.207.37

152.117.207.37 has vandalised Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. Andyroost 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My links being deleted

I'd like to say that I've only added links to pages I have added meaningful content to. I added a useful link to "how to read a credit report" alongside a Canadian publication, and just because it's not from the government it carries no weight. Seems a little shortsighted.

I also added a new section on the refinance page, then added a link in the reference section which simply acts as documentation as to where that information came from. I think that's more than fair if you add quality content to pages within Wikipedia.

How can I add links to site that provide useful information to pages on Wikipedia in the future?

I don't want to be a spammer. I want to contribute, but I also want to get recognition for doing so.

I also pulled this from your help pages: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

I know it also says generally you shouldn't link to blogs or websites without recognized authors, but if they are willing to keep my content, and not provide a link, I feel this system is lacking. Please let me know what we can do to resolve this. Should I use a citation right next to my additions so admin knows my additions are associated with my links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scot184 (talk • contribs).

I can't speak for the other editors that have reverted your links, but I'll outline my problem. You are linking to what is essentially your own blog, which is simply your personal, mostly uncited and unreferenced take on various topics related to the financial industry. It is completely unsuitable to use as an actual cite or reference. You may read about acceptable sources at WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V.

We really, really value people who add content to Wikipedia. It must, however, meet the policies and guidelines I linked to above; or it should be removed. People who remove the link to your blog without removing the content you added should probably put in a "cite needed" tag. Please understand that any content you add is contributing to a free product that is the work of millions of editors - there is no requirement to "recognize" individual contributions other than the edit log associated with each article. I'm sorry if you feel this is lacking.

The above deals with your usage of your blog as an official reference - adding it simply as an 'external link' in the appropriate section at the bottom of the article, is a different matter. My problem with this is that it is a unverifiable personal site with google ads all over it that has been added many times to several articles by the author of the site. You have re-added the site several times even after being warned on your talk page by another editor. This starts to cross into the spamming area, and I'm delighted that was not your intention.

If I could give you advice, please continue to add content with suitable references and to continue to contribute to this project! But if your site is as valuable as you say, let someone else add it as a resource and avoid the inherent conflict of interest. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 02:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I did not add any links since I was warned. I responded to you directly with my concerns. Secondly, my blog is not filled with google ads. It has less ads than most sites on the web. We all need to make money, and not everyone has huge donations coming at them.

I added my site as a reference. I did so because the article addition referred to my site. Makes perfect sense to me. And as I said before, if someone kept my added information, but deleted the reference, it wouldn't make too much sense.

Here's an example:

I added this entire section to the "refinance" page:

Types of Refinance

Rate and Term Refinance

This type of refinance refers to a change in the rate and term of an existing loan. A refinance is considered rate and term if the borrower secures a lower interest rate, or changes the terms of a loan to ensure a longer fixed period or a lower payment plan, without paying off any additional debts or taking any cash in hand.

Cash-Out Refinance

A refinance is considered cash-out when a borrower pays off other debts or advances money on top of their existing loan amount, while also changing the rate and term of the existing loan. It differs from a rate and term loan because the new loan amount is larger than the existing loan amount due to the additional cash taken with the new loan. If a borrower pays off credit cards or unrelated loans, or opens an equity line behind an existing mortgage, the new loan will be considered cash-out.

This is a fairly substantial part of the page. And this section has stuck around while my reference/external link have been removed. I added my reference back because I thought a competitor was removing it maliciously.

At this point I'd rather my information not be shared with Wikipedia if I'm deemed a spammer with a Google ads ridden site on "some unverifiable blog". Why would I want to contribute to a group that has little respect for me or my blog, despite the fact that I've provided clearly helpful and informative material? And who do I have to be for this information to be "cite-worthy"? A big corporation or the government? I really don't like this policy, because it relies on government publications to be the end-all in what is deemed legitimate.

Finally you mention I should find someone to recommend my blog as a useful reference. Obviously someone(editor of the refinance page) likes the information since it has survived this long. Why don't they recognize that and cite the source? I think that's fair. I'd rather someone recognize it's value instead of myself. Thanks for your time on this matter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scot184 (talk • contribs).

You added your link again[1] six minutes after you were explicitly asked not to on your talk page.[2] This was the sixth time the link had been removed from four different articles. This is your first time responding to any of these removals, and I appreciate the dialog.

Your site is indeed ad-heavy, let's not mince words here. At the time of this writing, and at the time of the link's removal, there was a bottom border with four ads, a side bar with five ads, and a ad link menu at the top with five more links. On several sub pages, there is more real estate devoted to ads than to content. I appreciate your "need to make money", but Wikipedia is not here to promote your business or to drive traffic to your site - if you feel you are owed a promotional link due to some contributions, then I'm afraid that is not the case. If you are claiming that your contributions are some sort of copyrighted material from your blog, then I would ask that you remove them immediately and allow others to add free content. I can assist you with this removal if you need it. Kuru ^talk 00:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me start by saying your condescending tone is simply uncalled for. My blog has less ads than 90% of websites online, and more quality content than 99%. My blog is filled with unique, helpful content intended to save homeowners money, and with the lack of a marketable product, I felt it was fair to get paid for my time and contributions through the use of contextual advertising. I hand-wrote over 125 page of content on my own, and don't appreciate my site being labeled an ad-engine. It's a very useful resource.

I understand the rules here at Wikipedia now, and don't plan on placing any external links on the site. And I didn't maliciously add my link back. I didn't see the "talk" section prior to placing the link again, so it was accidental. And this should be clear since I didn't place a new link since we opened our dialogue on this subject.

I do want to remove the refi types from that page since it is direct copy from my blog and I don't want any duplicate content issues. Thanks for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scot184 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I went ahead and removed the refinance types since it's my own original content, and I do not want to share it with Wikipedia nor break any guidelines using non-cited material. After all, it is just unsubstantiated information from a personal weblog. It hasn't been endorsed by the government or a large corporation. Please see that this information stays off Wikipedia. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scot184 (talk • contribs).

Done. I've moved material related to cash-out refi's to another section and left out the rate/term mention as there was very little material to cite. Kuru ^talk 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks

On the extra rv on Emo music. He was messing with it as fast as I was undoing thanks for catching it.--Xiahou 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

VBA Tutor

Hi I am the author of 'VBA Tutor'. I have provided my VBA Tutorial on the internet for the last 8 years. Any Google search for "VBA Tutor" will list my page first. I added a link to my Tutorial in the VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) reference page, which was deleted because you deemed it to be inappropriate. Nice to play God! However, I am unsure of why you consider it to be inappriopriate addition. Have you had a look at what I provide at my website? I provide five free lesson that provide a good introduction to VBA for anyone wanting to know how to use VBA, or as a general introduction to computer programming. If people wish to continue on to learn more advanced skills, then I offer 35 additional lessors for the large sum of US$11.00. Being retired, this small amount pays for my expenses to provide this service, by providing several web sites where VBA Tutor can be located. I offer considerable help via email to ANYONE who contacts me regarding a VBA issue. I do not charge for this personal help or make it conditional on being a purchaser of my VBA Tutor. I provide 'VBA Tutor' largely as a service to everyone. I added my link so people could find help if they needed it about VBA. If you do not want people to access help on how to use VBA from Wikipedia, then that is fine by me. Bye Gary Radley Warrnambool Australia gradley@bigpond.net.au —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.60.144 (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

You are simply adding a low content commercial link to promote your business. I don't see any possible way you could consider this not to be in violation of Wikipedia's external link guidelines. Please stop. Kuru ^talk 13:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, what means "low content blog"? –AlexDybenko 21:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again

Thanks again, my friend, for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I do appreciate it. --JFreeman ^(talk) 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I know how frustrating it is to have someone go on a spree during one of those rare backlogs on AIV. :) Kuru ^talk 00:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

low content

Hi, what means "low content blog"? Looks like my blog is certainly on a subject thanks AlexDybenko 18:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I think your blog is certainly neat, but I have several problems with including it in the list; all of which were outlined on the article's talk page before the link was removed. I would encourage you to participate in that discussion there. Please, please read the guidelines on external links beforehand; specifically the section on promoting your own personal blog. Kuru ^talk 19:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Duncan's wife

Could you explain your objections to including the fact that Duncan's wife is white? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lazio gio (talk • contribs) 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

It's utterly irrelevant to the article, and was added suspiciously in conjunction with an IP address that is trying to insert racist statements into a variety of articles. Kuru ^talk 04:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Spam

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had the talk page there bookmarked/watchlisted for quite some time and participate in the discussions occasionally; or jump in on the cleanups. I stand in awe of the amount of work users like you, A.B. and Eagle put into that project. Kuru ^talk 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Duncan's wife

Another user deleted it because he said it was unsubstantiated. Would you accept a photo of Tim Duncan with his family on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.129.64 (talk • contribs).

It's utterly irrelevant to the article, and was added suspiciously in conjunction with an IP address that is trying to insert racist statements into a variety of articles. Kuru ^talk 21:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Might as well post a permanent "thank you" on this page

Many thanks for once again reverting the vandalism to my user page. I really appreciate it. --JFreeman ^(talk) 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

suspiciously?

Look at the lazio gio history of edits and compare that to the other IP address, there is no connection. I have been on wikipedia for much longer than that. I just genuinely think it is relevant to mention that Tim Duncan's wife is white, but I mean if you want to hide something I understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.129.64 (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, that must be it. Kuru ^talk 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to AIAV

Hi, your recent edit to AIAV confused me. My first reaction was, "why not just block them?", until I realised that you are not an admin! A bit of a cliché perhaps, but I am genuinely surprised that you aren't one. I just wondered whether you have decided against taking up the role or, if not, whether you would accept a nomination from me. Cheers TigerShark 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that's a great idea. I've seen enough of your work, and of the way you deal with others, to know you'd be a great addition to Wikipedia's team of administrators. --JFreeman ^(talk) 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I had been honestly waiting until I had a year under my belt, and I did not realize that anniversary had passed until I read your message. I would be flattered to accept if you get the time - thank you both for your kind words. Kuru ^talk 23:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, there you go. Good luck! Cheers TigerShark 13:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The old quickest gun in the west?

You keep beating me to vandals. Good job, but can't I get some scraps?! feb^talk 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Blame AzaToth (talk · contribs) tonight. I'm testing a new pseudo-rollback script of his creation that really seems to refresh a little faster than the modified Popups code I had been using. Promise I will be drifting off to sleep soon... :) Thanks for the compliment. Kuru ^talk 05:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

you beat me too! here's a barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		for beating me to the punch on every single revert on jan 21, 2007. you're the fastest! frymaster 05:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw that you ferreted out AzaToth's script already - I'm curious to see how the rest of his testing goes with it. Seems like a nice tool, and should help considerably. Kuru ^talk 06:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do yo think you know about search engine submission?

You do realise that people are so uneducated on the subject that they pay companies to make submissions that never get made and are useless anyway? I put up a page to make this clear and you take it down? Why would you do this?

BB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.112.243 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Howdy, BB. Thanks for taking a shot at improving that article, but I'm afraid there were many problems with your changes. It was completely uncited, unreferenced, and contained many phrases that made it clear it was your own opinion. It read more like a personal blog entry than an actual encyclopedia article, so I was forced to revert it to it's original, albeit poor, state. I would be happy to answer any specific questions you have about Wikipedia, or you can start at "Contributing to Wikipedia" to get links to our policies and guidelines. Don't get too hung up on style issues, I'd be happy to correct any formatting or other problems. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

You're now an admin. Use the shiny new tools as wisely as you can, and be conservative with them. Re-read the policies as needed and don't hesitate to ask questions. Have fun, and keep up the good work. Nearly unanimous support. - Taxman ^Talk 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me be the second to say... Congrats! Viridae^Talk 03:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And I want to offer my congratulations as well. You'll be a good one. --JFreeman ^(talk) 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm fourth in line for the congrats this time! If you need any assistance in using the tools then please feel free to answer, I'll do my best to support you! Regards and happy mopping! (aeropagitica) 05:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

in case you have the time..... Talk to Bowen Sanders

First off, Lazarus Long. Yes. 2+ Kudos. We're both avid readers. Which book is that from? (I guessed The Number of The Beast (novel) but perhaps I am wrong...)
My wife immediately assumes that you are Male. Using my wife as reference I reserve judgment (too much yang with that one...)
Secondly, I received a nice bonus from you earlier. Hoping that I could get a quick reply - just wondering.
Lastly - I promise not to ask questions to be found in FAQs. I've been on the net since 93 and I think I should know better by now (regardless of lack of impetus...)...
Once more, Thanks from a new contributor, who thinks (ha Ha HA! - Phil Ken Sebben) that he'll write unbiased and well documented material. --bowensanders 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OECD Anti-Bribery Convention

The link-spam was already reverted.Beagel 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Could happen to everyone. regards.Beagel 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Kuru RFA

First of all, congratulations! It's great to see you promoted, as I am sure that you will be a fantastic admin. As for the nomination, you are more than welcome. I can't claim a lot of credit, because I didn't need to think too hard or look too far to find good things to say about you.

BTW you are the first RFA candidate that I have nominated, so I am especially pleased to see you pass! I might quit now while I am ahead. :)

Anyway, I hope that you enjoy playing with the new tools and I know that you will use them to add great value to this project. Congratulations again, and I hope that I will see you around soon. Cheers TigerShark 18:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mistake creating an article?

On 1-5-07, I created an article for submission.

I never heard anything back on it. Does that mean I did something wrong?

Profjibboo 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Actually, you did a good job creating the article. The problem is simply that it is of borderline notability. Local (i.e. not state or nationwide) politicians and business leaders are often in a gray area as far as the guidelines for biographical articles goes. Because of this, the editors who watch the articles for creation process will often leave it alone until another editor with more knowledge of the subject comes along - it will not be declined, nor will it be created. Since you have registered an account, I would suggest simply creating it youself, but be aware that another user may come along and challenge the article - be prepared to provide additional sources if requested. You can find instructions on how to create an article yourself here. Please let me know if I can help you more. Kuru ^talk 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I fully protected the article Rocky Marciano for 3 days because of a major edit war. However i think I am going to be away when the protection runs out, so I would appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlist and keep track of it. I was planning to either reinstate the protection for another short period, or, more likely habd out a few short blocks ofr edit warring if the dipute spills over into the article again, however I will leave it up to your discretion as to how you deal with it. Good luck, and thanks. Viridae^Talk 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do - that looks like a fun one. I'll watchlist it and read through the associated talk pages for now. Kuru ^talk 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts

FWIW, here is some of the background. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Student loan spammer

Hi Kuru, thanks for your message! It's nice to get some positive feedback from time to time. No worries about the 'late' protection - I'm just impatient :-)

Cheers for your support, keep up the good work... I'm off to bed now (finally)! All the best, --YFB ¿ 06:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

livesimply

delete livesimply

just because you are not english doesnt mean the information is not interesting and useful for english people.

if they DONT WANT TO READ IT THEY WONT SEARCH FOR IT!

so why does it matter

I am not editing other peoples work

im creating information and adding it, I made it clear it was not comprehensive and needed details

I dont understand your problem.

New ventures and idea are interesting to a lot of people, and as we grow more people will want to learn aboutus. having this article gives people this info.

it is very popular in the uk to look at new up and coming businesses and people want to support not hinder them.

The article was

• useful
• non-offensive
• non-biased
• accurate
• was not advertising

Now given this I dont understand why you decided it was suitable for people to read. Surely an ecncyclopedia is a compilation of everything not just those chosen by people of a certain interest type.

Could you have put up a vote or some discussion and allowed it to be discussed openly and fairly by the majority?

Would that be more fair? --Wewobanjsufukulipo 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

would you consider this a discussion?

let alone a fair free and open discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live simply

I feel you are abusing your powers, I feel there is not enough justification for you actions. Each case should be considered individually and should be taken in to careful consideration.--Wewobanjsufukulipo 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We have been nominated for young entrepreneur of the year in north london —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wewobanjsufukulipo (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi, Wewobanjsufukulipo. You have continually inserted promotional material about your company for the last several months, including creating an article about a company that you have a significant conflict of interest in several times. The article has been deleted by several administrators, and has gone through the "editor at large" review you asked for. The discussion questioned the notability of the website (re: our guidelines at WP:WEB), and I saw nothing that has changed on that front. This is not a free webhost for information about your product, and it is not a soapbox for your commentary on the other vendors in your area. Again, I am asking you respectfully and politely to stop. Kuru ^talk 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

you got the wrong guy

You accused me of vandalizing the clear channel communications entry. That was not me. I share a wireless network with a large college. Sorry, that wasn't me! -- 24.11.208.161 00:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the revert of the USF vandal on my talk page. Appreciate it :) - Alison^✍ 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• And again! Ugh! Thanks for blocking that idiot. They've been harrassing me for a week now. Thanks! :) - Alison^✍ 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. At least they're being blatant about it so it's easy to spot and fix.  :) Kuru ^talk 02:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rocky Marciano and Civil Edits

I agree with the need to keep the edits simple. If we should find ourselves in a similar situation to the past, what do you recommend? Is mediation the best step? Thanks. MKil 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

There are several viable mediation paths you can use, but the best one is simply to continue to work with the other editors on the article's talk page. There are apparently several knowledgeable editors making rounds on the boxing related pages, and I would hope everyone can come to agreement on what is and is not relevant and verifiable in the article. Since I'm not schooled in the subject, I'm primarily concerned about the personal attacks and revert warring - hopefully that can be avoided; and some rough consensus can be formed. I'd be delighted to help y'all work through mediation if it does not work out, however. Kuru ^talk 02:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome and . . .

I just reported the IP who vandalized your page to the admins. Cynrin 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

~

Thank you so much for deleting vandalism in the ABBA page. Regards,

Detlef ^♪♫∆ 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Kuru, for your incredible vandal fighting, I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Keep it up! Kamope · talk · contributions 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rocky unprotected

Hello, can you check ip 58.8 if it belongs to mkil, he may be using those, or may try to get others in trouble. If you go on rocky talk page, i explained in detail, also on my talk page, I am requesting more protection over rocky page, since mkil has his mind set on destroying it and adding his own wit to it, I believe current version is good, he will revert it claiming info is missing, it needs cleaning up, etc, etc, etc, all explained. I just do not want that guy to touch that site, because of him we had all this problems. By the way, only administrators can look into whose ip is it? By the way, how to archive things, put music, photos and rectangular square in color on talk page?User_talk: BoxingWear

I am not using any other IP to make edits. BoxingWear has in the past [3] claimed this, “the above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here, do you understand me?” and now seems to be going around to a variety of other users’ pages and spreading the lie that I am using another IP to make edits. I know this is not the place for such discussion, but I thought I’d try to defend myself. MKil 00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Thanks for your intervention on the Marciano matter. Hopefully we can get everything sorted out and come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to everyone. MKil 14:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Yea, good to know you protect it. I am suspectig mkil of being user 58.8 and possibly 64. I did what I could and according to best boxing knowledge. I will be glad to resolve problem, but mkil is the problem, i am not blaming anybody else, i mean, well, look on my talk page...

Like I thought, 64 is not mkil but other ip may be, PTO was engaged by Mkil from the beginning, it's possible they are in collusion and may very well be good friends for a long long time. No, again, it has been explained and I reject the statemetn above, Mr. Mkil did not just fix bad language or clean up things, again and again and AGAIN, he has been killing tons and tons of info, for example the 8000 people who attended baker-valdez fight, he kept on killing that, when i provided sources (he always needs sources even to prove i am breathing), then he himself inserted that, EVEN, added additional info on that- As far as the greatest link, we all came to an agreement on that, whatever link mkil put there few days ago, it's cool with me. When I accuse of vandalism, i never, ever do that after few edits, i did this after 10 days, after mkil kept on pushing his own way, i tried to make this article correct and i cleaned up lots of bad things the other day. If I reverted the link to the greatest that we all agreed, i did not mean to, if I did I probably took the wrong site from reverted history. Also, i respect other people's work, whatever good mkil wrote (again, he is putting words into my mouth) I reverted my edit and put his, whatever is reliable and I can prove his statements, I did it what was right, now mkil is vandalizing this... For example this is important...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=104202122&oldid=104201378 Here's the evidence i reverted what i reverted and corrected his code. And here's evidence of vandalism or near vandalism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=104209909&oldid=104206647 Mkil killed info on possible baker and valdez vs rocky fight, above, he killed important dates, locations and so on, but if he did not kill it all, he made some changes. Then he killed Ingemar comeback details, there were other reasons why Rocky did not get a chance to fight Ingemar...

He removed:

Marciano considered a comeback in 1959 when Ingemar Johansson won the heavyweight championship from Patterson in June 1959. However, since Patterson's contract required to a rematch, Rocky had to hope Patterson would loose again. Rocky was hoping of becoming the first heavy-weight chamption to win the title two time. After a month of training, however, Marciano decided against it and never considered a comeback again.

All these things are of huge importance, this article needs to be reverted to my version, this guy is simply KILLING DATES, DETAILS AND SO ON, AGAIN AND AGAIN, HE NEEDS LINKS AND PROOF TO EVERYTHING THAT WALKS AND BREATHS. I am not saying mkil is totally bad, i am sure he is doing a fine job with other edits, i barely tough his other work but Mkil should simply not be allowed to ever touch marciano page. I hate to sound like a jerk, but from day one mkil has been killing anything that has to do with the greatest, then we agreed he was one of the greatest, so he stopped, i mean, if he did not do this, i would not be arguing with him today over little things. I mean, this costs my time, but I can not allow certain people to have things their own way. Especially those who have time on their hands and use power of persuasion, power of well connected words. I do not have problem with mkil's other edits, but I will not allow him to destroy marciano site. But there are times when he simply follows up my contributions and changes something here and there on purpose just to get me going... I was approached by other users in november and december to watch over marciano site, i wanted some evidence why, i waited for a month, then i decided, page should remain under my supervision. Meaning, investigating edits from people like mkil, people who simply are pusing the limits. Can you track ips if a user logs on with normal handle? It's most probable, It's obvious 58.8 is Mkil... Now, that his back is turned to the wall, he is coming up with other things, for example..

The following has been taken from mkil talk...

Re:User talk:58.64.103.227

You do some fine work. Good find on the Duva cite. Also, thanks for cleaning up my Marciano book reference.

Why not register with a Wikipedia account so you can establish a history here? You seem like you'd be a good addition. MKil 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Thank you. My English skill is very poor.i am just a boxing fan in a faraway country. all i can do for Wikipedia is just finding some source, remove or add a short sentence. :) actually i am the editor who added IBRO citation for the Louis page. that meant we have talk talked once at Louis' talk page :) btw, i saw you editing boxer page in Wikipedia for times. i like your works. Keep working :)

Why, all of a suddent, 2 minutes after my war with mkil started, why did this guy say his english skill is very poor, that was exactly, when mkil accused me of screwing up articles with bad english, when in fact i have not written them, i simply added few things or corrected them, like I explained 100 times, i have to type fast and waste time on time wasters like mkil. The above statement clearly illustrates that some things are not right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#Re:User_talk:58.64.103.227 May i remind you all again, that i had people write me many times in the past to watch over marciano and mkil page! I do not leave messages on my talk page, saying thank you boxingwear for cleaning up things, you did good job and the above statement... IBRO guy, he belongs to whom, what, IBRO< if you are a member of that organization, you better write good english, the above reply is written in very good english!

Greatest problem, not resolved, people who participated in the poll do not know boxing

AND AGAIN, WE DID NOT AGREE ON THE GREATEST. He is simply killing that info, we agreed we should not include what some fake computer said about Marciano being the greatest. Why, why should I look for links that he is greatest, THAT IS A GIVEN, it's in the world THAT SOME, SOME CONSIDER HIM GREATEST, IT'S ALREADY IN THE WORLD. Tell them he is not, Just go and tell that to majoity of italian-american communities, see what happens. That link has to be removed, FIND ME MORE THAN 5 UNDEFEATED CHAMPIONS. And no, there are not too many.

SA Player Hater

Yep. Never heard of the team, the league, or the venue. I wonder what the story behind the name was. I was even suspicious of the "official" websites, attributing their existence to somebody's fantasy league. I was only convinced after viewing a satellite image of the venue's address. Clipper471 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The Real World: San Francisco

Hi. It seems we have a possible edit war on the The Real World: San Francisco article. If you could respond to the post I made on its talk page, it would be appreciated. Nightscream 05:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Other things

It's not easy just talking about this problem, but I have other things I need to fix, first... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Lineal_Heavyweight_boxing_champions

Then, how to create music on my page, move to archives, add a rectanle so my conversation appears in it, how to create archives, i asked this quries other users and of course, nothing. Reply on my talk page, i will be busy these days, but do what i suggest on rocky. I may not (fully)reply for few days. Also, greatest ever, still not resolved, computer fight means nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rocky_Marciano#Greatest_problem.2C_not_resolved.2C_people_who_participated_in_the_poll_do_not_know_boxing

Arguments will not stop with mkil, i will no longer reply there (except now and then), I will leave you some messages instead, mkil is using every single word i say to my advantage, here, american biographers wrote on rocky, as the greatest, if not, greatest puncher ever... http://www.myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=rockymarciano so yea, SOME PEOPLE CONSIDER HIM AS THE GREATEST, must be there. I am not going to search for more links, agian, i explained, it's a given. It belongs, it's part of reality. So, there you go, correct the article the way I requested and tell mkil never to touch rocky site again. We will resolve 99% problems. Only people like mkil need evidence for something that is already given and proven thru time. As Barnum said, there are fools born every second... Reply here and on my site, have a nice day.Obviously, now we know why courts give statutes of limitations... Boxingwear

And you are not reading, I also asked you, (other things) how to resolve those things, I asked you for few codes, how to do few things and nothing...

On my talk page you left a message...

I fully reject this statement, I asked you to look over many other things, since mkil accused me of vandalism, read what I say,i am not saying pto is doing that,only mkil, i gave my answer, i replied, i almost wrote a book with all these replies, i told you what mkil did wrong,what I did right, i am only replying to mkil since he is calling it vandalism, ok, i may agree on a language, needs changing, but why are you not replying to my proposals, i gave you the website to call rocky greatest, you can not call a computer greatest, something must be done about this, i will no longer talk on marciano page, only to you and also I replied and fully explained why. Keep in mind, how long can somebody stay cool after people like mkil WHO HAVE TONS AND TONS AND TONS OF TIME ON THEIR HAND TO reply and analyze every word, statute of limitation is gone now, no matter what he says from now on should not count! I believe my suspicious should be investigated and you should do that!\Boxingwear

Protection request

Mkil must go away, or i will get into trouble, this guy simply kills too many things and reverts my edits, you must tell him not to follow me! I will do what is appropriate and not go into edit wars, but I think I am not doing that, I am being provoked, whatever you can do will be fine, but you need to understand few things... I just do not want him to touch my edits, there are a couple or so, if that's the agreement we get, 99% of problems resolved. Boxingwear

My Barnstar

Thank you for giving me another barnstar! It's always great to know that my work is appreciated. Thanks for your role in dealing with BoxingWear, and happy belated adminship! PTO 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

...and I'm happy to have you join us in our always-so-fun adminning. You've got mail. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BoxingWear Situation

Thanks for your help with that situation. Your efforts are certainly appreciated. MKil 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)MKil

You just welcomed a sockpuppet of MascotGuy

You welcomed a sockpuppet of MascotGuy by welcoming Home Alone Guy. See WP:LTA/MG for more information on MascotGuy's sockpuppets. Squirepants101 04:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, seemed like constructive edits. See, this is why I never welcome people anymore. :) Kuru ^talk 04:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is blocked now - that's some interesting reading, thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking User:SoftenPie

Thank you for reacting so quickly to the message that I left at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and blocking User:SoftenPie. I appreciate it. --Eastmain 06:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

indef block template

What is the indef block tempalate that you use. The one I have been using is {{indefblock}} but i lik ethe one you use better. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IP Block

See [4]. You might want to consider extending that 8-hour block per WP:NLT. I'd do an indefblock, but you said it was a shared IP address. Nishkid64 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Seemed more like a nonsensical "ACLU" claim coming from what looks like an Korean gateway. I have no problems if someone wants to re-set the block for a longer duration. Kuru ^talk 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Ryulong did an indef on that user. Nishkid64 02:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup. He's turned me on the an open proxy detection tool as well. Tinkering with it now. Thanks for the feedback! Kuru ^talk 02:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:151.203.203.30

Sigh. He promised me he'd be a good boy and stop vandalizing and trolling. Looks like that didn't last long. FWIW, I listed more of his work here. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just not right. Prussian Blue is a 'salacious little vixen' and I'm just a 'wikiho'? Glad to know there's a history there, and thanks for the backfill. Kuru ^talk 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, salacious vixens, plural. He has a very unhealthy fixation on a pair of 14-year-old girls. (BTW, there's an unblock template on his talkpage, more nonsense.) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King Deletion

Thanks for reverting the article back to its original status (I didn't quite know how to do it), and thanks for warning the culprit. Fdssdf 22:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! In the future, you can look here to find help on how to revert a bad change like that yourself - it's pretty easy after you figure it out the first time... :) Kuru ^talk 19:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Washington College

Hello Kuru, thanks for the quick reply to my vandalism claim. For the most part I have always followed and used wikipedia. I believe its an excellent resource for not only students, but the public as a whole. My problem however lies with individuals who are vandalizing the Washington College page. (By the way: I apologize now, I'm new to wiki editing, so my format may be horrible).

Beginning on Christmas day 2006, a person edited in a rather harsh and unfounded claim against organizations at Washington College. Claiming that two fraternities on campus were kicked from their residencies due to hazing. No source was cited.

A battle ensued over what was to be placed there. It has now come down to User:D-Hell-pers continually editing in unfounded information. He has provided a source, which is a college newspaper article. Yet the source, says absolutely nothing about why the organizations were removed from their housing, just that it happened and they have now returned.

D-Hell-pers continues to make the claim of hazing, without proper sources. He is spreading hearsay, and says that the only way for a group to be removed from housing is his claim of hazing. This, is not true, and rather unfounded. Throughout the Discussion page for Washington College, he has used derogatory terms for people such as a**holes. And now I believe he understands that he cannot make such claims without sources. This is why he is talking in a negative manner to anyone who opposes him, telling them to use their insight. Unfortunately, wikipedia is not founded on insight. Message boards and forums are, but not wikipedia. To me, wikipedia is founded on fact. Facts that these vandals are not provided, perhaps because they do not exist.

I hope this explanation helps. Thanks for your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natural22 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the clarification. This does seem much more like a content dispute - I've protected the page for now and re-started a conversation on the article's talk page and will try to assist y'all in coming to a consensus version of the statement. One that is verifiable and documented by reliable sources at that. Kuru ^talk 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Natrual's claims are exaggerated. I did not call the group assholes, nor have I ever said they were. The discussion page clearly shows this.D-Hell-pers 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's move on. Kuru ^talk 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Washington College - Fraternity Issue

Currently I have come up with an article in the school newspaper http://elm.washcoll.edu/past/076/17/76_17_2005.pdf, pg. 6 in reference to article notin Phi Delta Theta hazing. i am currently in request to try and have the school place the missing ELM articles online, and waiting request. Could you please protect the article for (1) more day until further material is available online? D-Hell-pers 19:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My intent is to keep it protected until the dispute is resolved, although it will auto-expire in three days. I'm happy to open it up as soon as y'all can come to an arrangement that meets our policies. Thanks for your patience! Kuru ^talk 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

http://elm.washcoll.edu/past/076/23/76_23_2005.pdf 2nd page. Fraternal Hazing, however, which fraternity not clarified. I am still trying to retrive the lost artcilesD-Hell-pers 00:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kuru - After research of all college articles online, as well as direct contact with the editor of the college newspaper, there are no articles regarding Kappa Alpha Order and hazing.

I understand this issue is turning into a he said/she said. If you would like to contact the editor yourself, her information is listed here Elm Staff.

Now that we have come to the conclusion that there is/was never source, how can I go about preventing persons that are persistent in spreading hearsay, rumors, and biases concerning this matter?

Thanks for your time in all of this. Natural22 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply just ask for article 16 & 18. As shown above, article 17 refers to an article about the Phi Delta Theta hazing, and how a person's response may have been 'altered' for the articles use. Page 6 of issue 17, 2004-2005, mentions a letter to the editor "Writers response to reporting of alleged phi delta theta hazing incident." The article was called “Did the Phi Delts Revamp Their Pledge Process?" Further reading of this article, about the 5th paragraph, writer notes that her original title for the article was called "Brothers With a Conscience: Phi Delta Revamp Pledge Process." Editor's Note on 17's article even states (at the end) Please check out the NEXT issue (missing 18) for the follow-up artcile on the hazing incident.

Now natural, please use some common sense in reading this- issue 16 has not been placed on the online database + article 17 making mention of issue 16's article (noted above) = article exists. Issue 17 mentions a third follow-up article in Issue 18 + Missing 18 = another article exists, just not posted on database. We are just having trouble retrieving both.

The issue posted, however, should be enough to prove, at least, that Phi Delta Theta was in trouble for hazing, coincidentally at the same time they lost their housing. Point proven. When these 2 articles can be retrieved, I am sure I'll prove the Kappa Alpha incident as well.D-Hell-pers 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Until you have proper sources however, I hope you will abide by the rules and discontinue editing in uncited information. Natural22 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have abided by the rules, found articles of the matter, and displayed the information. If you are so connected to the editor, please obtain the missing articles for display. Until then, please dis-continue hiding the facts by editing the article (as you say, ABIDE BY THE RULES).D-Hell-pers 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. Again, let's stop the personal comments and focus on the material you've both revealed. Kuru ^talk 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We have (1) of the (2) missing issues. Details have been listed on the WaC discussion page.D-Hell-pers 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Data Recovery Book

Dear Sir/Madam I added the external Link (redact) of my Online Data Recovery Book on following artical page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_recovery

This link was deleted by you considering it the commercial link.

The entire Book is online and Freely available to everyone in 11 different languages.

This is the only Biggest Free source (about 4368 pages) of Study of Data Recovery Online.

Please reconsider the link or please let me know your review.

Sincerely,

Tarun Tyagi

Taruntyagiji 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's simply a link to promote your book with 'sample chapters', as best I could tell, right along with a big giant 'buy this book' ad. Please don't re-add this link, it is quite self-promotional. Kuru ^talk 19:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response... The Formal Term 'Sample Chapters' was used because original Book was published in the form of Paper-back. If you see the Table of Contents on http://www.datadoctor.biz/author.htm , you'll find that every topic is hyperlined to its description and you can not find even a single topic that is not available on website for Free.

Will it be fine if I remove the 'Buy Now' link? Regards

Tarun Tyagi 59.144.176.164 10:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Text of a deleted article

I realize this is an unusual request coming from a stranger, but I'm interested in finding the text in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Belikov

which was deleted a year ago. Apparently only admins can see this deleted content. I would really appreciate someone just copying and pasting this text somewhere.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Houston euler (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Houston - I'd have no problem doing that, but let me check with another admin to see what the restriction are on that. Kuru ^talk 13:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My Apologies

Kuru,

I apologize for commenting on another 'editor'. This persons comments are somewhat antagonistic, and it rattles me up how he says one thing, but acts in a total opposite manner. I believe that all comments have been established with my last edit, and I will try to avoid saying anything else directly towards the other 'editor'.

Just for my knowledge, you are only mentioning the part where I refer to him as three things, not my argument? If I had omitted that small sentence (calling this person bias, etc) the rest of that paragraph stands logical, or no?

I have, however, made another comment to what he has said. I did not call him names, etc, but I did point out a disagreement to his comment. I believe this is acceptable, but I am open to your commenting.

As for my own personal discussion page, I have made warning to anyone wishing to leave a comment that it will be scrutinized for the reasons listed; I have also mentioned that any negative comments/name-calling will be 'modified' to my discretion. D-Hell-pers 02:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Question from a beginer

Hi I've added an article about HotMug on Example of Project Management Software and got deleted. Now I really do not understand why they got deleted as it was no praise for it. Based on what an article got deleted? There should be more than one person to propose that article? What if I'm the first that make that article? Who decide that a thing is worth or not? What algorithm do they use? (First on Google or similar)?

Thanks, Alex -- Gheorghiu alex 07:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gheorghiu alex (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Alex. Briefly looking at the logs, it would appear that the article was deleted twice, once because it was a blatant ad for your product, and the second time because there was no claim made to the notability of the product. You can find the guidelines for software notability here. You may look at the logs linked above and contact the admin who deleted the article directly for more specific information on his decision. Kuru ^talk 13:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Protect an IP Talk Page

Hello Kuru. I would suggest you protect this IP talk page with a semi. Check the history. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like RadioKirk got to it first!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

He beat me by seconds. Bah.  :) Kuru ^talk 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User Block

This user has done nothing except for uploading images without any copyright tags, talk to another user, and create non-notable pages, which were later SDed. I think he should be blocked for a while until he knows Wikipedian policies. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 10:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the account and will keep an eye on it. He seems to be attempting to communicate, and I don't usually act unless there is active vandalism occurring. Let's just see what he does next now that he seems to be aware of the warnings. Kuru ^talk 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another RickK anti-vandalism barnstar...

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your constant monitoring and reverting of articles. Yadaman 16:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you've gotten this thing a bunch of times already, but I was going to give this to you before I found out that you already were given this thing twice, and I'm a man of my word. At least, I hope I am. Yadaman 16:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, it is most appreciated.  :) Kuru ^talk 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for having my back

Thanks for having my back on those two vandals this morning - I think that's the first time I've had two right in a row like that who both decided to vandalize user pages in retaliation. Makes me wonder if they were the same person, though the other contributions didn't seem to quite match. Anyway, thanks for the reverts and blocks! —Krellis 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I thought the same thing, but it looks like you just hit the page vandal lottery; both were recent unrealted warns. Not a problem on the reverts - userpage changes stick out on the RC log like a sore thumb. Kuru ^talk 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the point

Thanks for clearing up the point about the IP block - I wasn't really too bothered about it, but I didn't know how it worked, and now I do, so thanks for that. I doubt it'll happen too much more, I've been editing for a little while now and that's the first time. Stay cool --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 01:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To Kuru for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

High praise coming from you. Many thanks - and I wish you the best on the RFA!  :) Kuru ^talk 23:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

input sought

In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton.

--GordonWatts 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh. I can't imagine I stuck my finger in that beehive - it was probably just a vandalism revert. Kuru ^talk 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... but WHICH editor was guilty of vandalism? (Me or the other editor?) In theory, BOTH editors might have had good motives, which would mean that no one vandalized... "Thangs that make ya go ... 'Hmm...'."--GordonWatts 11:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam bot reversions

Hi Kuru, thanks for the full reverts on the articles hit by the hometown.aol.com spam bots. I somehow completely missed that they were overwriting parts of the article instead of just inserting the links, so I didn't do correct reverts. Sorry you had to do the double work, but I appreciate your fixing it up. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not a problem - you did all the heavy lifting this morning, the last thing I figured you needed was to do more mopping. I would have never noticed the deletions that went along with the spam, but he wiped out a part of an article that I was familiar with, so it was fairly obvious. Thanks for all your great work on this - and your other recent work on RC patrol! Kuru ^talk 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks....

I appreciate your insight and leadership concerning this matter... I will modify the list to "Suggested..." instead of "see also". I agree this seems more appropriate. Your motives and their seatings are just fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BuildingaBetterWiki (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Apologies

Don't worry about it; I assumed you had the article's best interests in mind.--Daveswagon 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks the the info on my talk page (a feature I never knew about). Lots of helpful pointer there. I hope it wasn't provoked by my doing anything wrong. Regards. Nexus501 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not - I had just noticed your good edit at Data recovery and wanted to welcome you to the project; I hope you stick around! Kuru ^talk 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I'm also an IT professional in the San Antonio (USAA employee) area.

Hillcountrygrump 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Here's just a couple of trios of almost identical

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

Dude has a fetish about Brandon Routh. Changes his middle name & birthdate; likes to edit the Without Remorse page to put Routh's name in instead of Joaquin Phoenix for having a part in the movie. Likes to edit various other people and change their religion from Jewish, Mormon, or Episcopalian to Catholic; various ethnic origins to Irish.

You'll note that each new account was created after the previous was blocked.

• 23:01, 31 December 2006 Clancy60 (Talk | contribs) New user account[11]
  • Blocked 28 January 2007[12]

• 23:20, 29 January 2007 Fleming60 (Talk | contribs) New user account[13]
  • Blocked 8 February 2007[14]

• 09:51, 10 February 2007 Ellroy20 (Talk | contribs) New user account[15]

You'll also note (circumstantially) that each username is an author (Clancy60, Fleming60, Ellroy20), at least the first two of whom had articles vandalized.

The vandalism is repetitive, almost routine. Mixed in are the odd non-vandalizing edit; rather banal and pointless. Problem, of course, is that wiki-hours are spent policing his edits which could be better spent on constructive editing; it takes no less time to view a constructive edit than to reverse a bad one, and more time to try and track down whether a plausible edit is valid. I have been reverting as a matter of course given that none of the edits are sourced or even commented upon.

It would be nice if he could be blocked permanently (wish wish wish). It's risible to see the "happy happy joy joy" 4-stage wikiwarnings when you know blinking well that this is a disruptive vandal sockpuppet (in a real-life sense, if not electronically provable); he doesn't even really try to disguise himself. I hope you can find a common IP.

If he should surface again (I don't know, say as "Routh20" with the same edits) can he just be blocked as a matter of course, or do we have to go through the 4-stage "naughty naughty" each time?

Sorry for the long missive here, but I'm venting. Thanks for bending an "eye". :) --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's about as clear as it can get; passes the duck test for me. I've indefinitely blocked the two socks and upped the block on the original account to a month. I'll add those articles to my watch list and block on sight if I see him cross them. If you see the pattern again, simply use AIV like you did today, mention block evasion, and maybe point to this discussion. If he keeps it up, we can add an entry at WP:LTA to refer to. No fluffy warnings should be necessary. I'm actually curious if this is some other long term vandal that you've just seen the tail end of. Thanks for doing the footwork on this! Kuru ^talk 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for responding to my concerns so quickly. As G'Kar would say, "I'll keep an eye out." --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 07:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New sock; reported to ANI here. They dismissed it (AGAIN!!) from AIV. I tell you, I do not look forward to having to do all this every single time this yumyum pops up. There should be a way to expedite this. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't take a look at the moment - will have to look at the histories after work, assuming someone else does not. Kuru ^talk 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's pretty clear again that it is the same editor. I'm more than a little surprised that no other admin came to the same conclusions or at least commented. I'll make a post of my own to review my blocks as soon as I can - it's entirely possible that I'm misreading the fairly clear policy on this. I'm thinking that the fact he's making a few good edits mixed in the volumes of nonsense ones are turning people off to blocking the account. I would never indefinitely block the original account, since it is not a "vandal only" account, but the other ones are simply being used to dodge a block - seems clearly bad WP:SOCK practice. Yeesh. Kuru ^talk 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

203.102.177.164

The IP you blocked is part of TAFE NSW's network. Not sure what to put on the page, but there is usually some form of template for IPs belonging to educational institutes. –Xoid 04:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the one you're talking about - I see it often. Naturally, I can't find it at the moment. Next time I run across it, I'll add it to said page. The block I applied to the range was a "soft" one, so affected parties can simply create accounts and it should not affect established users. Thanks for the heads up! Kuru ^talk 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it doesn't affect 'em. I'm actually logged in from that IP at the moment. I was going to add this comment to the talk page without logging in (I'd rather not have an IP that's been used for vandalism showing up in my edits), but couldn't figure out how to. –Xoid 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reverts on my user & talk pages... Katalaveno^T_C 16:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Block

No worries, I was going to block him myself indefinitely as well, as a throwaway vandal account. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad

Unaware —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ImperviousJackson (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Not a problem... Good luck with your site... Kuru ^talk 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Block IP

Can you block User:66.156.23.154 please? Nothing but bad edits, usually featuring a image of a penis. --[|K.Z|] ^{T • V • C} 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Yeeesh. Kuru ^talk 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

possibly same person User:72.145.133.74. Penis vandalism again Done.--K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Saw that - JeremyA has great reflexes.  :) Kuru ^talk 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Good job on blocking XGC for vandalism. I wanted to let you know that I suspect that I'm Michael and HaloFreak2116 could be sockpuppets of the same user, particularly because each of them repeatedly make vandals to the Dane, Wisconsin article. In addition, XGC removed valid warning templates from I'm Michael's account. --Nevhood 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably. They're both blocked as it is - I'll watch them as they come off and see if they resume vandalizing. More than likely he'll just get bored and move on. Kuru ^talk 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric Pacifici

Hi - Eric Pacifici, which you deleted (and two other people before you) has been recreated. I wonder if you'd hit it again? Thanks. Philippe Beaudette 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still complete nonsense. I've left him a final warning on the page and removed the article again. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user subpages. — ERcheck (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my userpage too :-) Will 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

and mine. --Concrete Cowboy 13:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of that IP, it is a reasonable guess that he had a blocked named account, User:Mjenkins (see edit history User talk:Mjenkins) --Concrete Cowboy 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

How is wikipedia treating you, haven't signed on in a long time. Suggest any projects? Axiomm 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Creation (WP:AFC) is interesting, if you have some free time - I've also enjoyed watching the minds at work over at WP:SPAM. Welcome back! Kuru ^talk 04:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I just warned 71.59.130.223 for making a personal attack on you at Western Larch and on his talk page, just giving you a heads up. --Nevhood 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, now he's attacking me. See his talk page. --Nevhood 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's quite unhinged. On the bright side, I've learned a lot about the Western Larch. Kuru ^talk 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A little question

If a vandal I reported cools down (or goes to bed), would it be okay to remove them from WP:AIAV or should they stay listed just to be sure they don't come back? -Myanw 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If they stop actively vandalizing pages, it's usually best to remove them from AIV. It is typically for recent vandals that need quick attention. Kuru ^talk 13:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, will do :) - Myanw 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Imitation

There's a user,User:Kzrulzuall36, imitating me. Can u deal with him? --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems clear - he's also done nothing but vandal edits. I've blocked the account. Kuru ^talk 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

also User:Kzrulzuall11. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently you've made a special friend. Done. Kuru ^talk 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also found User:K2rulzuaIl and filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kzrulzuall36 bradkittenbrink 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note of warning, but the people imitating me might try to vandalize your userspace, possibly with the help of sp3000, who helped them last time. And thanks for the blocks of the sockpuppet. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The vandal is now imitating you on Arjun01's talk page [16]--K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 07:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem and thanks

He's a persistent problem anyway, see his long term abuse report. I did file a request on RFPP as well, but they seem to take ages. That's the fifth IP he's used today, at least he's helping to trace open proxies. One Night In Hackney 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: 172.165.250.143

No problem. I kinda have a question

How do people in Wikipedia get so well known? Barely anyone reads my userpage, and I don't get much notice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nol888 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Oops, forgot to sign. Also, how do I get hagermanBot to auto sign my talk page? Nol888_(Talk) 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are totally asking the wrong gnome. If you want to become well known, jump into the policy discussions at the village pump or start building great articles, or get involved in one of the great projects. Look though Newyorkbrad's contributions for an example of how to become a solid and respected wikipedian the right way - I'm afraid I'm simply here to clean up other people's messes... :) As to HagermanBot, I think he pretty much just shows up everywhere. Kuru ^talk 04:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for your quick responses on AIV --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - thanks for the accurate description of the problems. The less I have to guess at, the faster I can respond. Kuru ^talk 04:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a month ban?

Hey, i'm planning on taking the GEDs in about a month, and I really need to study, but i've got a bit of an addictive personality- basically, i'd appreciate it if you'd block my account and my IP (which i'll post on in a moment) from editing until March 20th, so I focus on studying instead of checking AFDs and CTRL+R spamming my watchlist. -- feb^talk 05:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And this is my IP address. Again, appreciated --69.247.164.232 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in case oyu're worried i'm trying to get another IP user blocked, i'm not- i've had this IP address from comcast for months, it's not changing (even when I try to change it, blah), and there are only 2-3 other users on the network, who don't edit or use wiki at all. -- feb^talk 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I trust you completely that it's your IP and all - I'm just a little hesitant to block an excellent user for no good reason other than to help your impulse control.. :) Let me think about it and I'll probably do it tonight sometime. Kuru ^talk 01:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

well digging a bit I found Wikipedia:Block on demand which never was implemented, it seemed no one really cared either way. Thanks either way, for the compliment ^^ -- feb^talk 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: External Link Warning

Ok I received your warnings.

I need to review the external link policy. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I had posted excternal links to sites that I thought would be of interest to people viewing those pages, but apparently I need to learn more about the posting policies.

Again thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Thank you

I want to thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page so quickly.--FreeKresge 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hey Kuru, don't forget to warn vandals, like at the Republic of Texas. Thanks --AW 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, yup. I sometimes won't do a warning if it's an IP address that wasn't a 'fresh' vandalism (no activity in he last six hours or so) - doubtful such warnings would actually be received by the actual bad editor. I do, however, make exceptions for Texas related articles because I'm petty like that.  :) I'm a little surprised I didn't place a warning there, but I was in a terrible rush this morning to get to work and just missed it. Rest assured, I've missed precious few in the last 10,000 or so reverts. Thanks for the heads up, and thanks for watching that page!  :) Kuru ^talk 01:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough! The Texas articles sure do get a lot of vandalism, huh? --AW 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One month block on 13.8.137.11

Hello Kuru, I am contacting you about your recent block on User talk:13.8.137.11 for one month. I note that the associated page User talk:13.8.137.10 was only blocked for a week. Since the same issue was occurring with both pages this appears inconsistent and likely a result of the other page being blocked by a different administrator. I feel this warrants further review since the IP address is a Xerox proxy address and thus used by many other users. Perhaps one of the soft blocks should be used instead or a shorted time period? Thanks for your help. WilliamKF 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, William. The duration of the block was consistent with the prior, apparently ineffective previous blocks placed on the account. I'm quite frankly a little surprised to see those types of edits coming from a XPARC address. I almost always do a soft block on obviously shared addresses, and indeed that was the case here - for some reason I even noted such in the block message. As a 'soft block' this should only affect people editing without creating an account. You should still be able to create an account, and of course existing registered editors should not be affected. If you know of someone still affected by this, please let me know and I'll do my best to fix it. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 01:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kuru, that is fine, but then I would suggest that we keep the two addresses consistent, User talk:13.8.137.10 was only given a week by a different administrator. Since the same vandal was using both IP addresses equally, I would suggest blocking both equally and upping that one to a month too. Also, since this is Xeroc PARC, does it make sense to notify Xerox of the network abuse, perhaps this was already done? If not, I can do it if you like, or has too much time elapsed. Thanks again. WilliamKF 16:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In my defence

While that edit was intentionally silly, it did add a useful link not yet present in the article. 128.32.112.233 03:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, so it was only mostly useless.  :) Kuru ^talk 03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the block, have a good day. --Nehrams2020 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Qwertyuoplhgfd

Above is the user who just posted nonsense to your talk page under the name of User:Kzrulzuall. He has his main and talk page redirected to Kzrulzuall's. While it is possible (snowball in hell) that it is Kzrulzuall's second account, dollars to doughnuts this user is trying to impersonate him. I imagine you admins have tools to determine if it is or isn't the same user. I left a note on Kzrulzuall's talk page as well. Thanks. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed that he has redirected his userpage and talkpage to Kzrulzuall's, but just ignored it. I did not see the 'fixing' of his signature to match Kzrulzuall's - that seems pretty blatant, and I've blocked the account. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 04:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page: I've had vandalism done to my user page pretty much every day for the last 5-6 days. Acalamari 22:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I took the counter off my page when it flipped three digits - think of it as a barometer of your effectiveness as a vandal fighter. It means they love you... Thank you for your hard work. Kuru ^talk 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

For taking care of that vandal for me. Regards, Dfrg.msc 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert of my user page vandalism! --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If it makes y'all feel better, he claims it was his 'littler sister' that did it. Such precocious youth. Kuru ^talk 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much!!!

Kuru,

I really don't know what to say. Ever since the Washington College debate, people have vandalized my talk page. Before I even get a chance to see what they post, you've already cleaned it up. Thanks for everything! Your interventions make my wiki experience that much more enjoyable. Natural22 02:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Defending My Page

Thank you for your defense of my user page, it is much appreciated! Adam McCormick 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kzrulzuall69

Can you block this sockpuppet since the SSP is backlogged. Thanks. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 04:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kuru ^talk 13:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of the vandalism on my page, sorry about the delay, I just noticed then. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

G1

With regard to CSD G1 and my RfA, do you mean how would I evaluate a potential G1 article, or what do I think of G1 as a CSD criteria itself? Rklawton 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have addressed both sides in your answer to my intentionally open ended question - thanks. Kuru ^talk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help mediate Washington College article (again)

Kuru,

I just noticed that the Washington College article has been changed back to its previous state, the one that was not agreed upon through your mediation attempts.

Once again there are no sources or credible citations to justify allegations and edits. They are simply citing the same article they did before (which makes no mention at all of said allegations), and quoting a new article that is not linked, and may infact, not even exist.

I was wondering if we could revert the article to the terms agreed with during your intervention. Additionally, I was wondering if you could possibly find out if the people who were vandalizing my wall are the same people fighting so hard to edit this article. I have trace-routed them, and all land on the same Comcast address in Baltimore.

Thanks for your help,

Natural22 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Kuru,

As mentioned in the WaC talkpage, (1) of the missing (2)issues with relevant articles (Issue 18) has been retrieved. I quoted the article - gave several days for any discussion [17]- changed the article AS WELL AS ADDED citation to the references at the bottom of the page [18]. The issue has not been placed online, however, as mentioned by El Kevbo on the WaC discussion page:

I just want to note that referenced articles do not have to be located online. It's certainly convenient when they are online and everyone can very easily access them but that's certainly not a requirement. If you or someone else can find a hard copy of the articles then that should suffice. --ElKevbo 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking these words into consideration, I hold on my computer a PDF file of issue 18 (retrieved by a friend of mine). Unlike the other (2) references previously posted, this article mentions "hazing" word-for-word as being the sole reason the fraternity was punished. i do not see how much more clearer this can be. The fraternities hazed & were punished. D-Hell-pers 06:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states that Phi Delta Theta hazed. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of Kappa Alpha Order in that article. You even admit this in the Washington College discussion page. So how exactly does this justify your edit stating that both fraternities violated the same policy, when you have absolutely no sources to back this up? Please base your edits on facts that may be cited, not personal opinion.Natural22 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Yes. I guess knowing the fact that it happened in addition to the groups being lumped together in following articles of retaining their speciality housing together (for doing the same thing at the same time) constitutes original research. The current revision shows what is verifiable at the moment - it's why I am leaving it as it is. As far as I can remember this is all that is verifiable, however lacking it may be. But don't worry, if something should ever pop up.... D-Hell-pers 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying sooner - long day at work. The last note here seems to indicate that y'all were able to work this out correctly; cited works need not be online since that would probably eliminate 95% of the world's reference grade knowledge. It's nice to have online versions of the documents, since that means I don't have to remove my butt from my chair to verify it, but it is by no means necessary. We assume good faith that the cited material is correctly attributed, and if it turns out that the material is bad then it can be corrected. Since it seems he has a PDF, he might even chuck you a copy if y'all can arrange a hand-off, but that is a courtesy. I'll look over the rest of the posts tonight and see if there is anything I can add, but I still encourage y'all to have a civil discourse and work it out together. Kuru ^talk 02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe working & debating with each other for as long as we have is starting to pay off. Although each of us throw a hook at the other from time to time, the tone has definitely calm'd down and both of us are learning more/less how to become better editors. We may not share the same views on the material, but we are learning together. Thanks for the earlier "counseling" & mediation when we were both being "a$$e$" about the revisions. D-Hell-pers 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kuru

I believe I have finally found the last piece of reference required for the appropriate revision. I have placed it on Natural22's discussion [Here], but I am debating if it should be placed under references in the WaC article. Could you please advise? D-Hell-pers 06:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you block Me on my other computer

All I did was vandilize many articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.108.4.72 (talk • contribs)

why you removed the link to www.pmis.co.uk/project_risk_management.htm?

simply, the criteria you use are not consistent - the page I added may not have a jazzy title, as in an acedemic paper, but if you read it you would realise it has a good deal of practicle information relating to a lttle understood topic in business and projects.

There are other refences that are simmilar and appear to be even more commercial that the reference I added and they are still there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ktlonergan (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry. First, we can't call it a 'reference' since there is nothing in the article that is using the page as a cite; it is merely an 'external link' subject to our external link policy. Second, the page is simply a very cursory set of information that adds very little to the material on the page and seems to have the primary purpose of promoting training classes and consultancy. I don't think it is appropriate for the page. I would be happy to review the other links on that page for you. Kuru ^talk 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet question

You just blocked Joemama55 (thanks) the thing is right after I gave him his final warning I get weird messages on my talk page (rather uncivil so I deleted them) asking about final warning from Joewell Then he would do this over and over a few minutes. Then quit. The thing is when he quit was when Joemama55 started being a vandal again. I haven't run into sockpuppetry before but does this sound worth reporting. Its backlogged and if this is weak I don't want to bother them. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 04:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems a pretty obvious sock - I have blocked that account as well. Thanks for your RC work! Kuru ^talk 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, ok I didn't want to sound to 'anxious' but it did seem obvious. Now I really know what to look for. RC work is a blast, wouldn't even call it work. Thanks again. --Xiahou 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

BossTalks.com

BossTalks.com is not a commercial project and does not have any advertisement on it at all. It keeps the simple style, easy to use information, RSS feeds, you can subscribe to it through any blog reader software. It have a very easy profile, with the email and password only necessary fields, it's very easy to sign in and post, or you free to read without any registering. It's a new site, but it will fill the niche of free and easy to use project management sites, either software / IT or just PM in a common sense. The most of pm forums are hard to register, lacks of content, having questions without answers for the most of the content, the most of sites are not free, or very hard on ads. Please review your decision and allow me to add this site to let the community grow. Of course I never expected to get more traffic for BossTalks just because of publishing and promoting it to search engines through Wikipedia. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiefwhite (talk • contribs).

It's an empty forum that adds absolutely nothing to the articles you added it to. I'm sorry, but there is no point in linking to it. You can read our guidelines at WP:EL. Kuru ^talk 04:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nasty character

Please take a look at User talk:70.132.21.139. This person is a pretty nasty character - see the edit I reverted - and s/he apparently has a dynamic IP. I believe it is possible to block an IP range, but I don't know the details or whether it's a good idea. So, as the admin who placed the block, I thought I would seek your input.--Kubigula (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Stockhouse"

Good morning Kuru.

The purpose of this Talk discussion thread is for me to learn more and understand better your/Wikipedia's position regarding the appropriateness of having content on the topic of "Stockhouse".

I perused the various links that you provided to me touching Wikipedia's various editorial rules.

Here was my logic for adding content on "Stockhouse":

1) it is a potentially useful tool that anyone trying to create wealth in stocks may appreciate;

2) I did identify Stockhouse's strengths and weaknesses in an attempt to be neutral and unbiased; and

3) before creating the Stockhouse entry I did explore Wikipedia and found much content on the subject of on-line resources available to the public including, amongst others:

  i) Motley Fool 
  ii) Yahoo
  iii) Google
  iv) YouTube.

Please provide your position regarding my three points above.

If you agree that Stockhouse warrants inclusion in Wikipedia than please advise on how the entry could be better wordsmithed to comply with Wikipedia's editorial rules.

Thank you very much.

uwho

My concern was your attempt to add an internal link to your site to a large number of semi-financial related topics. This is simple spamming. I would not be in favor of even putting an external link to the site, since there are thousands of stock related resources out there and we are not a directory or a link farm.

You might be able to create a neutral article on the site, but be sure to include as many third party reliable sources as possible that support all of the material you provide. You can read our policies on reliable sources here: WP:A. You may want to check in with the admin who deleted the article as well, just to be sure it is not immediately re-deleted. Kuru ^talk 14:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Escalated war at Talk:South Tyrol

Hi. I need some Admin advice, if you could spare it.

There's a battle of words over a proposed move at Talk:South Tyrol over the naming of the article. It seems to have devolved into two camps: an Italian POV and a German POV. Apparently one of the German users canvassed over at the German wiki to weigh in over here; in retaliation, another user posted to the Italian wiki here. (An edit with comments sums it up rather succinctly). My reply is here.

This is deplorable. Canvassing on another wiki is bad enough, but to then do the same on another wiki as retaliation seems counter-productive at the very least, if not escalating to the point of disruption. I am wondering what can be done in this case. Rather than a discussion over what this article should be called in English it seems to be a linguo-nationalistic war between Italy and Germany.

Your thoughts and guidance on my next move would be greatly appreciated. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. The canvasses have apparently been withdrawn. As well, I'm taking that page off my watchlist. I have no opinion as to the naming of the article, mainly because I don't know what it is primarily called in English, and I really don't have the focus to wade through all the dreck on the talk page. So it would be counterproductive for me to involve myself in this; besides, I have a lot of homework left to do, reading week is almost over, and I am waaaay behind. Thanks anyway, sorry to bother you. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

IP Block

Kuru,

Request IP Block of 208.39.164.12. A list of his contributions [Here] shows that this IP address is used for nothing more than vandalism. D-Hell-pers 22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a dynamic IP and it hasn't been warned in four months, I placed a final warning on the talk page. I'll keep checking it for a bit, but if you see another edit, let me know or post it on WP:AIV. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank-You D-Hell-pers 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again...

Thanks again (and again...) for reverting the vandalism to my pages. BTW, after you blocked 65.95.0.214, they showed up again as 70.49.129.200 (reverted by D-Hell-pers). I gave them a vandalism4im warning, but you might be on the lookout for them. --JFreeman ^(talk) 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See you say "them" again... it takes 5 seconds to change my IP, i cant lose! YAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.130.114 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 March 2007

Recreation of deleted text

How do you check to see if an article went through a previous deletion? There's an article, created back in January, which I am sure was AfD'ed last year. How does one find out if an article previously existed? Google search will not look through old AfD pages -- or at least I'm not doing it correctly. Thanks. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I missed this question - replying on your talk page in case you're no longer watching here. Kuru ^talk 02:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, btw, late thanks for your reply. Turns out it wasn't a deleted article, but something far more convoluted, but essentially benign. Thanks for the suggestion, tho'. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 05:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For blocking the Encarta copier. I was getting bored of redirecting all his articles for the past half hour! --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - that was pretty odd. Hopefully, he will at least communicate now. Kuru ^talk 05:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies and Thank You

I was unaware of the link policy, thank you for pointing the information out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.250.228.5 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

My attempted unblock of Otto

I just noticed that my attempt to unblock Otto apparently didn't work immediately. It's showing in his block log — do you know what the problem was? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an autoblock there as well - should be cleared now. Kuru ^talk 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. I'll remember to check next time. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Warnings

Kuru,

I know this is a pain, but could you please warn both 129.59.83.209 as well as 129.59.83.159. I have a feeling that these may be shared lines of a school/workplace, however both addresses have (to date) contributed only vandalism (as shown with links). Thanks D-Hell-pers 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. When there's really blatant vandalism like that, you can simply place the warnings yourself using the templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and then you can request to have a preventative block placed if they keep at it. Feel free to drop me a note, or to request a block at WP:AIV. Kuru ^talk 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about doing it myself, however, the page is clearly marked as an University IP. I felt weird about warning it (since I too have shared a University IP address with a vandalist). Kind of like "don't throw rocks while living in glass houses." D-Hell-pers 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user circumventing ban?

Hi, you blocked User_Talk:Mountainsdenver yesterday and it seems as though he is getting around his ban by using a similar username: Special:Contributions/Mountainsdenve. The new account isn't doing anything with the old users pages/edits but I was thinking there was a way for an admin to check into such things further. Anyway, thought you might want to know. JohnCub 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to look into it further - it's fairly clear it's the same guy. And he's still making the same nonsensical edits. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 03:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Boss 0

This is wierd. Now I can edit again. I'll remove the block template. Why was I blocked from editing? Big Boss 0 01:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. But there's some primo quality vandals coming from the IP range you're using, maybe you were dynamically using an address that was hard blocked for a moment. No telling, but rest assured you were not blocked directly. I'm glad it cleared up. Kuru ^talk 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help. Big Boss 0 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism

The first time I deside to sit down and fix some vandalism... you always beat me to it! Can you give me some pointers?

(Post Scriptum) because of drunkenness

(Post Scriptum) because of drunkenness is trolling on their own talk page. Would it be wise to protect or delete it? Acalamari 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Si. Is done; thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 02:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to help. I reported both the users that vandalized Natalie Erin's user page to AIV; but you had blocked them just as I reported them. Acalamari 02:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: AIV report (take 2)

Hi Kuru. Thanks for your quick response. I'll let you know if anything happens again. For what it's worth, I'd agree that the editor is not your run-of-the-mill vandal, as most of his other edits are relatively harmless. Still, his edit history shows no evidence of any discussion at all (on any subject), which makes him a bit difficult to deal with—this side of the block stick. I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers. --Plek 12:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! It looks like our friend just keeps at it, now from one of his three anonymous accounts 63.215.27.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff. He has also created another named sock: Jonathan89 (talk · contribs). I have never seen such behaviour before. Any suggestions on what to do? Thanks! --Plek 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss, to be honest. I've worked with dozens of vandals who simply go off with multiple accounts and IPs, but this one is a little different in that he seems to be making large volumes of decent edits - or at least not obviously problematic ones. The only problem is that he just seems to have it out for that one article talk page and will not respond to why he's blanking it. I'd really rather not go ballistic and start blocking every possible sock at this point since there might still be a chance he'll communicate; maybe a soft protection of that page (from IP's and new users)? Has he ever posted a response that you can see? Kuru ^talk 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and he kind of reminds me of MascotGuy - similar pattern of hundreds of minor edits and won't communicate, but I can't imagine it's the same guy - totally different set of articles. I did block that one IP - it was the one that had been blocked before for that exact same edit. Kuru ^talk 23:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yes, the behavioural pattern is quite weird. On one of his user pages, he does say that he's autistic.[19] No way to verify that, of course, but it would explain a lot. In any case, he's created a new account, Jonathan89 (talk · contribs), and is editing along merrily, despite the block on the IP. I don't if an all-out tag-the-socks hunt is worth the effort. On the other hand, the edits-without-consensus keep on coming. Just let me know if I can or should do anything. Cheers. --Plek 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello!

JJonathan

Hi

Is there anything that can be done about the user JJonathan? He has consistantly poor edits in articles - especially the Spice Girls article, where he keeps changing the info box to suggest the group have reunited (they havent) - and looking at his talk page (which he's blanked), I see you have taken action against him already...

What do you suggest? Rimmers 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Need admin help with IP vandal

User:88.113.137.249 probably needs a longer block and page protection on his/her talk page. You can see that IP address's talk history for proof of misconduct. The talk page probably needs to be reverted back to include the warnings the vandal has removed as well. Chicken Wing 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your reverting the vandalism on my page. ^_^ V-Man - ^T/_C 03:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! Kuru ^talk 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Is this some kind of robot account?

Kuru a robot? hmm...that is a possibility given his massive anti-vandal count. But then again, no computer in the world is sophisticated enough to reply to messages properly. In answer, I conclude officially that Kuru is not a bot, but a living, breathing human being. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be better at math, for one thing. Kuru ^talk 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Your "welcome" message looked automatic. Thanks for the welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Berry (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

It does, now that I look at it. It's pretty rare that I welcome people, so I have not paid it much attention - my apologies, and I hope you stick around! Kuru ^talk 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Risk management

Hi. I just ran across Risk management and am proposing that most of the external links be removed. Since you've been doing cleanup work on the article, and do great cleanup work in general, I'd like to hear your perspective. --Ronz 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that one has needed an enema for a while. I've just been looking at the newest additions, but the entire thing has been a link farm for a while. The only one I'd like to see stay is the link to the open directory. I'd like to think that links to DMOZ are useful to act as a spam magnet; but this particular article does not go a long way to bearing out that theory.

I also saw your question on 'further reading' sections; I have operated under the theory that it is for 'seminal works' that really define the subject of an article such as "Gray's Anatomy" for medical topics. I was looking around for some additional guidelines, since, as you noticed, the heading has simple become "book promotion spam with amazon links" for most of the business topics. I'm not really finding anything specific - it's clear they need to be pruned, but not so clear on what the line is... Thoughts? Kuru ^talk 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Further reading" is a pain. I wonder if anyone has an essay on it. My thoughts: like your "Gray's Anatomy" example, it's an area for exemplar references that aren't actually being used as sources. They should hold up WP:SOURCE#Reliable_sources, plus they should be notable works for the topic. Many times I treat them as linkfarms, even though they might be just lists of unused references. --Ronz 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked about "Further reading" in Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#.22Further_reading.22_sections --Ronz 01:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Question...

Hi, I'm a somewhat new wikipedia editor, and I was wondering: If we find an article that appears to be a joke or utterly fake, how should we report it? Thanks.--Grendlefuzz 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on how obvious a joke it is. If it is 100% clear nonsense; simply put a {{db-nonsense}} tag on it and an admin will soon be by to delete it. I would be careful, though - there have been several times when things that I thought were complete hogwash just turned out to be poorly written and cited articles which were perfectly good topics. In cases where it is not 100% for sure; you may want to use the {{prod}} process with an explanation of why you think the article is nonsense. You can find a pretty good guide to all of this here: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Good luck, and thanks for helping! Kuru ^talk 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He's baaack....

An anon vandal 68.161.68.171 is doing almost exactly the same crap that User:Clancy60 and his socks have been doing; bad edits to Brandon Routh were the giveaway. Any way to check this out, checkuser to see if it's from the same guy? Hate to pass this to you, but I have no faith in AN/I. He's received a "this is your only warning" but has continued.

As for your statement about blocking the original master-of-socks: is the few "good" edits a vandal makes outweigh the disruption that user causes? Every edit the user makes becomes suspect; at the low end of the labour scale, every edit has to be reversed -- hopefully not reverting any good edits that may have been inserted by another user -- and if there have been edits inserted after the vandalism and the bad edits cannot be "undone", each bad edit must be individually changed. If not done on sight, then each edit which may be plausible may have to be researched before being reverted -- taking up more hours that could be devoted to constructive editing. Seems to me that a user this disruptive should be blocked -- else then all a vandal needs to do to keep from being permanently blocked is to throw in a few "good" edits. Or am I completely misreading what you are saying? (I know I have gotten the wrong end of the stick before -- maybe -- so it's not totally impossible it might happen again, unlikely as that may seem.) Cheers. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks for your correction

Hi,

I added an external link to Risk Modelling. I thought it would be a useful one but after your kind explanation I see that it may be against Wikipedia's link policies.

Thanks for your editing efforts! BaselII 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Billnye123456

I would really consider unblocking billnye123456 because he's a really good guy but someone just snuck on his account and edited pages without him knowing.

thanks,, trigismyfave

No thank you. Kuru ^talk 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks for blocking me. I completed the GEDs, just waiting for the results now. I probably won't be on wiki as much now since I don't really agree with some of the things i've been hearing about, not to mention my friends managed to pull me back to my old MMO addiction, but i'll be around. Wish my luck with my results~ --- feb^talk 06:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you did fine. I can only imagine how difficult school would have been for me with all of today's distractions; all I had were Saturday morning cartoons and arcades. Hope you can still jump in every now and then... :) Kuru ^talk 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, did fine. Got my unofficial results yesterday, 96% on three tests, 98% on one, and 99% on one. I think passing is an 80%, lol. -- feb^talk 17:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of The Independent School, Inc.

Why have you deleted "The Independent School, Inc."? Since the usual number of students in a Polish Saturday school is usually 50-70, this school, with about 60 students, is notable. Its students have received many awards, for various inter-scholastic competitions, which were going to be updated soon. Karolpl237 22:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted under a process called 'proposed deletions', which you may read about here: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. It was tagged for deletion by another editor on 18 March 2007, and I deleted it as an uncontested proposal on 24 March 2007. The 'prod' process is designed specifically for uncontroversial and uncontested deletions, and I have absolutely no problem with restoring it. Would you like me to do so? Kuru ^talk 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do.

Thank you very much, Kuru.

Not a problem. You may want to read up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools to find some pointers on how to establish a school related article. The article will probably move into the next step of our deletion process if it is not improved to show some kind of notability and references. Good luck! Kuru ^talk 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. AfD will follow in few days - I don't think a Saturday school can be notable, with few exceptions, and nothing suggest this is it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

hey, thanks...

for taking care of the autoblock thing. I really appreciate it.

Easiest way to get a user banned?

What's the easiest way to get a user banned for vandalism that's about a 4 out of 5 on the obvious scale? User:Adonaiii is a friend of mine, (although I have no idea why) who has repeatedly expressed contempt for Wikipedia over AIM and MSN. He actually brags about how he vandalises over proxies and such. However, as far as I can see, this account has only been used for vandalism and creating articles about himself and WP:NFT matters. I'm not sure it's able to be handled by AIV given how long he's been doing it without punishment, but i'm not really sure where to go to get him banned. -- feb^talk 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch the account. I think it's fairly clear from the contributions that it's a vandal only account and will be closed out if there are any more incidents. Kuru ^talk 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you- he's using sockpuppets now. I realize you probably can't speedy close the AFD, but if you would help keep an eye on the situation it would be appreciated -- feb^talk 09:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Qxz

Hey Kuru. Do you know what happened with him? I'm pretty confused why he had such a sudden change of hearts about Wikipedia. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 10:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. A quick glance through recent events doesn't reveal a flash point. It's a shame, he was a great RC patroller, but we all get burned out at some point. Hopefully he will return. Kuru ^talk 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Shared Concerns

Thanks for your work on vandalism. It is *much* appreciated. I had no idea of what a problem it was until I got involved.

I also recently got involved with Wikipedia after using it for several years. The original trigger was an unattributed copy of an article. Since then I've gotten quite interested in improving the quality of business related articles.

We could sure use your help editing and reviewing articles. Please consider joining the Wikipedia: WikiProject Business and Economics. Egfrank 06:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

When you

When you edit a website page does it make it availible for everyone to see those changes right then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emy12851 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Kuru ^talk 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My contribution was erased

I added a link do download a FREE software for income and expense from the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balance_sheet The reason is that no publicity is permitted in the linking pages. My external link is: http://www.directoriodeempresas.net/balance_en.html

Consider the difference between the google ads in my page from the google ads in those permitted links: Preparing A Balance Sheet (with interactive example) Balance Sheet Explanation with Examples Bean Counter: So, you want to learn Book-Keeping (bookkeeping tutorial in simple terms) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VictorFRodriguez (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

It's a simple promotional link for your software that adds no value to the topic of the article. This is not a link directory; please read the links I left on your talk page. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User: 68.39.163.15

• 68.39.163.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) User previously blocked. IP user personally attacking other users on User talk:68.39.163.15. Asking for extended or permanent blocking. What other options are there? Flibirigit 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The talk page for the IP has been protected for a few days by Buchanan-Hermit. The hope is that he'll just move along. Since the IP is obviously static he will be blocked again for a longer period of time if he starts up where he left off, which seems probable, but we still give him the chance to maybe change his ways. I'll try to watch the account, but please let me know if he goes off again. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Primavera (software)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Primavera (software) (an article that you have shown some interest in previously), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (end template). Will you have a look? If this company merits an article then please remove the prod, but I believe the article doesn't present as much more than advertising as it is. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi Kuru, I thought you should know that User:Hellayeah was created by User:Modderscansuckmyballs, and that they also created User:Mynameistylerdurden. Thought you should know so that you can block the third one I mentioned. I believed these are all socks of User:Wrestlinglover420 who has a vendetta against me for getting him blocked for disruption (for the fifth time, first time I'ver reported him, though). Thanks for all your help. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 01:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Gee, it's nice when they create sock accounts while they're still logged in. Kuru ^talk 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Block Requested: 12.240.50.241

User has been warned several times. After giving final warning, he vandalized my page here and here D-Hell-pers 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if switches IPs. Kuru ^talk 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please advise.

Kuru,

Thanks for your info on the appropriate ways in which to add content (relating to my recent posts on the Recruiter page). Please clarify for me though, if Koya Consulting is in fact a well-established, legitimate retained executive search firm (http://www.koyaconsulting.com), and if there are many other retained executive search firms listed on those pages, and if many of those firms also have their own company pages in the Wikipedia, how is a new company page created or how can information about a given company be added to a given page?

To be clear, I did not intend to advertise for Koya Consulting, and I knew about the nofollow links, I just felt that Koya Consulting was another retained search firm that could be added to Wikipedia just that way that a number of others already are such as,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Zehnder_International

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korn/Ferry

After all, if MaidPro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaidPro) is referenced in Wikipedia, why can't a well-established retained search firm such as Koya Consulting be referenced?

Please advise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluecircle (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for asking. The guidelines for adding an article on a corporation can be found at WP:CORP. In a nutshell; multiple articles from reliable independent sources (not press releases) must be included and all information must be neutral and cited. The articles you have listed above are very, very poor articles and could certainly be improved (or proposed for deletion). Adding the "list of major players" is simply introducing opinion into an article and creates an unverifiable list which will eventually grow into a simple 'directory'. If you want to create an article on Koya, I'd be delighted to review it and/or clean it up if you'll remind me. Kuru ^talk 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:68.39.163.15

Please review 68.39.163.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). You were the blocking admin, and he appears to have started vandalizing again as soon as his block expired. He goes around making incorrect data and statistical changes to hockey articles that take a long time for people to verify and revert. Please consider blocking again. Thanks --Mus Musculus 14:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's unbeleivable; the most annoying kind of vandalism. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Grid computing entry need to allow inclusion of info on others contribution...

Hello,

I have added following statements: --- One such solution is Gridbus Toolkit from the University of Melbourne, Australia.... --- to enhance what is written on Wikipedia page. I am wondering why you deleted it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.250.25.210 (talk • contribs).

That article is a complete mess of random plugs and promotional material. Adding another section with bullet points lauding a specific vendor is not necessary and simply serves to promote. There is already a link to your site on the page as it is. Kuru ^talk 12:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Trouble Seeing Watchlist

Kuru,

Maybe you have a clue of what is going on. My watchlist is not updating with rv's I have been doing lately. I refresh browser, go to another page and then back to watchlist ... but it still only shows the edit before mine by the previous editor. Any ideas if this is a known glitch? D-Hell-pers 05:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. There is a "Hide my edits from the watchlist" option in the "my preferences" tab at the top of your page. If that is not it, you may want to drop a message at the technical help desk and see if someone there has seen this. Kuru ^talk 12:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, my edits are now showing (hours later) in some "delayed" response. I will still take up your advice later when I get second with technical. Right now, I must take a final. Thanks D-Hell-pers 14:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting

Thanks for reverting his vandalism on my talk page. This user kepts on going and going on multiple articles on Canadian politicians - I've requested an RFPP for many of the articles so he can stop. Thanks again!--JForget 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hhhh7, Gjnkr puppets

Hi there, I believe the original account is an IP 24.9.112.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which "contributed" the same vandal edits as the above two puppets. It may be an open proxy, though, since the IP was blocked earlier. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I had not seen the IP - I had just assumed Hhhh7 was the first account. Well, at least he was trying to communicate at the start there. He just didn't listen to the responses. Kuru ^talk 04:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is self vandalism the same as vandalism?

[[20]] This is a new user. On their own user page, they left nonsensical sexual terms. Is this vandalism. I'm writing to you because you just reverted some vandalism that I was in the process of doing. My opinion? I think self expression is ok, even if dumb.VK35 04:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC) No need to respond to me. I'll look to see what you do or don't do.VK35 04:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I usually don't worry much about what people put on their user or talk pages unless it's a personal attack of some kind - and usually not even then unless it's part of a pattern of unconstructive edits. That's certainly an odd edit and not a promising sign... Kuru ^talk 04:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Heads up about Zombie stuff

I've explained the shitstorm of the zombie situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#An upcoming indef-block. I've pretty much covered everything in my initial posting, but I just thought I'd give you a heads up about it, given your (somewhat peripheral) involvement in the situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your prediction; I'm just not seeing anything rational there that will change with discussion, but we'll see. Hopefully we can keep the editing to the article's talk page until the issue resolves. I think I've reverted 100 "dragons are real" statements from the dragon article over the last year, but I've never seen persistence like this. Interesting. I've watchlisted the article, and of course I've read the books, so I'll try to assist as is needed. Kuru ^talk 21:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't vandalizing

You warned me for vandalizing Peanuts. I was trying to fix vandalism, so I reverted the page back one edit, but that edit had vandalism as well. I was just trying to fix the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.14.252 (talk • contribs)

Aye. I just saw the fairly huge profane paragraph that you reverted back - I can see now that you were trying to fix another set of bad edits. Looks like it's all cleaned up now. Thanks for the help and apologies for the confusion. Kuru ^talk 23:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

TNA wrestling spamming

It's part of an ongoing yet failing campaign by everyone's favourite spammer User:JB196, see the ANI report for details, just in case you felt like blocking on sight. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, thanks for the backfill. I had already blocked the lot that had spammed Eagle's page - seems to be quite a few more. At least he's not trying to be subtle. Kuru ^talk 01:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You'd think he'd have now worked out that the spamming isn't going to get any site blacklisted, yet he still wastes his time. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed one. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - blinked my eyes to go back and tag the socks. Blocked that one, too. Kuru ^talk 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:81.79.0.39

Mayhaps, the little monkey could use a talk-page lock? HalfShadow 02:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I did it two seconds before you posted this... :) Kuru ^talk 02:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn you and your coffee-assisted reflexes. It is coffee, right? HalfShadow 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Si, si. That and Skittles. Kuru ^talk 02:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet: Mister Joker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HalfShadow 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mister Joker

Hi, I, like you have encounterd this vandal, Mister Joker, from reverted his/her vandalism, and wanted to know if the hoskmask could be using multiple ISPs to evade the block, and if more serious measures than ACBs and talk page protections could or should be taken.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter at this point. He/she seems to have stoped altogether.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. To be honest, the best method is often to just let them get bored. It takes them more time to go through all of the effort to vandalize then it does to simply revert it and block the account; most of the time they just wander off. If it becomes a chronic problem, then we can get someone with checkuser rights to look at the IP range involved and handle it that way. That's a pretty rare step, from what I've seen. Such is the flip side of 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit'.  :) Kuru ^talk 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

About User:That girl over there

I've discussed with Zero about how this username violates WP:U. He has replied: "Username falls under offensive usernames (possibly a sex-related username)." Is this explanation valid? Sr13 (T|C) 04:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, is it some sort of british or aussie slang? Certainly does not seem to be 'possibly sex-realted'. Kuru ^talk 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not British slang, AFAIK. Jon Harrop 20:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Requestion

So what can we do about this guy? He claims to be removing spam but, from his talk page, he has a lot of people up in arms having removed all content by anyone who has linked to any site he considers spam, and for removing all links that share a domain with anything that he considers spam.

In my case, he has removed a link to free content on my company's site that was added by someone else (not us), and he has removed the link to my PhD thesis from the Wikipedia page about my Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet. In both cases, his justification is that the links point to pages hosted on ffconsultancy.com and he is claiming that I used IP addresses from all over the world to add these links in an attempt to advertise. My only conflict of interests here is a vested financial interest in seeing my book listed among the other OCaml books.

Given that I found a lot of interesting content (free videos about research, e.g. on molecular biology) from the links that Requestion removed because they pointed at specific and relevant pages hosted by the University of Washington, I must assert that he is reducing the quality of many pages. Jon Harrop 20:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I had not had the time to dig through the history of the article or the contribution histories in question; I have been on the road. I would rather do a complete job of assuring that I understand the nature of the conflict than to make any more off the cuff remarks that would further inflame the situation. Kuru ^talk 12:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The situation is already being remedied by others but I'd welcome your opinion. Essentially, Requestion believes that it is his job to remove all content related to anyone he believes to be a spammer, and he believes a lot of users to be spammers. In the case of the OCaml page, Femto settled things by deleting many external links and all references to books on OCaml. While I am not sure that this improves Wikipedia, I do appreciate that fact that Femto was fair and did not target only my work as Requestion did.

Requestion also deleted the citation to my PhD thesis from the Wikipedia page about my PhD research (the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet because it is hosted on the same domain as my book, which he considers spam despite the fact that it was added to the book list by someone else. There is clearly no merit in this. My PhD thesis is the only source of detailed information on that subject. To my surprise, Femto has questioned my credibility as an author and a researcher. I have listed the peers who reviewed and examined my work in response.

Also, Requestion believes that many other users are me. I think it is fair to say that (unlike him), I have been entirely forthcoming in stating who I am and what I do. I am rather concerned at the prospect that Requestion is actually someone that I have had a feud with in the past. I'd be interested to know his real name. BTW, he cited a Wikipedia page that lists the users who have added links to our domain. I notice that many people are missing from the list. Is this because they do not show up as having contributed if their contribution was reverted by him? Jon Harrop 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The list of users that Jdh30 refers to is at User_talk:Requestion#Jdh30_Warnings. All the users that I am claiming to be Jdh30, except possibly 2 low edit SPA's, are definitely Jdh30. Now it is possible that other people added ffconsultancy.com links in the past but I didn't delete those links and I have no knowledge of those links. The purpose of my list is to document Jdh30's spamming activity. It is not intended to be a complete ffconsultancy.com domain addition list. I'm a surgical spam fighter and I only delete links if I can attribute them to a spammer. (Requestion 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

I've got to weigh in on Requestion. I find his claim to be a "surgical spam fighter" a bit annoying. His talk page shows that once he has any site in his target, he removes all links to a site - no matter who has made the link. I've seen very informative links made by third parties to several sites to be blanket removed by Requestion. He removes targeted links that are in the "external link section" and leaves a wholesale of similar links standing. If he really cared about linkspam, he'd remove them all on an equal footing. Check out his work list at User:Requestion/s. Looks like a list he scans to make sure that no links from his targets are ever allowed back - independent of the party that places them there.

I used a remote IP address to post this - to avoid being tracked & have all my contributions voided by Requestion. From his talk page, he's vindictive.

Thanks for the informative warning. If anyone wants to get up to speed on this quickly, I've collated some information on my talk page. Perhaps the most amazing thing that I've seen here is two anonymous users (Requestion and Femto) questioning my credibility in the context of my own PhD thesis.

Anyway, these guys are deleting all of my work from Wikipedia and they have far more time than I do, so I'm out of here. Jon Harrop 05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, apologies for my lack of time lately to sit down and step through the issues here. From what I've seen so far, you have been aggressively adding some links solely to promote products which you have a financial interest in. While I assume that you've added these links in good faith and were not aware of our external link or conflict of interest policies, you seem to have continued to add these links even after having been warned and directed to the appropriate text; possibly in reaction to the abruptness of the warnings. I would ask that you please stop adding links which are not appropriate - specifically the link directly to the "purchase page" for you book, or to the minor digg submission promoting same.

I replaced my book in the books section of the page about OCaml when it was deleted by Requestion. So I cannot have been any more aggressive in adding the link than he was in deleting it. Note that the only coherence in his edits was to delete all references to my work, and not to remove all inappropriate links (he deleted only my book and left the others). Moreover, he deleted all reference to my original work from pages about academic research that I have done. My PhD thesis is not a product and is the only reference for further information on that subject. Jon Harrop 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What I would rather spend more time on is your actual contributions and links to your site used as references to content added. This falls squarely into the realm of 'content dispute', and happens a million times a day here. Wikipedia operates on the assumption of verification, and not on the authority of specific editors. If you're frustrated by having to defend your additions against "disgruntled schoolkid[s]" and "anonymous users", you may indeed by participating in the wrong medium; this is an open forum where anyone may edit regardless of pedigree. Someone of your education should very easily be able to defend your additions and provide secondary cites; with, of course, the presumption that you have the time to do it - I am painfully aware of what a rare commodity that is. Kuru ^talk 12:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How is aggressively deleting all references to only my work a content dispute and not vandalism? Jon Harrop 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. --Kim Bruning 21:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, howdy. :) Kuru ^talk 02:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Block Request For Gooma3

Had Final Warning by another user here whose discussion page was then vandalized here. D-Hell-pers 21:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to clearly be a vandalism only account and has been blocked per your request. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 12:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You D-Hell-pers 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

link removed: Bookkeeping

Hi there,

I noticed you removed a link to Bookkeeper-For-You.com from the bookkeeping article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookkeeping

I see external links to online bookkeeping services are offered here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_bookkeeping

Would this be an appropriate place for a link to Bookkeeper-For-You.com?

Please note, the sites already linked to are commercial enterprises, whereas Bookkeeper-For-You.com is a free service provided as a gift to net users.

Thanks for your advice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pub4you (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not Kuru but I just saw your question and wanted to comment. I added some of my PhD thesis onto Wikipedia (see Wavelets) a few years back. I thought that if the content developed constructively from there that I would add more to Wikipedia. However, I have found that other contributors degrade my content on average (often deleting it entirely). Part of the problem is that the Wikipedia admins are challenged with both improving the content (e.g. by asking for citations to justify claims) whilst also preventing spam (removing citations). I am now in the situation that many questions on the discussion pages of wavelet-related Wikipedia pages are answered in my PhD thesis. The statements that I made have been challenged and citations requested, but the citations that I added have been branded spam by Requestion and deleted. Ironically, one of the pages now has a request for an expert to edit it. Moreover, Requestion went on to delete all links to all websites on our domain and alleged (incorrectly) that I was personally responsible for all of them.

I can see that this is an inherent problem with Wikipedia. An editable encyclopaedia seemed like a good invention but, basically, you get what you pay for. In summary, you can reference external content that is relevant and exciting but there are a growing number of users deleting valid content at an already alarming rate. So my advice is don't bother editing Wikipedia articles. If you're looking to garner interest in your work then do something that a disgruntled schoolkid can't screw up: start a blog or post articles to news sites. Jon Harrop 05:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pub4you, thanks for asking about your link. External links in wikipedia are used to improve upon the content of article by offering resources that cannot or should not be added directly to the text. I'm afraid that links existing solely to drive traffic to your site, however free or altruistic the content, are not generally allowed. I cannot see any material on the site that could be used as a reference or an extension of the article; it is solely a service. As such, the link would seem to be self-promotional. Please real our policy on external link when you get an opportunity. Kuru ^talk 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys,

"So my advice is don't bother editing Wikipedia articles."

Yes this is the heart of my question. Is it worth it to contribute here, when there are so many other ways to give away free content and services?

Please understand I'm not outraged, or anything like that. But I do notice that links to competing services are left in place, while mine is deleted, and the question is dodged. Not a scandal on anyone's part, just a classic sign of any project built upon volunteer effort.

Honestly, I'm too busy making free stuff for folks to have time to join a community where these kind of debates will go on endlessly.

Anyway, please don't take offense, none intended, just trying to be honest.

Best of luck to you all, I'm off to greener pastures.

Thank you again

Thanks again, Kuru, for your quick revert of vandalism to my talk page. I do appreciate that, as always. --JFreeman ^(talk) 12:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! Kuru ^talk 12:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Random message

You warned me about adding nonsense to the Alamo page but I have never even been to that page. Frankly your message was offensive and I am not sure where you got your information, but I never even visited the Alamo page (until now) let alone make changes to it. I am sure you work hard to keep wikipedia accurate and am also sure your work is appreciated but please double check before you accuse someone of something. The only pages I have edited were for grammatical reasons and those were usually pages on T.V. shows and cartoons. Thank you for your understanding, -the guy you accused —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.209.98 (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

It may come as a bit of a surprise that the warning dated six months ago was probably intended for some other Aggie. You can see the edits here if you're at all interested. Kuru ^talk 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice, I enjoyed the subtle put down. Ironically I am hoping to attend Texas A&M this fall. I noticed shortly after posting that my IP address was used not my account (which I have forgotten as I have not used in in several months). Also, the message dated six months ago appeared the day I posted to your talk page as a "new message." This message was not there the day before I posted. Also this was the first message "I" had received and as such was unaware that they were dated. Sorry to show my ignorance, but I'm sure someone out there will get a laugh out of it.

sincerely,

the future aggie

P.S. please note the use of quotations is intended to highlight irony not to be sarcastic. I was pathetically attempting to be humorous. (by the way, I was also accepted into Baylor this year (I'm told it is the Harvard of Texas))

Sorry if I came off too snarky - you have to understand that I'm from a different institution in Texas, and I'm surrounded by Aggies. Aggies who must be mocked. I promise you'll get used to it.

Truth be told; it's a fantastic system, especially the science related schools. Baylor is excellent as well, although 'Harvard of Texas' is a touch of puffery. Good luck in your future studies. Kuru ^talk 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Block Request for 24.106.140.254

Repeat Vandalist, who has recently come off a block and began vandalizing again. User's Discussion Page that shows multiple warnings and blocks, and User Contributions showing that the last 10+ edits have been nothing but vandalism. D-Hell-pers 14:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Its much quicker if you post it to AIV, because Kuru isn't on wikipedia all the time (or is he?). --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Heck no, I work for a living. As to the block; that one is a rotating IP (it's reassigned every time someone disengages their Roadrunner modem). The old warnings were more than likely issued to someone other than the current vandal, and they do not seem to have vandalized since your final warning. If there was some sort of pattern to the vandalism that was constant over time, or if it was high volume, I would be delighted to block it. Looks like it was just a drive by. Kuru ^talk 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He is at it again. Two More Vandalized Pages Listed D-Hell-pers 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What to Do

I found this on the recent changes page. According to the user, his only intent is to destroy Wikipedia and recruit others to help him. What to do? Sr13 (T|C) 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he was indef blocked before he even edited, or more probably there was a deleted article. Since he's not using the talk page to request an unblock, I've just cleared it off. If he does it again, I'll protect the page for a short period. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 00:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He just reverted your edit and started over again. The talk page needs a full protect. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:71.196.7.135

Please advise that you warned this user to cease spam several months back and he continues to post spam links everyday and I am tired of fighting him. Thanks WarEagle93 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - it's pretty clear it's the same user and the same spam. I have the IP watchlisted now, but please let me know if he starts up again. Kuru ^talk 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User: 63.215.29.23

Thanks. Gimmetrow 04:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Kuru ^talk 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Boxing Rebels

You recently removed my entry for Boxing Rebels, stating the reasons below:

(It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephras)

Would it not be a reasonable idea to at least contact the contributor and explain the situation before removing the entry?

It was my first attempt at creating a proper wiki entry, and yes it was short, but it wasn't finished, I was planning to add to it over time.

'Providing little or no context, no content whatsoever'. Hmm, I'm not sure what this means. I explained why the forum was created in the first place (context), and tried to give some idea what forum is about(content). Obviously this is not good enough for the incredibly high standards here.

As for the last phrase of your statement, 'consists only of links elsewhere' that's just nonsense. There was one link, which was referencing a quote used in the entry.

I am trying to write a serious wiki entry, but it seems I'm not going to be given the chance.

YuriG 12:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The version of the article I deleted was not created by you. It was created solely by User:Wiki352534, with one nonsense sentence which he then blanked. It was then tagged for deletion by another editor, which I performed. There is no correlation to your remarks above and this deletion. Your previous version of the article was actually deleted by User:NawlinWiki; you can read the deletion log here. The version he deleted was complete nonsense as well, and was deleted under our G10 attack article criteria - you can read that here. If you wish to recreate the article, I would strongly suggest reading our policies on neutral point of view and our guidelines on notability. Kuru ^talk 12:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Boxing Rebels

Kuru,

Many thanks for you swift reply. I apologise for blaming you for deleting the article, yours was the last name on the list and I had no idea that it had been vandalised previously.

Is there any way I can see what was actually deleted? I was working on it for much of yesterday, and when I left it it was still intact.

I accept that parts of the original article may not have been up to the standard required, but as I stated before I am trying to write an article that fits within the guidelines meted out by wikipedia.

YuriG 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

hi u recently deleted my post for the providence black repertory comapny..i have permission to use the text that i was trying to post...should i send u an email to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org from the company's email address stating that i have permission?

thanks 4/14 05:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Young Perry Alsbury

I see you are interested in Texas History, I have just noticed and thought you might want to know that the page for Y.P. Alsbury one of the five men who burned Vince's Bridge at the Battle of San Jacinto is being considered for deletion because he is "Not Notable". Under this criteria how can most of the other heroes of the Texas revolution be considered "Notable" either. They may not be notable to someone in New England, but to a Texan they are very notable. -Timu

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuru"

SpyLocked

Hopefully you can help me again.

The article apparently has links that I have attempted to remove, but others have always replaced diff, after warning them diff, and a misunderstood response by one person on my position diff. The links seem to be a violation of WP:SPAM, because the companies hostng the links also attempt to sell (although free) products that help remove SpyLocked. Wikipedia should not withhold sites to tools that remove SpyLocked. The rest of the article seems all right thus far.

An opinion on the situation would be nice... Sr13 (T|C) 07:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it now. I'm not familiar with that type of article - that whole category of articles seems to have a pretty serious spam problem, but I need to look through them first. Kuru ^talk 23:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing a reference to an academically oriented article.

I'm more than a little puzzled about the removal of the reference in this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enterprise_resource_planning&diff=124458601&oldid=124432525

It is absolutely clear that although the article is focused on SAP, the SAME concepts can and SHOULD be generalized to all ERP applications.

Please explain the reason for removing the reference. The fact is that more companies that implement ERP solutions (no matter WHO the vendor is) should be focusing on business benefit... That is the object of the article, in spite of its title. And there is no attempt to see any software or service anywhere in the article. In fact, it ends with very specific steps that any company can take with ANY ERP application.

Before simply deleting the reference, how about taking the time to thoroughly read and understand the article, and the fact that it can be generalized to ANY ERP application?

http://www.r3now.com/modules.php?name=news&file=article&sid=4

Thanks...

23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)24.74.135.19

I have added your removals back until I can get a clearer understanding of what specific rule or what specific issue you have with the content of the article. Absolutely NOTHING is being sold, directly or indirectly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.74.135.19 (talk • contribs).

You added the link into the middle of an article by "hotlinking" existing text. The article itself is simply a very brief opinion piece that is uncited and not "academically oriented" - it adds little content to the article. I can promise you that I read and examine all links before I act on them. Your second edit was to add the same link along with poorly written teaser text to another article. Please feel free to add content to the articles that is cited by actual reliable sources. Kuru ^talk 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kuru, since you have set yourself up as the "ERP Guru" please give a full bio / background of your qualifications...

I would consider the fact that I spent several years as the SAP knowledge manager for a good size U.S. National Consulting firm, and have close to 13 years of ERP SPECIFIC implementation experience, and have noted an article with an academic orientation and specific examples a pretty compelling reason that it is sufficient.

Further, the whole orientation of the site for the reference is to help business get the MOST out of their ERP implementation... Period... Nothing to sell, just free information from many years in the trenches.

However, I note that about 3/4ths of this "piece" is not referenced to anything, academic or otherwise. So it begs the question, should it ALL be deleted?

Please note your specific qualifications and credentials, and a reference to your resume or vita.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.74.135.19 (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry if you feel this is the proper forum to promote your advice articles. Again, please feel free to actually add content to the article or to improve the material that is already there. You may want to read our guidelines on conflicts of interest before you do so. Kuru ^talk 23:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi, I found Wikipedia last week and have added information and edited some pages. I have also added links and information about the Anaheim Visitor Center which is located across from Disneyland. Although it is a commercial site for our family business, so is Disneyland and hundreds of other sites within Wikipedia. Each time I have returned to the page or looked up other information, my links have been changed, deleted or in some other way updated to be directed to a wrong address by user Monotonehell. I wrote him a letter on his page and asked him to please contact me if he were going to make these changes so I could understand what I was doing wrong. Instead, he did it again on a page where the letter "e" was added after ".com".

I have access to many computers but would rather understand the malicious attack from this person who won't bother contacting me but continues to make changes (I even included my phone number to make it easy on him).

Knott's and Seaworld are commercial sites, too and they sell tickets - so, why one site would be allowed and another not seems very arbitrary. This is the same with hundreds of other sites on Wikipedia.

I am not a vandal and included Monotonehell's name to make a point. I looked through history first to be sure these sites were replaceable and nothing I did was un-doable or I wouldn't have done it.

I'm also not computer literate and had to work for about 10 minutes to figure out how to contact you so, anything I do will be, I'm sure, harmless.

So, please be kind enough to reply. I'm sure you can do a lot more ill to me than I can to you or this site.

Thank you.

Tom tourismtommy@yahoo.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tourismtommy (talk • contribs).

You created an article soley to promote a small,local commercial entity which consisted of nothing but the location of the enterprise, contact information and some random factoids about Anahiem. This was deleted, twice, as blatent advertisement. You apparently did not like the guidelines that were presented to you, so you began to randomly delete articles of amusement parks and continued to do so after many warnings - I assume that is the 'block' you are refering to. I have not blocked your 'account', only the IP address you were vandalizing with. My presumption is that you will cease blanking articles, and it will not be necessary to block your main account. If you need further assistance on articles for companies, please refer to our guidelines on the topic and feel free to ask any follow up questions here. Kuru ^talk 18:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for repairing Tourismtommy's tantrum, the poor fellow obviously doesn't understand what an encyclopedia is. Perhaps if he'd follow some of the links to policy and guidelines that many people have attempted to tell him about he may understand the notability difference between Disneyland and a family owned tourism office. Also he should stop misrepresenting his business as "official" and as part of the Disneyland Resort. I've replied to his concerns on the Disneyland talk page as he keeps editing under anonymous IPs so I have no where else to reply to him. --Monotonehell 10:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King

You asked why I moved the Stephen King sub-articles into the main article?

I think that the bibliography should be on the main page like most other authors here, but there's no reason other than that really. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam B. Sheets (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Stephen King II

No other reason. I saw that at the bottom, but even if it is changed back to the sub articles, in my opinion that section should be right below the biography.

Also, why not leave the changes I made, but delete the film section? The reason being that most of the films listed there were not written by King himself, therefore my changes are more relevant, in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam B. Sheets (talk • contribs) 03:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry

I see what you're saying and I agree. I'm sorta new at this and I should have discussed it first, you're right. However, I still think that King's screenplay and teleplay credits should be in the template and that the current film and TV section of the article has little relavance to King himself. Anyway, sorry for the abrupt changes and I'll try to do better next time/

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

Only slightly late! Coincidentally, I noticed you ran into one of the users I helped get an account for on unblock-en-l, just the other day. Small wiki, after all. Glad to see you're still as active as ever. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

Thanks! I can edit the articles now. Since I do not know much about templates, I would like to tell you that the banned IP address in question (129.69.36.89) is a proxy server at Institute of Thermodynamics and Thermal Engg.[21] at University of Stuttgart. Thus, it would be good if it be treated like other public IP addresses are handled in case of block.--Scheibenzahl 11:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

How do you block people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Intermisun7 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

To block someone, you have to be a wizard who has a red, shiny button, which you press to magically remove people's edit buttons.... Seriously though, you need to be an administrator to block other people. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 05:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:IP 207.74.115.21

Hello. I am a user who attends the school that IP Address 207.74.115.21 belongs to, and I have talked to two admins that blocked the IP. Now, I have no control over what my fellow students add to Wikipedia, but I have attempted to have the page labeled as belonging to an educational institution so as to stop the IP from being blocked. I don't really are whether or not I can use the IP, as I can always log in, but I was, to sum up, wondering if something can be done to recognize the page as belonging to a school so as to protect it. Thanks, --tennisman ^{sign here!} 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the educational shared template to the page. It is merely advisory, however - I don't have any problems with issuing soft blocks for continued vandalism to schools. Kuru ^talk 16:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Young n***a, etc.

Please be aware that the user is back under a slightly altered version of that name, as well as continuing to harass under an IP address; further, a new user has zoomed in on this narrow discussion topic right away, which seems suspicious.[22] Wahkeenah 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice on full protection?

I've been trying to stop the edit warring in MDS International and asked Shell Kinney for advice because Shell had stepped in earlier during an AfD on it. I've been trying to steer editors to discussing the dispute and finding sources, but with little effect so far. I'm thinking the next step is article protection. Shell appears to be on wikibreak. If you have some time, a bit of quick advice would be appreciated. --Ronz 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the history now. Yeesh. Kuru ^talk 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. Thanks for taking a look. Zzuuzz is also helping. I also opened a COIN after one of the editors made legal threats for the second time. --Ronz 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a hell of a time figuring out the time line here; "wiki-chat" is not terribly conducive to postmortem evaluation of a discussion with what looks like five or six SPAs. I'm thinking that stubbing the article may be the best course. Kuru ^talk 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave up trying to figure out the editors' perspectives, though I'd like to stop Jeanclauduc from making the legal threats. Instead, I just started pointing out the lack of reliable sources, the original research, and the biased editing. --Ronz 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started an AN/I that you'll probably want to contribute to. --Ronz 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just chimed in. I simply cannot fathom Jeanclauduc's posts, so I hate to take any actions based on his edits. Clearly, he's upset about some of the seriously inappropriate material that was on the article. Hopefully, Fayssal can run point on the translations. I think there's still one attack site link that needs to be zapped as well. Kuru ^talk 01:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can't fathom them either. Thanks for the help! --Ronz 01:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragon article discussion

A relevant discussion is going on at Talk:Dragon#External_links. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Will read through it and chime in. Thanks for the heads up. :) Kuru ^talk

Re:Ginóbili!

Yes, I was aware of who made the spelling changes; my message at the talk page was not directed to you. Thanks anyway for your message. Good wiking, --Mariano(t/c) 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Aww..

No fair, at least I'm not putting things like "my butt" and "poopy" in it, as someone else has. I guess that's just funnier than light-hearted satyrical humor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guyfawkes22 (talk • contribs).

Point conceded. Kuru ^talk 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Animanga Domains

Hi, you deleted the article for Animanga Domains, but as it was being deleted I was working on much more content about the history, future, and significance events in it's history and it's accomplishments. I feel with this information it would have very much been worthy of having an article, so may I recreate it or is there no point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NotBuchanan (talk • contribs) 03:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

As it was written, there were no claims to meeting WP:WEB. You can certainly recreate the article, but please start by reading that link first and finding some secondary sources to support the notability of the site. Kuru ^talk 01:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Bull story

Thought you would get a kick out of this joke and story. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just the kind of stories I'd expect from an agriculture school.. :) On a less sarcastic note; my deepest thanks for your service. Kuru ^talk 01:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Lebo Thug (talk · contribs)

I originaly did report Lebo Thug, having vandalized after his final warning, but after I made the report, I came accross an additional warning by someone else, so the reason I ended up withdrawing the report, was to assume good faith the user would stop.--U.S.A. cubed 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But I also faied to read the last vandalized page by the user.--U.S.A. cubed 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on the type of vandalism and the user's history, I think your final warning and original AIV report were correct. AGF goes out the window with posts like the one to Picaroon's page. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?

Is this edit on their own talk page considered trolling? I reverted it because it seemed misleading, because it looked like other editors wanted that user to continue vandalizing and other inappropriete edits, which is not the case.--U.S.A. cubed 02:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan has semi-protected the page. That resloves that.--U.S.A. cubed 02:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

ciber bullying

Dear Kuru,

This dispute with User Requestion might interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction Can You advise me how to reach a reasonable settlement ? --81.241.75.18 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now this is really funny. User:81.241.75.18 is completely oblivious to the fact that Kuru deleted [23] [24] [25] some workforall.net linkspam and even warned User talk:81.242.58.154 who then spammed [26] [27] the same articles again 8 hours later. What are they thinking? And now they ask for advice?

The workforall.net dynamic IP address individual is now User talk:Bully-Buster-007 who appears to have a Special Purpose Agenda (WP:SPA?) of disrupting my open spam cases and causing me grief. I'm guessing but I think 81.241.75.18 found their way here because of this AIV edit [28] on User talk:Jdh30 which is another difficult and currently open spam case of mine. They seem to be canvassing everybody [29] [30] [31] [32]. It is crazy. I apologize for indirectly sending all my troublesome spammers your way! (: (Requestion 02:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Dear Kuru, in this dispute User:BozMo who also seems involved in the disputed spam project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. gave User:Bully-Buster-007 a one week block without prior notice. Do you think such a one week block without prior notice was justified? The people of the disputed spam project also erased harrasment warnings 1,2,3 and 4 on User:Requestion 's Talk page without consent such as one could still find them at the bottom of this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Requestion&diff=129820239&oldid=129818613 and also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Spam&diff=129841114&oldid=129822621 Are all these methods used by the spam project legitimate? Did User:Bully-Buster-007mishandle the dispute or act uncorrectly ? It looks very much like a cover up operation to me. Are there methods to unblock or protect User:Bully-Buster-007 ?— 87.244.130.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

refer to User_talk:Bully-Buster-007--Hu12 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources to the changes you have made?

With regard to the article Accountancy, I note that you have amended/extended the following paragraph under the heading "Modern accounting/accountancy":

According to critics of standard accounting practices, it has changed little since. Accounting reform measures of some kind have been taken in each generation to attempt to keep bookkeeping relevant to capital assets or production capacity. However, these have not changed the basic principles, which are supposed to be independent of economics as such. In recent times, the divergence of accounting from economic principles has resulted in controversial reforms to make financial reports more indicative of economic reality.

What is the source of your opinion? --Gavin Collins 07:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you see the edit summary here, Kuru reverted a deletion that looked like vandalism. It wasn't his opinion, nor did he add it. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kzrulzuall is correct. An IP removed roughly half of the paragraph and in the middle of a sentence, leaving a fragment that made it clear the deletion was accidental or a test. Since there was not edit summary to provide a hint as to the editor's intent, I simply chose to restore the text in its entirety. I hold no opinion on the content. Kuru ^talk 12:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are doing, and although the edit runs against minor comments left on the discussion page, the reviesed paragraph makes more sense.--Gavin Collins 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

manu

how do you get ahold of an admin? there is no button anywhere, i was just being bold.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You should always be bold; please don't let my note dissuade you from making changes in the future. The two easiest ways to get an admin to perform a move where there is already a page at the destination is to A) put a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves, or B) simply tag the existing destination page with a speedy deletion tag, {{Db-movedab}} in this case, then do the move yourself. Kuru ^talk 00:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Kuru,

You edited links to InfiniteCredit.com that I posted on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act. I am not a spammer anymore than than the link to Creditboards.com is and I am upset that you seem to think I am and have threatened me with banning. I posted that InfiniteCredit.com could help with understanding FDCPA and FCRA rights which it can. It is no more spam than any other self-help link for any other topic on Wikipedia. I am not a vandal nor a spammer. You can access my email at blitzkim@yahoo.com and have my ip addy. InfiniteCredit.com is a legitimate self-help website for help with problems with debt collection or incorrect reporting of debt and our community doesn't take this lightly and we do not ask for nor accept money for our help. Please respond either to my email or to my talkpage. This is the first time I have ever edited a wikipedia content and am stunned that you would consider my contributions as spam. I am requesting that you reconsider. If you want to check, our website is 4th on Google Search for credit repair discussion, and 5th on credit repair forum. We are legitimate and have been helping consumers since 2004 and operate the site just like Creditboards.com. If we are spam then so is Creditboards. Please advise.

blitzkim 141.153.124.188 05:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

5/11/07

. . . Or feel free to respond on the editor assistance section where the discussion started. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Responded there. Thanks for the heads up, A. Kuru ^talk 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's nice that you did but it seems I have been accused of editing the page and I did not. I had asked if it was permissible for me to do so and this is my first time back since asking the question. Seems someone else did it and I got tagged with a warning again. Seems the ip was 76.108.0.110 which is not mine. Just an FYI. 141.153.124.188 06:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: revert

You wrote on my talk page:

Thanks - I'm making so many people happy today... :)

Judging from that last reverted edit, at least you're in good company... :-)

--JFreeman ^(talk) 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

this user

It looks like the user above that you blocked is trolling the talk page now.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 16:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just protected it for a little while; let's see if he'll just get bored and shuffle off. Kuru ^talk 16:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Was just playing around to see how Wikipedia works. Is there any chance you could make me an Admin? I'm on the computer 12 hours a day and have been an admin on a few message boards.

Vandalism

Your message to : User talk:77.105.193.84 "Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Baby Gender Mentor . Your edits appear to be vandalism."

Please Note: This user runs a tor exit node! More information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.105.193.84 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Washington College article (again)

Kuru,

I can see this going to be a 3-revert issue again. Could you please protect the article so we can move these differences back into discussion. D-Hell-pers 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have continued the discussion on the WaC article FYI. D-Hell-pers 05:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Horry

Hey asshole, I did not vandalize Horry's page. That nickname is what sportscenter called him after his hard flagrant foul.

I would encourage you to read the warnings on your page carefully - my warning was for the nonsense you added to the flop article. I would also encourage you to read WP:CIVIL. Kuru ^talk 05:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

85.199.0.2 apparently hasn't paid attention to your last warning and vandalised my userpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AAlaexis&diff=131054206&oldid=130120871). Alæxis_¿question? 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for your help in trying to stop the wild talk at Talk:MDS America page. However a sockpuppet of 83.206.63.250 has come right back to the same page and posted again with violations of WP:LEGAL again. 65.2.209.219 19:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

user:83.206.63.250 (presumably aka JC Ducasse user:Jeanclauduc) also made a horrible personal attack [[33]] against Fabrice Ducasse. My French isn't good, so I've relayed this to FayssalF. nadav 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensible comments at Talk:MDS America! EdJohnston 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I'm taking a short break from those two articles - the ceaseless, incoherent disruptions are more than a little tiresome. Thanks for helping out. --Ronz 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a user talk page

I went over to Rivatphil's talk page [[34]] to check something, and what I found was an unholy mess. Apparently, something in that welcome template has screwed up the formatting for the rest of the page, rendering all the warning templates indecipherable. Have you any idea how this can be fixed? Advice would be appreciated. Thanks. ---Cathal 04:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there was a modification in the original welcome message that left an orphan (unclosed) font tag. Apparently, it's been like that for the last year. I think it is fixed now! Kuru ^talk 05:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the page can actually be read, which is, I think, the point! Thanks. Of course, I now no longer recall what I was going to say to him... Perhaps it will come back to me. ---Cathal 05:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Finish Texas A&M University article

This is a request to assist in finishing the Texas A&M University article for FA status. We need just a couple of people to read the article and the discussion and then sign off the remaining items to be checked. Once this is done, we will submit for Featured Article status. Even just checking off one item would help, so please do what you can — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good spelling catches! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is any way you could review an item or two and sign off on it, I'd greatly appreciate it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim Duncan

Thanks for the link on Tim Duncan's full name and for fixing the inches thing I messed up on. Cnota 22:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - it's a tricky little template. Happy editing! Kuru ^talk 03:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on Wikipedia

Hello Kuru,

Your user page is very nice especially the quote at the top, which is something I plan to share.

Recently our web designer brought a concern to our attention that was directed to us regarding comments published by you via Wiki that are both defammatory and innacurate.

When a search of google index pages for our company, the following appears:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=eastlandmortgage.com&btnG=Search

A few links down a wiki string of cached information leads to a pubished statement regarding us that is not accurate.

One of our associates is a college student who has published a directory (free of charge to all users we have been told) for jumbo lenders. We along with many other lenders are included in it. He has told us that if he intended to create spam it would 1- refer primarily to one company, and 2- not have a valid address. He is concerned that his directory was not only misinterpreted, but that it was published publicly as such. Further we are concerned that our webmasters shared use of an adjoining suite is your sole basis for publishing defammatory comments against our company, and our (very nice) webmasters attempt at what appears to be a reasonable directory for a niche in our industry.

Please take corrective action to be sure we are not published in a google search in a way that makes a deffamatory claim about our firm, and our webmasters directory. We do not wish to initiate an action between us and Wiki, a non-profit two of our members have supported.

Thank you.

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.40.162 (talk • contribs)

If you'd actually read User:Kuru/archive-4#jumbo mortgages, you'd realize that Kuru didn't actually write it. It was posted on his talk page by someone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Evula is correct, the comment was left by another editor that was apparently upset that I did not remove your link from the jumbo mortgage article along with his link. You can reference the specific edit here. I take no responsibility for the content of his/her post, and have no objections to your removal of it from the archived page (I assume this would make it drop from the google index at some point). Please let me know if I can assist you further. Kuru ^talk 00:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yamamoto's RfA

Looking back at Yamamoto Ichiro's talk page, I wanted to assure you that I was meaning, in no way, to insist that he take's Deskana's points into consideration. I was merely stating my opinion that I agreed with Deskana's point he made in the RfA where he pointed out that replacing the George W. Bush page with "he is a democrat", is not blatant vandalism, and I'm sorry if it came out the wrong way. Yamamoto has done tons of anti-vandal work, and my only concern was that he may, unintentionaly, bite the newcomers. All of that aside, he has the right to take the advice he wants, and it's no big deal. You're right that he should enjoy the tools, and I have no doubt that Wikipedia will benifit aswell from him. I knew that Wikipedia:Administrators were never paid, with extreme exception of a few Wikimedia Foundation Staff, and maybe I have been expecting more than I should of admin. canadates.(Maybe Adminship is not a job could be added somewhere in Wikipedia:What adminship is not.)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You have my apologies for any confusion - my note on his page was unrelated to your note right above it; simply one more congratulations in a linear stream of posts. I was more concerned with the "nothing but vandalwacking" type comments from other editors, which I do not consider to be a problem, than the "fails to assume good faith" comments such as yours, which I do consider to be a valid concern. I simply did not see it with Ichiro, but it's a judgment call which I fully realize others could interpret differently. :) Kuru ^talk 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

conservatism

Sorry about that, I was under the impression that I was editing the box just for the neo-conservative article, in which case the edits would have been legitimate. Thanks for correcting. I'm new to editing on wikipedia so hopefully I can limit this in the future.

thanks from a raccoon

thank you for helping me revert vandalism on my talk page. I may need it semi-protected for the next little while since vandalism's been on the increase in the past 2 weeks... :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Bballer

Hi, I see you picked this account up for vandalism. He added personal imformation about me, my school and partner to my talk page. Is there some rule about privacy on wikipedia regarding that? The link to his talk page is Here and mine is here. I removed his comments, but they are still in history I presume. Gollod 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarah noticed this already and has performed this deletion to remove the information from you user page's history. Kuru ^talk 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kuru - Thanks for welcoming me

Hi Kuru,

Thanks for welcoming me. So I'm new to wikipedia as a user (not as a visitor) and I'm mainly focusing on anything related to Project Management. I'm currently trying my best to clean project management articles so that wikipedia's visitor will be able to have a smooth and rewarding experience.

One question, I'm trying to create a decent page for myself (you know, with the boxes on the right), could you please tell me how to do this?

Thanks again!Pm master

Someone has framed me

Hi Kuru a while back a user named Five Cougars apparantly posted a personal attack on someone or something, he also apparantly spammed the fair trade wiki, or something like that, i was foced to create a new account as a friend came over and did all those things as a result my old user five cougars is banned, he was on this IP at the time 124.177.109.1 If posible please unban five cougars for me, as i did none of those things and ive had a hard time for it.--Ranger1524 01:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Kuru the changes you are making to Kell high school is not true they didnt win the 2003 and 2004 baseball champs i go there so i would know —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coachenglish (talk • contribs).

I've made no such changes. Care to clue me in on what you're referencing? Kuru ^talk 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Knights of kingdoms

Could you take a look at Knights of kingdoms? This seems to be a nonsensical page. While you're there, take a look at the recent edit history of Garzane. This user seems to be adding gibberish, again. Thanks. Nykbasketball 23:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - absolutely no context or content to the page. All of that user's edits appear to be a month old at the latest, unless I'm missing something. If he starts up again, let me know or post it to WP:AIV. Thanks for the heads up! Kuru ^talk 00:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

San Diego Natural History Museum NPOV

There's a NPOV problem at San Diego Natural History Museum. I'm not sure how to deal with this. --SueHay 04:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that looks like a mess. I'll read up on it this afternoon. 11:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Business Continuity Edit Reverted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Business_continuity_planning&action=history

Kuru- Why do you feel my addition regarding disaster proof hardware should get reverted? It's extremely relevant and valuable for the public to know about this recent development in the DR/BC space. This new class of hardware is essentially the next generation of safes.

-Robb

Please stop adding transparent promotional material for your company, Robb. You can read about our conflict of interest guidelines if you'd like more feedback. Kuru ^talk 05:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I'd like to express my support for Kuru's reverts. Seriously, Robb, ALL your contributions show a clear agenda of promoting "ioSafe Inc., disaster proof hardware". It just happens that we are not idiots here, and we caught you. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I didnt realise

Hello there.

Thanks for the welcome and thankyou again for explaining why my external link was removed. I have read the guide lines and will cease to enter in Dragons Touch no matter how relevant the link due to the fact that i own the site.

Just so you are aware, i think i added the link to European and chinese dragons as well. I will remove the link from the sections i can recall tonight and perhaps in a while suggest it in the sections talk pages :)

Lex

Thank you very, very much! Kuru ^talk 23:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

HEB predatory pricing

There are two very clear citations in the first portion of this new section.

I've reinstated the original predatory section, but I will remove and review the independents section. I am a witness to this next section and would prefer some method of remain anonymous since HEB is huge and I don't want my name floating around as a troublemaker. Is there an alternative for situations such as these?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'reinstated'; I simply added a 'cite needed' tag to the second paragraph. As you noted, the first section was strongly supported by your citations, but I could not locate some of the specifics in the second section. Some form of verifiable, reliable sources will be needed. I'm afraid that even your first person experiences cannot be cited (unless they are published accounts), so please don't expose yourself for nothing! We also want to be careful of our undue weight policy when adding criticism, but your current addition is very succinct and in an encyclopedic style. If I can help you in any way, or if you have questions about our policies, please let me know! Kuru ^talk 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

B4L24

A user with the handle B4L24 vandalized, among other pages Syracuse Orange. But if you look at his other "contributions," they are all vandalism. I was hoping you could block his editing abilities for a short period of time. Thank you for looking into this. Chengwes 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a streak of vandalism - I can't seem to find any real edits in there anywhere, so I've blocked the account. You may want to post these obvious ones at WP:AIV so someone on the day crew can block them immediately. Thanks for the heads up! Kuru ^talk 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for your help! Chengwes 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I had deleated the page by accident. Over the last few days I have been adding a small section on the "controversies" regarding ICICI's poor customer service, which is a well known fact all over idia. I feel that the article should have this perspective. However the paragraph I add keeps getting deleated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.7.17.24 (talk • contribs).

No problem; it happens! I can see the critical information you were trying to add previously, and I understand why it has been removed. We have a fairly strict policy about sourcing critical commentary with reliable sources, which you did not appear to have supplied. Simply stating that it is a 'known fact' is not sufficient; we need to be able to verify the information through a published, reliable third party. I am sure if you can provide the information, it can be added. If you an supply the sources, please let me know if I can help you. Kuru ^talk 12:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Texas Tech University article

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		In appreciation of your guarding Texas Tech University and other articles against vandalism. --Wordbuilder 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Hello,

I received you warning message today and apologize for any misunderstanding. I will not add anymore links. I have a question though, what about the references to "Iron Mountain Inc." It contains a direct link to their page which would serve as an advertisement and under your guidelines, "Spam."

I did not take adding a few links to areas where we can help consumers to be spam. I figured we were simply adding helpful information to an area where a lot of people have questions. I care about search engine rankings, but am not interested in using wikipedia as a platform to make our ranking better, I simply felt we were adding helpful information. Apparently I was mistaken.

I do feel though that you use the word "SPAM" quite liberally. On many of the pages I added information to there were plenty more links to other companies as well. If you plan on editing my links, please do the same for them. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.103.144.2 (talk • contribs).

I have no idea what you mean by 'links to areas where we can help consumers'. The links I removed were solely a link to the front page of your commercial service. There was absolutely no other content other than very specific product pitches. Since you were gently warned about this activity previously by another editor, and since you added blatant commercial links to many articles with the sole purpose of promoting your business, I used my rather conservative label of 'spam'. As requested previously, please read our external link guidelines. Kuru ^talk 23:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my first message I apologize for the misunderstanding and will not add anymore links as I have read the policy as requested. I did not realize it was an issue at first because I saw many other links just like it. As you may be able to tell, I added the links to some pages in the same time frame which was before I received any message from an admin. I did not add links since then and do not plan on doing it unless it is according to the guidelines. I will not debate with you about it because I understand your point of view and I appreciate the wealth of information Wikipedia provides to its users. Thanks for your time and again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Postage meter

You removed some of my edits that I made. Both Postage meter and Pitney Bowes have advertising links on them from other users. I removed the one from Postage meter, but left the one on Pitney Bowes. Are these unacceptable too, or are they different somehow from the edits I made? Thanks. Walterbowes 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your link appears to be a low content affiliate page which simply promotes a commercial product and has quite a few tokened links back to your supplier. I assume you're also operating as 66.125.80.58 (talk · contribs) which I had warned twice previously; hence the overly harsh warning. I'll look at the both of those articles - I admit I simply reverted your link addition and did not scan the rest of the article. Thanks for replying. Kuru ^talk 23:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The link on the Postage meter page was pretty blatant, thank you for removing it. I also removed the link I think you are referring to on the Pitney Bowes page - I assumed it was the one trying hard to look like an official PB page (but PB does not own the domain used). Thank you for again for your reply. Kuru ^talk 00:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alamo

Thanks for the citations you provided for Alamo Mission in San Antonio. - Bevo 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for starting it up and doing all the hard ones - sourcing modern trivia is pretty easy compared to sourcing the fairly nebulous world of Texas History. Kuru ^talk 02:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Temporary ban of 194.165.170.4

Obviously the person deserved it.

However, it is a dynamic IP address for many thousands of BT Ireland customers. Such as myself who just happened to be allocated the address on this occasion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.165.170.4 (talk • contribs).

Hence the brief nature of the block, which appears to have expired 34 days ago. Kuru ^talk 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That was basically pointless... As it is, why bother asking for an unblock when no one has edited (constructively) with that ip, except for this post. --Dark Falls ^talk 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for beating me at least 4 times to vandalism. Cheers! †Sir James Paul† 01:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks - you've beat me to several as well. Thanks for keeping the place clean.. :) Kuru ^talk 02:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User Page Vandalism

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my page and reverting it. You are quick, I saw it seconds after he did it and you still beat me to it :-) Trusilver 03:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity...

I wasn't sure whom to ask, or even how to search for this, but how did you decide on 31 hours for a block? I've seen the number elsewhere, but I can't find a reference and was just wondering. Jddphd 03:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A twenty-four hour block is too easy to internally time ("I'll just pick up tomorrow at the same time"). Seems to work on the short attention span crowd; no other reason. Kuru ^talk 03:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense - thanks Jddphd 03:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for being so fast at the AIV page tonight that I have to look back to see if you really are standing over my shoulder. And you've beaten me to the revert button more than a couple times. Trusilver 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's been an odd night for sure. Thank you for all the work you've done... Kuru ^talk 05:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Meta77

hey dude leave my freaking page alone. we were working on it. Were going to put it back up so leave it alone. If you dont mess with the Red vs blue page leave ours alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.249.25 (talk • contribs).

And this is regarding what? Kuru ^talk 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

you deleting my teams "Post Grabbers" page. They were very proud of it and now there sad and messaging me about this. anyway, yea we were working on it. I mean look into something before you just delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.249.25 (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry your team is sad. Perhaps you can find a free web host or a myspace page for your movie? I'm afraid that we cannot host promotional material for an unreleased and non-notable fan movie here. Kuru ^talk 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Now im upset we were not trying to promote anything. We were makeing a page for the show. Red vs blue and other shows like it all have bloody wikipedia pages. We wanted to make one and ours got deleted. If i wanted i could cause a ster tonight. Im a bigger name on these kind of sites and game sites then you may realize.— 71.207.249.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

Look, Meta, I know you're upset. But the last thing we need is not being able to put a page up at all! ... if they can do that to us. UnRated One 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha its ok im good now. and no that cant stop someone from putting something up they only delete things. well just get the stuff and info together and make it again.— 71.207.249.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

re: Yili horse

Interestingly enough, it just dawned on me about an hour or so ago to have checked the history for a version of the Yili horse article without the violation. I will try to do better in the future. Cheers, --Aarktica 11:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Manta.com

Thanks, I will be sure to keep the link policy in mind more as I make additions. Deaksarm 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Deaksarm

about that

What was wrong with my edit or whatever. Does everything we put on here have to be 100% true or something Im new and dunno what im doing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BEYONKAJONES (talk • contribs).

Being true would be a wonderful start. Here's a great place to learn about our policies and how to edit: Wikipedia:Introduction. Kuru ^talk 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

David Miscavige

Thanks for reverting my edit on David Miscavige. I had seen some vandalism and, in my eagerness to try out reverting using popups, I reverted someone else's revert, thus vandalizing. By the time I caught it, you had it fixed. Thanks again. ZZ 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - I've done it myself a dozen times.  :) Kuru ^talk 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool... I think I'll give up on Popups for the time being, seeing that I apparently re-vandalized Nsync as well, which you again fixed - and were then reverted and re-reverted by someone else who did the same thing I did! It's good to know that it happens to others, too. Best, ZZ 02:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Heron's turbine?

Well, Kuru, it depends on how you define a turbine, doesn't it. Would you call a rotary crop-sprayer a turbine? Heron's affair worked the same way, except with steam jets. Taqi al Din's and della Porta's device played the jet in a fixed direction on rotary blades, so it comes closer to a turbine except that it had no casing to concentrate the flow and must have wasted an awful lot of steam around the sides. Best wishes--John of Paris 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure. If you're referring to my participation in Steam engine, my changes were to remove the phrases "hello u!!" and "oli loves dong"; presumably uncontroversial edits. You may have me confused with another editor. Kuru ^talk 12:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

and dinga-dinga-ding-dong-ding - sorry about that--John of Paris 12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please could you find an admin to investigate a reported case of Sock Puppeteering

Please could you find an admin to investigate a reported case of Sock Puppeteering

The incident is here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/XAndreWx

Sprigot 08:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems fairly obvious, but since the user has already been blocked for the 3rr he was apparently trying to avoid, I'm not sure there's any point to any further action. I'm hoping he will stop trying to game his reverts on his return. Kuru ^talk 23:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only citing verifiable, factual and objective information

I am a noob, what am I doing wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Commercehelper (talk • contribs).

Replied on editor's talk page. Kuru ^talk 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your opinion, please

Hello, I recently reverted several edits [35], [36] and [37] based on WP:EL policy. The editor since has created several graphics for these pages of good quality and has been making good edits. One thing I did notice is that the editor linked the commercial page to the graphic page as a reference. The web page is also directly displayed on the graphic. An example is [38]. Could I get your opinion on whether or not WP:EL has been violated in this situation? Thank you! Postoak 05:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Man, that's a really tough call. Easy part: I fully agree with your initial reversions - those were simple promotional links presented as such. Hard part: He's adding the data directly to the article in an on-topic way that does not overwhelm the article. The link stamped on the image itself (or an author's name, etc) is usually to be avoided, but I don't think it's painful in this case. Is the data useful to the article? I would probably disagree with such information for cities or towns, but those are basically subdivisions and regions in Houston, so the data may be specific enough to be of value. Since the editor is also making other positive edits, I would probably let it fly and just keep an eye on it. Kuru ^talk 02:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks for your assistance. Postoak 02:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Do you mind commenting on my editor review please? Thanks! SLSB talk ER 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rv

There's not much else to say really. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for reverting my talk page

Damn those vandals get pissed when you revert something! :) -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 03:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. That one was just slightly bitter. Kuru ^talk 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

thank you for helping me out. i am fairly new to wikipedia and did not know about the Sandbox feature, and apologize for any unnecassary edits72.185.44.3 08:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Mattee

Would it be acceptable to temporarily block User:Mattee so he/she will read his/her talk page? He/She is creating copyvios and removing speedy tags, though clearly in good faith, but seems not to listen. -WarthogDemon 00:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've sprotected the redirect for now - if that doesn't work, I'll set a short block to get his attention. Kuru ^talk 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :) Hope I wasn't disruptive trying to fix things. -WarthogDemon 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

!!

How can anyone revert vandalism with you on the ball! Quick, aren't you? :P Marc ^Talk 01:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Instructions for new Wiki editors

I was wondering why so many editors don't give a source for information they add to Wikipedia, and why so many stub articles have an external link section that was apparently created as a reference section. I think part of the answer is in Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial. I glanced through them, trying to view the information from a complete newcomer's perspective. I saw a few things that might be contributing to some problems in Wikipedia.

• Introduction "anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." Lots of newcomers and anons make test edits on that page, and source/reference information is notably lacking from their edits. Not even a little note in parentheses saying "I got this from my history book". Sometimes an inline link, but rare. It might be worth seeing if a ==Notes and references== section with {{Reflist}} or <references/> can be maintained on that page as a reminder. Plus maybe a page header CITE YOUR SOURCES.
• Learn more about editing Thinking like an eager new editor, I went straight to Read about how to create your first article. The main points tell me to be bold, but they don't tell me to cite my references. In the second bullet in the second section I glance at this:

Good research and citing your sources. Articles written out of thin air are better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying large amounts of the text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism.

My impression from that is that research and citations are purely optional, the most important thing is to write about what I know about. I can always leave the verification problem to someone else... that's "better than nothing." I figure I don't have to do any real research to contribute to Wikipedia, because I can just write about what I know about.

• Explore Wikipedia is my next stop as an aspiring editor. I've already looked around Wikipedia a bit and seen the articles, but I'm curious about who writes Wikipedia. This is text-heavy, but I glance at the first couple of paragraphs...

Volunteers do not need any formal training before creating a new article or editing an existing article. The people who create and edit articles in Wikipedia come from countries all around the world and have a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Anyone who contributes to this encyclopedia is called a "Wikipedian".

It is Wikipedia policy to add to the encyclopedia only statements that are verifiable, and not to add original research. The Wikipedia style guide encourages editors to cite sources. Sometimes Wikipedians do not follow these policies because they forget or because they are not aware of the policy, and until citations are supplied, readers of the article cannot verify the content in question.

That's pretty boring. I want to WRITE. But I guess first I'd better glance at the...

• Tutorial

• Front page welcomes me to make edits
• Editing explains Show preview and Edit summary Some of that might not make sense to me if I'd already created a Wikipedia username and started messing with my user preferences, but I get the drift.
• Formatting Hmmm. Right. Good to know.
• Wikipedia links I spot "When to link" and read "The easiest way to learn when to link is to look at Wikipedia articles for examples. If you're trying to decide whether to make a link or not, ask yourself "If I were reading this article, would the link be useful to me?" Usually link the first, and only the first, occurrence of a word/term in the article, that does not have an implictly understood definition." Being a new editor, I don't quite follow that last sentence. I barely notice the lead sentence "Linking Wikipedia articles together is very important. These easily-created links allow users to access information related to the article they're reading and greatly add to Wikipedia's utility." I notice I have to use 2 square brackets to link to another page. I never get as far as reading about categories.
• External links is wonderfully clear and simple -- I can DO that!!
• Talk pages. I'm not interested in talking right now, I just want to edit. But I glance at this.
• Keep in mind. This sounds boring, but I click on it and glance at it. Editorial policies... Subject matter... Neutral point of view... blah blah blah... I never really notice another messaage, because it's pretty far down:

Citing sources

Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References". If any websites would be of particular interest to a reader of an article, they should be listed and linked to in an "External links" section, and books of particular interest should be listed in a "Further reading" section, but only if they were not used as sources for the article. Citations help our readers verify what you've written and find more information.

Carefully hidden away is something of major importance to the integity of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute."

Based on this introduction and tutorial for new editors, I'm not surprised that there are thousands of unsourced and poorly sourced articles in Wikipedia -- and many short articles and stubs with "External links" sections and no citations. Wikipedia is only as strong as its editors, and new editors are often guided by Wikipedia's Introduction and Tutorial. 65.78.213.45 03:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello. Thank you for reverting vandalism done to my userpage. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 00:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, friend. Kuru ^talk 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion

Hello

Please can you explain why you have deleted my article on Online Parish Clerks (UK), when those for similar genealogy organisations have been allowed? An example of the latter is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shropshire_Family_History_Society

Cheers

Myra

Howdy, Myra. The article was tagged by another editor as advertising, per the notice on your talk page. After reviewing the article, I concurred with his/her assessment and deleted the article. It appeared the be a simple list of services written in the first person (we, us, etc.) and lacking any third party external coverage to establish notability. If you'd like, I'd be happy to place a copy of the article in your userspace so that you can continue to improve it; but the existing version is not in compliance with our guidelines. If you'd like me to do, please let me know; I'd be delighted to answer any other specific questions. Kuru ^talk 18:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

papertrading

hey you took down some good valid stuff for papertrading including stuff that i did even add?

why pray tell? a link to an educational site that is 100% free is totally on topic can't be inapproptiate, why don't you want people to have this information, (its free non commercial site, designed to teach peole, allow them to practice---thats why it was set up: free paper trading online!!!) i think people looking up papertrading would want to know this dont you????? patrick (zippymobile)

You're adding promotional links to your site, again, on topics that tangentially related or topics that do not need external links to 'examples'. Please open discussions on the appropriate talk pages of the articles if you insist; and please read WP:COI when you have an opportunity. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

70.169.31.108

here is a link to a reverted edit due to the edit summary i thought i would inform the blocking admin[39]

Block on User talk:86.14.3.247

The guy was starting to go after my user page. Thanks for the block.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 01:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, friend. Kuru ^talk 01:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Automatic User talk message?

You recently reverted a page blank NASA.

You also placed this (Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to NASA . Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits.) on the user talk of the person that did this.

Was that an automatic message? If so how? If not, wow, you're quick! Mitchowen 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are scripts which allow you to automate rollbacks and placing templates on other editor's pages. The most useful one is Lupin's Navigation Popups, which allows you to revert certain edits easily (amongst other cool things). The other one I use is Kbh3rd's warning toolbox, which allows you to have one button placement of pre-defined messages for common vandals. Both of those links have decent directions on how to add the scripts to your user set up. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! Kuru ^talk 03:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

about the deletion of page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_entry_scam

Hello! 01:59, 10 August 2007 Kuru (Talk | contribs) deleted "Data entry scam" (CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement from http://www.usejob.com/data_entry_scams.htm)

If there is a sentence, 'For anti-scam purpose, this article can be distributed to other places under no conditions.' at the webpage http://www.usejob.com/data_entry_scams.htm, can the page 'Data entry scam' be restored?

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Youngerleo (talk • contribs).

Regretfully, my understanding is that any non-free use condition, such as "for anti-scam purpose" places restrictions on the contribution and is incompatible with the GFDL license you agree to when you submit text. I'm also afraid that even if the copyright issue was resolved, there is still an article unsupported by any reliable sources and of questionable notability. Kuru ^talk 03:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

about the deletion of the article: Butch Borchers

yes, it's about a person. A person who invented an extremely important type of air compressor that is used by millions. I recently conducted an interview with him and am trying to report my information. It's a legitimate part of automotive history. I DO NOT KNOW THIS MAN. I AM A RESEARCHER. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OrphenCB (talk • contribs).

You realize I can still see your first couple of attempts at sharing your 'research'? Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Kuru ^talk 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Build-Operate-Transfer

Why the hell did I receive a message that I vandalized it? While in fact, all that I added into it are truth. Philippines is really part of the program Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) and I just added it to its right place.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.105.139.62 (talk • contribs).

The edit I reverted and warned you for was blanking the entire article and replacing it with "OWNED". You can see the diff here. Kuru ^talk 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. Sorry for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.105.136.181 (talk • contribs).

User:Aatomic1

This editor that you blocked last night is using sockpuppets to evade their block and edit war. Please see the history of Birmingham pub bombings. Kind regards. 217.44.10.252 12:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems there are new editors doing exactly what this editor was blocked for could you have a look dont want to get in to an edit war with these new editors thanks. BigDunc 12:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been eleven changes made here[[40]] since this morning they are trying to get it blocked with the names of the dead included against consensus.BigDunc 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I am unable to react to this during the day; checking now. Kuru ^talk 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear the article is now semi-protected, which will prevent him from using socks to continue to edit war for now. If he ages a few accounts and starts reverting with them, or if he immediately returns from his block and starts the same activity, please let me know. For now I've added Birmingham pub bombings to my watchlist. Kuru ^talk 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Prince2 and the anonymous spammer

Hi there Kuru, I saw the excellent work that you did on trying to remove the spam links from the external links section of the Prince2 article. I have tried to resurrect this effort and I have put the page out to RFC. Unfortunately only one user has commented and it is undoubtedly the anonymous spammer. Obviously there is no point doing an RFC if the anonymous spammer can post whatever anonymous comments he wants. You seem to be a far more experienced wikipedian than myself and was wondering if you had any ideas what to do? Wikikob 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that Wikikob finds it necessary to trouble you Kuru, but I cannot allow his abuse to pass without comment.

I am apparently "the anonymous spammer". A disgraceful allegation of course, name calling simply because I dared to disagree with him. In fact my comments following his were my first ever and I have no affiliation with any commercial entity in this field at all.

Contrary to his comments there are clearly a number of contributors supporting retention of those links, such as Stevo, PRINCEAndy and others. You probably recall this fact.

I would also draw your attention to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk.

Statements he made on there like "I am determined not to let him beat me" are of concern as they illustrate a mission other than to contribute to the quality of the page. The (short) edit history of Wikikob comprises almost entirely of deletions and no content input. This is not wrong in itself, but it is not usual for someone to engage in such a determined campaign with such a background.

Doesn't this strike you as strange? Well it did me, which is why I took a look and have taken the trouble to counter him. I find it hard to believe that a casual observer would register and behave like this straight off the bat. It does not make sense. It seems to me that he does have some other mission.

Hopefully the community here will flush this out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.110.218.226 (talk) 14:49, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I have not looked at the PRINCE2 article in quite some time - I'll take a look again and read through the commentary when I get an opportunity. Kuru ^talk 14:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at all the commentary and links and have responded at Talk:PRINCE2. Kuru ^talk 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kuru, I am getting fed up with this anonymous user who keeps following me around and I hardly feel its worth bothering you with this but I have to counter assertions such as "the edit history of Wikikob comprises almost entirely of deletions and no content input" and that I am a recently registered user. The truth is that I registered as a user in October 2004 and have made substantial contributions to the Prince2 article. This is my first experience with a wikipedia troll and it just makes me wonder why wikipedia allows anonymous users to contribute. Why not ask everyone to register? Oh well, all part of my learning experience. Anyway, thanks for your input. Wikikob 08:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it. You're a professional and should have a thicker skin by now... :) As to anonymous edits; you might be stunned at how much of the encyclopedia is built through IP addresses. I've spent a lot of time on recent changes patrol, and the ratio of good edits to overt vandalism is about 10 to 1, with some of the edits being major. Yes, it's annoying to track down a persistent vandal with a rotating IP, but I'm happy to take the time out to do it if it saves the anonymous edit ability of the other 9 editors. :) Kuru ^talk 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim Duncan

Hi there, as the Tim Duncan article is now undergoing FAC, and I've noticed you do edit the article from time to time, I was wondering what are your thoughts regarding the state/quality of the article? Thanks. Chensiyuan 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks spectacular; I actually read through a good portion of it last night. Y'all are doing your normal great job on the NBA articles; it's nice to see the Spurs get some development. Kuru ^talk 15:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Our pleasure! Chensiyuan 16:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Tutorial

Kuru, I think the Wikipedia tutorial needs to be fixed to explain how to cite references, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Can you help? --Foggy Morning 03:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting; I've never played around with the tutorial pages there before. Using the php style ref tags might be a little confusing for new users, though. They should probably be mentioned somewhere in there so that people at least know what they are when they see the code. Maybe a pointer to the mediawiki help page on them? Kuru ^talk 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mediawiki help page is pretty techy-babble -- I guess I say that because I don't understand it! :-) But I've picked up the drift about how <ref></ref> and {{Reflist}} and <references/> work to link citations to text in Wikipedia. That's not very complicated. And citation templates aren't too complicated once you get used to them, working on a basic level. (For me, not 100% correct, but I try to get the main info in place.)

Some experienced Wikipedia editors think that references are quotes, believe it or not. I checked the definitions in Financial ratio against a book I have and cited the source I used, and User:pgreenfinch thought I was creating a "quotefarm". I was just trying to give a source for the information I could confirm, and tag the other information as uncomfirmed or unsourced. Another experienced Wikipedia editor, User:gregalton seemed to support citing a reference for article text, but he doesn't usually cite references for his additions to Wikipedia. So I think that editors don't know how to do this, even experienced editors.

I don't think it's too complicated to replace the Wikipedia Tutorial explanation about External Links with an explanation about how to use ref tags and reflists to cite sources for text in Wikipedia. But I don't know how to edit the tutorial pages.

If there are some Wikipedia politics involved with this issue, I'm sorry if I'm rocking the boat. --Foggy Morning 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Aatomic1

Could you please have a look at this, [41]. Despite this [42] and an ongoing mediation, this editor continues with edit warring. [43] [44] [45]. Thanks --Domer48 22:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also please note this [a]; this [46]] and this[b] Aatomic1 23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's amazing. I've protected the page for now pending the conclusion of your mediation. Other comments on the article's talk page. Kuru ^talk 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Thank you for protecting Birmingham pub bombings, while I work on getting consensus. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 14:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Buffalo Watershed.png

Hi, you created this picture. Would it be possible for you to give it a bit more contrast, the blue is very light and difficult to see. --213.155.231.26 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC) (too lazy to login for this simple message, greetings anyway)

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the text is pretty crappy - I'll try to fire up the mapping material next time I get some time off. Kuru ^talk 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result: no violation)

Can I ask you to reconsider your decision? The contributor in question is gaming the system to the extreme, and WP:MEAT is akin to WP:SOCK in Wikipedia's books. I left an additional comment on the 3RR page article.

There wouldn't be a problem if the above contributor was promoting verifiable fact, but instead is agressively promoting a personal "theory" agenda in reverting the same. I have done much to get mediation in this, but in the meantime User:Hardouin is doing all he can to profit from the low traffic/level of knowledge of most English wiki contributors in these articles to promote personal agenda over fact. The facts are readily available (and even obvious), if you have the time to read the relevent talk page - in looking at this perhaps this user's agenda will be clearer: reverting to the same unverifiable terminology again and again on the same articles, and this for more than two years now - and yesterday's reverts were just more of the same. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Promenader's aggressive behavior and accusations

Hi Kuru. Just discovered Promenader's accusations today. This is not the first time this happens. This must be the 7th or 8th time this user accuses someone of being my sock-puppet and files 3RR complaints against me. Whenever someone agrees with me and disagrees with him, then it must necessarily be my sock-puppet! He even asked some admin to check if their was sock-puppetry once, but of course the admin couldn't find any sock-puppetry, yet this hasn't stopped Promenader from renewing accusations as you can see. I wonder if you know a way I could report Promenader's behavior. His harassment is reaching extremes. Whenever I edit Wikipedia he reverts my edits within hours with complete disregard for civility and Wikilove, then go on making accusations and starts fights. It has lasted for almost two years now. Two years of harassment! I have told admins before, but nobody has really inquired on Promenader's behavior so far. Do you know any admin that could check this? If you're interested I can give you a list of editors who have witnessed Promenader's behavior in the past two years and who will happily tell you about his behavior. Hardouin 09:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice that everything in the above is but an insinuative attempt at character assasination, and that nothing in the above concerns anything about disputed fact. I'm sorry that I am so insistant in my efforts to see that the concerned articles (those concerning Paris, as far as I'm concerned - and no further) remain verifiable, but the fact of the matter is very simple and accessible to all. As for my behaviour, I have never resorted to sock-puppetry (as User:Hardouin has), nor sought the aid of those not knowledgable in the subjects I am dealing to "back" my edits, nor partaken in behind-the-scenes e-mail campaigns to garner the favour of (France-ignorant) admins and contributors. As for civility: one can only maintain WP:FAITH for so long; User:Hardouin and I live in the same region, and I (as well as he) know that he is fully aware of the fact of what he writes, and this (hi)story has been going on for more than two years now for everything concerning low-traffic Paris articles. ～～～～ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePromenader (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC) - sorry, was working from a shift-jis-only IBM computer. THEPROMENADER 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

re the eXile and WP:BLP

User:Dsol has been shopping his complaint around for a long time now, including with User:SlimVirgin and User:Brighterorange and nobody has yet taken him up on his proposal that the eXile article should include phrases about a named well known celebrity having 2 vaginas and a named well known reporter having a horse sperm creme pie shoved in his face. Please see SlimVirgin's removal of this tabloid information [47]

Please remember that WP:BLP states that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and that biographical info for LPs must be stated conservatively. Dsol might object that it is all quoted by reliable sources: a) not true, b) irrelevant,

a) the couple of sources he's managed to dig up are just saying that the eXile said "..." Quite a difference. They also say things like (approx) "The eXile visciously attacks innocent people and goes well beyond the bounds of decency." Without the qualifiers, the article is simply misleading.

b) irrelevant. The info as presented is still direct from a tabloid, still not conservatively presented, still misleading, and not needed in the article. On it's face it is completely against WP:BLP. Nobody at WP:BLPN will support him so he shops it elsewhere. Do please look at his claimed support by User:The Evil Spartan, and please be aware that he will misquote you too.

In short, I can't see anything to discuss with Dsol, he wants to include garbage in a Wikipedia article, and I'll revert it. If you want to decide this matter, I'll ask that you look closely at the article and what Dsol wants in there very carefully. Also please look at what other administrators have done.

Thanks in advance for your carefulness.

24.127.156.41 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't extensively argue with this anon's comments here because I've already adressed them at the BLP noticeboard page, and since it's better to keep discussion centralized anyway. I would only repeat that the 4 sources I cited are not merely repeating the eXile's claims, and do assert the incident as fact, e.g. the salon inteviewer also reported personally seeing photos of the incident, and one source even claimed to have fact-checked it with the NYT by phone. I think this anon's behavior goes well beyond requesting reliable sources into wilful censorship. I would encourage you to read the links if you have any doubts, and if possible explain to this anon that s/he should assume good faith, as at this point s/he "no longer sees" anything to discuss with me. Dsol 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with SV's actions as the material was presented at the time; the sources sucked and the allegations were presented as fact. Both the material, and the sources have changed since then. Honestly, we could probably do without the salacious details, but that's something you two should continue to discuss. You both seem like intelligent adults capable of finding some language that both illustrates the events and does so responsibly. Please continue the discussion at the BLP noticeboard before blindly reverting the material. Kuru ^talk 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Some Dumbot has unprotected Birmingham Pub Bombings Aatomic1 12:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[48]

Hi Kuru. I noticed that you hardblocked this user for having an inappropriete username, but that you used the {{Usernameblocked}}, instead of the {{Usernamehardblocked}} on their talk page. That's perfectly fine, but I think for hardblocking inappropriete usernames, the message would have been more clear with the other template. No worries, though.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - I hit the wrong button... :) Should be fixed now. Kuru ^talk 17:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked JBHSBandGeek

Thank you for addressing my problem. I actually do not remember posting anything about Disney. It's possible that someone logged on using my screen name. I'll change my password so that no one can edit anything under my name again. Thanks! (JBHSBandGeek 18:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

re 172.129.240.83 block

Thanks for your message at my talkpage. I have requested 172.129.240.83 clarify their reason for unblock on their talkpage. I don't see any point in lifting a block just so they can test how far they can push before getting muzzled again, but I don't mind a "goodwill" reduction in tariff if they make a reasonable case.

I am commenting here because it is late in the UK and I may well go offline before any response from the editor. If you are still online please feel free to amend the tariff as you see fit. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 00:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked, on the basis that a vandal hopefully reformed now is better than a revenging vandal in two days time. I'm off to bed forthwith, so I will request you supply the banhammer if they do go back to old practices. LessHeard vanU 00:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood - I'll check in on him from time to time. Kuru ^talk 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks

Hi, I have my own Wiki, how do I perform a range block?

If you're curious why: [49] Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, I've yet to have to pull that trigger. You can find the mediawiki instructions on it here, though. Hope that helps... Kuru ^talk 02:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Galileo Wiki

The facts concerning Galileo are exactly as I stated them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.216.68 (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean where you changed his name to "brandon casey" a year and a half ago? Sure, sparky. Kuru ^talk 13:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Block of CNNfanDotCom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I released the autoblock myself, but thanks for the note! —[[Animum | talk]] 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For beating me to a whole heck of a lot of reverts. Cheers! ;) Into The Fray T/C 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I stepped on your warnings a few times - sorry!  :) Kuru ^talk 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Conan the Cimmerian

Hello! Please see my latest entry at the Conan the Barbarian discussion page. PointDread 20:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Noted, I've replied there. If no one starts up in a few weeks, let's make the move. Kuru ^talk 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Outsourcing

Re: your deletion of my edit. I think an article on outsourcing should mention online outsourcing, including examples (as with the examples of traditional outsourcing companies, wich I deleted as I fail to see how they add to the article). It's a very rapidly growing area. I listed several and am researching others. I actually think online outsourcing deserves its own entry, particularly with regards to the area of social responsibility - in that it gives people in developing nations the opportunity to earn income performing useful services for people in the developed world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinm5 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A big spammy list of commercial external links combined with some uncited puffery about online outsourcing is not a constructive addition to the article. Concur with the removal of the list of 'example vendors' - I think I've made the same edit in the past. Kuru ^talk 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Blocking of My Editing of Indonesia

Hello, Kuru. Your action is unfortunate, unwarranted, unnecessary, and unkind. Apparently you fell into the trap of some so-called 'editors' here.

I am well-aware of the etiquette required when contributing to Wikipedia, a PUBLIC forum where no registered user or group of users has editorial authority. However, some here (including yourself) do not honor the spirit of this forum but regularly violate it while falsely accusing sincere contributors of violations; I can see you are either one of the false accusers or simply someone who allowed himself to be carried away by a mob mentality instead of exercising character and examining what really happened. This is all I have to say to you. (wikimuppy) Wikipuppy 17:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been pointed in the direction of the WP:3RR policy roughly half a dozen times now. I could not honestly care less about your rather simple content dispute. Kuru ^talk 18:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note also that (s)he is now breaking WP:SOCK policy to circumvent the block. — Indon (reply) — 01:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Si. The sock account was blocked right after the above response and a reminder of the policy left on the original account's page. Kuru ^talk 01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

why did you delete my new entry before I even finished it? that's not cool.

I am writing a page about traffic shortcuts - a necessary part of our 21st century auto-centered lives. My intent is to add other tools and links for people to use to help themselves (www.mytrafficshortcuts.com / www.trafficdocumentary.com / www.sigalert.com)

Is this not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traffique (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're essentially creating a promotional article for your non-notable commercial web site. Please stop. Kuru ^talk 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

Dear colleague administrator-- with respect to the admittedly unsatisfactory article on Nefertiti- Ancient Beauty, Contemporary Leader‎" , which you deleted as "An article already exists on this subject under the correct name; the content is obviously copied form another source, likely a copyright violation; this article is beyond salvage." -- which speedy criterion on WP:CSD exactly does this explanation refer to ? DGG (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I misread the tag in my haste and presumed it was the verified variety of copyvio. Thank you for cleaning up the situation, and my apologies. Kuru ^talk 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You call this a free encyclopedia, Kuru ?

You are allowed to write about the Spanish Governor's Palace 1722 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Governor%27s_Palace

I am not allowed to write about the Croatian "guvernadur" Prince Frane Posedarski 1658 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=%22guvernadur%22+knez+Frane+Posedarski+&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brkic (talk • contribs) 10:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR block has long since expired. I'm afraid I have no idea what your current issue is, nor does your demeanor endeavor me to assist you. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 12:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just unblock (undo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustase Kuru

Show me that you are not one of them. (Spylab, Rjecina, laughing man, Steel359, Kuru. Kirker)

--Brkic 14:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Chapter 27

Just to inform you that User:67.177.229.191 vandalized Chapter 27. I've undone the vandalism but I noticed that 67.177.229.191 has been warned twice already so this would make vandalism nubmer three at least.--Gonzalo84 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Horchata

I did not do anything to this page. I have not even seen this page before? Why did I get a warning? 69.229.96.253 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone using your IP address did indeed vandalize the article back in March; the same time the warning is dated. Safe to say you can simply ignore the warning. Kuru ^talk 03:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos Kuru

I don't know how to add smiley faces or stuff to this message, but I've seen you watch over many articles and keep stuff here on track. You welcomed me in a welcome message long ago and I haven't forgotten that nice message from you that made me keep coming back and trying to make Wiki better. Thank you for your welcome and patience and defending Wikipedia against nonsense. Kudos, Kuru! --Foggy Morning 04:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize

Between December 14, 2005 and June 7, 2007, I vandalized Wikipedia under my previous username (YechielMan) and under various IP addresses and alternate accounts.

I recently reviewed the contribution logs of all the accounts and IP addresses that I can recall having used. My goal was to identify all of the intentionally harmful edits I caused, and to apologize to the individual users who reverted those edits, or warned me, or blocked me.

Hence, I apologize to you and to all of the following users:

Adam Bishop, Amarkov, Antandrus, AntiVandalBot, Bdj (Badlydrawnjeff), Conk 9, CanbekEsen, DLand, Downwards, Eagle 101, Ericbronder, Gogo Dodo, High on a tree, Hut 8.5, Interiot, Jayjg, Jrwallac, Kingboyk, Kuru, Noclip, Patrick Berry, PFHLai, PhantomS, Pollinator, Rachack, Ranma9617, Rx StrangeLove, SlimVirgin, Tfrogner, TommyBoy, Vary, Woohookitty, Zzuuzz, and some anonymous IPs. (I also reverted one edit myself after it went unnoticed for three weeks.)

Thank you for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia against everyone who has attacked it, including my old self.

If you wish to respond, please do so at my talk page.

Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lease option and Lease purchase contract articles

Kuru, I understand and appreciate your comments. With utmost respect, this is the second time you and I have discussed this matter. As I have stated to you before, I am the original creator of the articles Lease option and Lease purchase contract . As you can see by the history of the articles, original credit goes to Lease2Purchase.com. The link I added to Lease option titled What is a Lease 2 Purchase contract? from Lease2Purchase.com was already included in Lease purchase contract and has 100% relevance to the topic, yet you removed it from both articles, citing it as spam. Did you examine the link I added? Spend a minute of your time and read the link I provided, it is valuable information to most folks whom find themselves researching this topic.

I have been a real estate investor specializing in these techniques for over 10 years. I am an expert on the subject. With all the misinformation on the internet regarding this topic, the link I provided is without question the most accurate definition available and would be welcome information to all visitors who happen upon these pages. I respectfully request that you add the link back to both articles.

Ironically, I am also an original contributor to an open-source *nix server-side email spam filter, which might help you understand how I could be offended that I am now actually accused of being a spammer. I look forward to your reply.

Edit: It is possible I am mistaken about previously speaking with you about this. It could have been with a different Wikipedia member. My apologies if this is the case.

Respectfully, Jeff_B 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your professional query, Jeff. I'm afraid, as you noted, that I cannot find a previous conversation between us, so apologies if you've covered this before. The links you added were, in my opinion, not a neutral and reliable source of information on the topic. Most of the text seemed to be a sales pitch promoting the topic with some fairly breezy and unsubstantiated claims of wealth building. The pitch ends with a fairly blatant "May I have your business?" section exclusively promoting your product, right along with guarantees and an order spot. I'm happy that you've spent time fighting spam; I'm disappointed that you're using that credential to justify indisputable commercial self-promotion. Please use your obvious knowledge of the topic to add cited and factual information to the articles; and skip the promotional links, please. We'd love to have your contributions to the encyclopedia! Kuru ^talk 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Because I'm somewhat new to actually editing articles, would a link to the L2P Chat Board (I will delete this link after I receive your reply), which does not contain promotional material, be considered an unacceptable link for the two articles? My apologies if this is not the right place to discuss this. Jeff_B 01:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-1: Also, what if the links to the page in question were removed (the links moving the visitor forward to the How-To page? I could create a special page without any further links. Would the article then be acceptable to add to Wikipedia?

Edit-2: Kuru, are you not willing to discuss this with me anymore? I was thinking about joining the Wikipedia adoption program.

Sorry, I had missed the response. We're here to build articles in Wikipedia. I can see little at your site other than some unreferenced commentary and a low traffic forum. I would strongly favor your constructive efforts in building the article; not in adding external links. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

With much regret, it appears that we will have to agree to disagree. I had sincerely hoped that you would help guide me rather than taking a firm "No" stance.

The L2P chat board averages more than 1,500 unique visits each day, with over 7 years and 20,000+ messages which are searchable in the archive. The vast majority of users come for information, and once they find it they go about their business. I owe it to anyone searching for information on the subject to explain to you that lease options are highly specialized and objective, thus once a topic has been discussed, there really isn't much more to be said about it. Furthermore, your "unreferenced commentary" criticism above is offensive and not appreciated. Like most folks, I work hard at what I do and take pride in it.

Please remember that I've already had this conversation with another Wikipedia member who already authorized the link and content I added -- which you subsequently removed with (apparently) minor due diligence. I am the author of the original articles. Without my contributions, they likely wouldn't even exist.

I've made a conscious effort to check the articles every day (I've already removed some spam in just three days!). As free time allows it, I plan to stay active with them, which includes adding useful links. If you plan to "filter" what I add, please read up on the subject. A great place to start would be here: Lease purchase contract, and then spend five good minutes on the L2P chat board. Jeff_B 11:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kuru, I don't mean to butt in on your talk page, but Jeff_B doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia is an encylcopedia, not a chat page or forum. Jeff_B might not understand things here, or he might be playing some sort of game. Based on his comments and contributions, I'd say he's just playing some sort of game. I don't know why. Jeff, maybe you could explain your reasons for editing Wikipedia on your talk page or your user page? -- • • • Blue Pixel 01:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blue Pixel, it is possible you're right, maybe I really don't understand how Wikipedia works. I've refrained from updating the pages in question any more until I learn the ropes a little bit better. I AM trying to learn before I go and mess the system up, that's why I've been talking with Kuru. The way I use Wikipedia is to research or learn about a particular subject -- and I've used it a lot lately! :-) I have updated my talk and user pages quite a bit lately, check them out and leave me a message if you like. Jeff_B 11:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting the changes the IP 68.78.76.55 made to my talk page. By the way, here is a barnstar for your other vandal fighting efforts:

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, the user SmileToday, hereby award the userKuru, with the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for efforts in fighting vandalism. [[User:SmileToday|SmileToday](talk) 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope you have a nice day! SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! That was an odd one for sure. I wonder what's going through their minds sometimes... Kuru ^talk 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the most strange one I have seen, except for the Hagger page move bots. Probably didn't even know what they were doing. Oh well, have a nice night. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I need some quick deletions if you're available

Sorry to bother you, but I saw you were active and I need a quick favor. Can you delete Ask me for sex, My number and Hot girl number please? It appears to be someone giving out someone else's number, and I'd like to get it out of the history as quickly as possible. Thanks. --Bongwarrior 03:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! Kuru ^talk 03:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Took you long enough :) --Bongwarrior 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

DHCP and sprotect

A personal thank-you for this fix on top of your regular good work. Like many "challenged" editors "contributing" to articles related to African Americans, our little friend seems curiously interested in fantasizing about homosex. That minor matter aside, he seems to be benefiting from DHCP; if I notice that the AAVE article is hit again by a different but related IP number I'll sprotect it. -- Hoary 03:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on History Portal - Renaissance article

Hello Kuru. There have been some comedians visiting Portal:History/Featured article/November, 2007 this morning. I just did a revert, and I see you've been doing the same. When I saw this article the first time this morning, I made just one small edit. But then I discovered there were several paragraphs missing from the original intended article. So I put it back a couple revs to your last one. I assume that was the right one. I'll keep an eye on this. Just thought you'd like to know as well. Best regards, Hult041956 16:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, no idea why someone was going to town on such an obscure article. Kuru ^talk 23:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page - not sure how I got to be so "popular". Nice watershed maps too! Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and not a problem... :) Kuru ^talk 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you help with little problem?

I have a list of books that I use as sources when I put stuff in WIkipedia articles. When I get a new book I add it to my list. But I'm not very technical and have trouble formatting the book citations right for Wikipedia -- and getting the columns and rows iin tables to work out right in Wikipedia. Can you help me get this right? I have my book page on my user page. It's "bookshelf" on my user page. --Foggy Morning 02:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you're trying to do with the table - I'll take a look at the code later and see if I can fix it. Getting all the "|" characters straight can indeed be a pain in the rear. As for building cites, I usually cheat. There's an excellent site here where you can paste in an ISBN for a book, and it will create and populate the template for you by pulling the rest of the data from an ISBN database. Then you just cut&paste into wiki. A massive time saver. Kuru ^talk 23:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm getting a weird message when I click on that link -- "connection refused". Maybe that's because it's Sunday morning? I'll try during the week. Thanks for the help! --Foggy Morning 15:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, it was down this morning, apparently. Should be good to go now. Kuru ^talk 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to go, thanks! --Foggy Morning 02:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of references on Microsoft Excel page

I added a few references I have found helpful myself in using VBA in Excel. My additions were as follows

For examples of VBA code see Robert de Levie. For more about the Excel Object Model, see Roman.

You deleted these references from the article. In my opinion that reduces the value of the article to a potential user. Why not leave them in? Wouldn't a print Encyclopaedia do that?

One could argue that any choice of references is a bit arbitrary, given the huge number of choices. However, in fact these references are somewhat unique among all the Excel books in being very helpful without hype about how great the software is.Brews ohare 23:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise you deleted a section I added: (redact) Same question: doesn't this section aid the user?Brews ohare 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You've kind of hit on the problem. The 'references' you added were not really used as references for anything in the existing article, they were just random commercial books that spoke to various issues on Excel. I think you're proposing more of a 'further reading' section, which some articles already have. Those type of sections are hit or miss; some are actually useful and have collections of important works on the topic (ex: Gray's Anatomy for an anatomy article), some are simply spam magnets. I would strongly prefer not to have these links randomly strewn about the article, but I won't object if you add a section called "further reading" or "bibliography" maybe. Kuru ^talk 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nabbing the vandal

Thanks for nabbing the vandal with the long numeric name who just vandalized my userpage... much obliged. I suppose my deleting his silly page is what set him off. Accounting4Taste 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Si. Sadly, one of my first actions as a new admin was to semi-protect my userpage... :) Kuru ^talk 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL I'm going to keep track of the number of vandalisms as a perverse mark of pride in my contributions. Accounting4Taste 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice work

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Nice work reverting vandals, try and save some for the rest of us! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah I counted six 'rollback failed' messages and a 'user has already been blocked' at your hands. Thanks, and back at ya.  :) Kuru ^talk 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh "user has already been blocked" are the worst. Well I'm glad to know I put up some semblance of a fight. :p Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Finance

Greetings, I apologize for the mess I caused. I thought I was helping. but I only caused a mess. Thank you for cleaning up my mess. Thanks, PGPirate 16:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Six Sigma

Why did you remove the University of Miami link? How is it different than the Motorola University link that is already there?

Thanks, Rick

There's an extensive conversation on the article's talk page on the subject. I don't feel that any of the links are needed, personally, but at least Motorola has the distinction of having developed the methodology. If you'd like, please re-open the discussion there. Kuru ^talk 12:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please go through my website carefully before deleting it from wiki

Hi Kuru, i saw you remove my link from CPM and PERT. Well...nothing personal. However, please go through this pagePERT again. My students said it is quite useful. There are 3 parts relevant to PERT 1) PERT 2) PNET 3) Simulation using EXCEL. If there is any problem or suggestion, dont hesitate to tell me. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chachrist (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are three very brief examples and a google ad column. I don't see how it provides a critical resource that expands on the article's content and there's a conflict of interest; but I'm always open to further discussion. Please take a look at our guidelines on external links and on conflicts of interest when you have an opportunity. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 12:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kuru...i just add external links on Critical Path Method. It would be nice if you can give me some comment on this one. Moreover, i also add external link on Resource Allocation.

PeeWee McDonald Sockpuppet of PWeeHurman

If you wanted to know, User:PeeWee McDonald is also a sockpuppet of User:PWeeHurman. -Goodshoped 02:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know - thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, any username that begins with Pee or PWee are the sockpuppets. -Goodshoped 02:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Peaceful on the homefront, thanks to your defense!

I worked on some articles today and noticed that nobody has messed them up with nonsense during the past week or so. Sometimes you made quiet little edits to remove something that didn't belong there. Thank you for helping me!--Foggy Morning (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I saw your expansion of the term 'biological assets' yesterday - I couldn't help but think that was the new HR euphemism for 'employees'.. :) Kuru ^talk 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

:)) That's a good one! Bad enough that we're "human resources" instead of people -- makes a person expect to find other departments for goat resources, frog resources, and martian resources :) --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I just noticed that you removed my report of personal attacks by Special:Contributions/86.139.179.254 on WP:AIV, marking it as stale. What exactly was the resolution of my report? Newtman (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

AIV is for immediate action on in progress vandalism. You gave the user a warning three hours after his last edit. There were no edits after that. Is there some sort of specific action you are looking for? Kuru ^talk 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got my back

Thanks for keeping my user page free of trash. I'd give you an arbitrary barnstar but I have no idea how, so instead I will award one to myself. Hermione is a dude (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. I appreciate it, and happy turkey day. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For beating me to many reverts. Good Job! :D Sseballos (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)|} Many thanks... Busy night.. :( Kuru talk 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject:San Antonio

You were the Wikipedian who welcomed me here back in June and we both hail from San Antonio. I think we should start a WikiProject:San Antonio because I am finding it hard to believe how many San Antonio related articles are red links. Austin, Houston, and Dallas already have one. I think its time we start one. What do you think?--STX 01:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like an excellent idea. I'd love to get a 'working list' of neglected/missing SA topics together to draw from. I've seen precious few Wikipedians that have self-identified as San Antonians, however - I can only think of a few off the top of my head (User:Eluchil404 and User:Ageekgal seem to be the most active). I'll poke around the Houston and Dallas sites a bit to get a feel for how those projects work! Kuru ^talk 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of Aust History

I like your changes - thanks - much better!--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Llano River

Thanks for the help on the Granite Shoals, TX and Llano River sites. FmreillyFmreilly 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist

Thanks a lot for the help there it is appreciate. However can I ask you to please log any entries that you make. This may seem a little irritating but in 6 or 12 months time the rationale may be impossible to find and the listing will then be removed by someone. I've just had to do exactly that on a Meta listing than no one logged! Let me know if I can help - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense - many thanks for the heads up. I've logged the details. Not sure how I missed that in the instructions, seeing as you've idiot-proofed it by putting it in large red letters! :) Kuru ^talk 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey - you have no idea how long it took me to get the hang of that on Meta!! However, believe in in a few months time trawling the history of the page is just not an option. Thanks for the help, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Re: your message on User talk:128.208.35.159 I'm afraid this is a public library, so you will get a lot of this. For reference, this is the undergraduate library at the University of Washington. 128.208.35.159 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all your work fighing those vandals :) Tiddly-Tom 19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

...

I'm allowed to edit my own talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.99.83 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

what happens if you vandalize something 3 or more times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.138.43 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Section added to the IT Governance page

Hi Kuru,

I think what you're doing is great: watch vandalism on THE internet free encyclopedia. In my case, I am a true contributor of the text I wrote (and which by the way has been already copied from my web site by commercial organisations who sell it to readers without my permission!!).

This is the reason why I thought the text would be a good one and because I think Wikipedia is a good (the best) way to distribute information broadly, I have added the section Business to IT Alignment to the IT Governance page.

You can check that I have added the sentence you told me to add on my web site: www.it-to-be.com

I hope this time the section is published on Wikipedia as I prefer to give it for free and let people update/modify it then having commercial minded people make money out of it without asking me if I am OK with what they are doing.

Thanks for your understanding.

Anais Malaussena CEO of IT to BE —Preceding unsigned comment added by IT2BE (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! That's just the first issue, however. The entire piece seems to simply be your personal commentary and original research on the topic. If you could add citations to reliable sources, that would be wonderful. Kuru ^talk 18:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Kuru, it goes without saying but I'll say it anyway -- thanks so much for your support in my RfA.
--A. B. ^(talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vpmi Article deleted and Removed from List of Project Management Software

Somewhere over the past few days the Vpmi article was deleted from Wikipedia and subsequently removed from the list of proprietary web-based applications on the List of Project Management Software page. I am not sure how Vpmi was removed, but it was an article on Wikipedia for months and should be brought back. I have audited my watchlist and cannot find any note as to who deleted this article. It seems malicious. I am requesting that the article be restored and that Vpmi be returned to the List of Project Management Software article where it was before. Please respond as soon as possible. I am hoping you can help. --Tilleyg (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For vandalism reversion on my talkpage. Cheers --Nuttycoconut (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. You've made some new vandal friends today.... :) Kuru ^talk 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Discussion

Hello Kuru,

REF: Direct Inward Dialling - I've started a discussion regarding this article and the list of SELLERS, I think that is the best way forward instead of people making the changes and then having someone undo the changes. kind of pointless really. I would therefore request that the article is locked until such a point it is finalised by either a user discussion or via a wiki mediator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.239.238 (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the Userpage revert,Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

sry

sry bout that,my friend dared me 2,my fault,so,r u the creator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socks rule (talk • contribs) 04:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC) hey,ive heard people talk about editing,but ive nevr done it, u like it?

Range unblock request

See User talk:69.152.216.164. Says you're the blocking admin. Can you provide some input? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, found this. Never mind ... will decline. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Si. I left notes on the page, but he/she/it removed them. I've made a notes page here and included it in the new range block. Kuru ^talk 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with them,it,her(richardson)...checkout pharmboys user page, there is another list of where the sameones hit. Its a long rapsheet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acuhill (talk • contribs) 06:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I had missed Pharmboy's list... Kuru ^talk 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Planesense

Given that they're clearly the latest Richardson socks, and they hit both of us, should we report it to AIV and let someone else do the block? Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really bother with conflict of interest on socks; if someone objects later then we can discuss. Otherwise, it's simply WP:RBI. Kuru ^talk 14:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Florence Bates

Your edit was incorrect. She graduated from the University of Texas at San Antonio, not Austin. MovieMadness (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain how she passed away 15 years before the university was founded here? 'University of Texas' commonly refers to the main school in Austin, the one here is almost always referred to as UTSA. Kuru ^talk 19:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My reference says she graduated from high school in San Antonio, then attended the University of Texas, after which she taught in San Antonio, then passed the bar and practiced law for four years in San Antonio, after which she operated an antiques shop in San Antonio. No mention is made of Austin anywhere. Was Austin the only UT campus in 1906? Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost - UT Arlington was around then as well, but there is not a law school there. The law school at Austin has been around since the 1800's; UTSA lack such a program as well. The handbook of Texas can be a bit cryptic at times, but I'm almost sure that any reference in there to UT will be to the flagship school. Fun! Kuru ^talk 19:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WikBack

Thank you for registering at the WikBack. I look forward to your posts. (If you didn't register, please let me know as soon as possible since it may have been in imposter) The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

your edit of the supercheats page=

i was just wundering why you took out the bit about cez . he was one of the main members of that site . and sumed up certen parts of it . is thair enything we can do to have the info about him edited back ito the page

p.s i dont youse this site mutch so eny tips will be gratfuly reseved respecfuly

Neptis (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Another editor removed that passage before I protected the article. I can't say I disagree with the removal, though - it looked like a completely uncited puff piece. I would suggest that someone start adding some real references to the article before it is deleted in its entirety. Kuru ^talk 22:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the quick responce. I will se what me and the uther members that have looked after that page can get in terms of refrences. althow it is a relitivly small site compared to uthers i have been to . it should have sum refrences . althow i will try to get them from outside the VGN network or is inter network refrences alowd?

but agen thank you for the advice i will relay this to them on sc and se what we can get p.s i will not get the responce till tomorow as i am of now

Neptis (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

is the page fine now. i need to now so i can relay this to said site members

Neptis (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:AnteaterZot

Watch out; you were actually reverting back the vandalism which an anon was nice enough to blank.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 02:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Man. No idea why that happened. I think I was reacting to the first anon, and caught the second anon edit. Then reflexively reverted the second anon again. Sloppy - my apologies, I'm usually far more careful. Kuru ^talk 02:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)