User talk:Kiteinthewind/Archive (2017.1)
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archives: |
|
2004 • 2005 • 2006 (1st half) • 2006 (2nd half) • 2007 (1st half) • 2007 (2nd half) • 2008 (1st half) • 2008 (2nd half) • 2009 (1st half) • 2009 (2nd half) • 2010 (1st half) • 2010 (2nd half) • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 (1st half) • 2017 (2nd half) |
WP:UAA reports on users with no edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI :"Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.
For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. So we add the {{wait}} tag to the report, it goes to WP:UAA/HP for a week or more, and must then be reviewed again to see if the account has since become active before removing it. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Kiteinthewind. Please review the above advice if you have not done so yet. Thank you! – Juliancolton | Talk 04:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
CSD - incorrect nomination
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. You nominated Draft:Meghbela Cable and Broadband Services Private Limited for speedy deletion for spam. I have declined the nomination because there was no content, and therefore cannot be classified as blatant advertising. I appreciate your efforts in helping Wikipedia, but I have to say that nominating a draft article for deletion minutes after the page has been created where there is no evidence for speedy deletion can come across as a bit much - see Do Not Bite the Newbies. By all means nominate obvious candidates for speedy deletion as soon as possible, but I would suggest that when there is no content you check the history first to see if there is a need for speedy deletion (for example the User's name as the company name, or if has been many months without editing). Stephen! Coming... 11:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Template
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there KITW, from Portugal,
not quite sure why that template was placed on my page as i only have two IP (this here at home, this from work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.137.135.2), but that's fine my conscience is clear (that in case you are wondering I am engaging in IP-hopping behaviour). I am also sure your overall intentions are the best regarding the project, so I will not remove anything.
Attentively --85.242.133.151 (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I know my fellow user, I did not imply any accusation of wrongdoings from you, I was just preparing my defence should that be the case :) Believe it or not, I have had two accounts since joining almost 11 years ago, have asked that both be vanished (separately) because I had the intention of leaving never to return again (fed up with vandalism, trolls, etc), only to find I cannot. --85.242.133.151 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I take note of your kind offer, we'll see tomorrow. Peace! --85.242.133.151 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey how you doing? Hope all is well. I just wanted to reach back out to you to let you know the page Young Thunder is not for advertisement purposes, i'm simply doing what Wikipedia ask me to do by stating where I was in the photo base off the questions that was asked before uploading the picture,
I hope you understand and thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngthunder (talk • contribs) 03:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Tele-medicine
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Kiteinthewind
Thank you very much for all the help and guidance. Also my apology if this is not a proper way to send a message. Working on Wikipedia is a bit confusing and difficult so please don't mind if there are other avenues to communicate which I did not use (I tried Teahouse but was not successful)
I am removing the advert template on Tele-evidence page as I have deleted the names of people contributed in developing this concept. May be at a later date their contribution will be accepted and appreciated. If there is anything else making this page look like an advertisement kindly let me know. I have no intention to advertise Tele-evidence as I have no personal or professional interests attached. Further the concept of Tele-evidence is now a well-developed concept and Govt. of India and other state governments are already implement it at large scale (see the references).
Also those who are equating Tele-evidence to deposition, need to understand the difference. For example Medicine and Tele-medicine are not the same. One can’t oppose the page of Tele-medicine and ask to incorporate it in the medicine page instead. I have addess Tele-evidence in “See also sections” of Deposition, Tele-medicine etc. Thank you very much again for the help. I am a working professional and plan to develop the page further in coming days (however I am slow). I hope more and more people will chip in as the concept expands and will help in further developing the page.
Hospadmnpgi (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello I do not agree with your proposal of merging Tele-evidence with deposition. Hospadmnpgi (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
About your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Cross (baseball)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey Kiteinthewind, how are you? I just wanted to drop you a line about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Cross (baseball). You made a couple of minor errors in closing it. Firstly, you used a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion template when closing the discussion -- this was causing the article to continue appearing in the open discussions log. Secondly, when you removed the AfD notice from the article, you forgot to move the Template:Old AfD multi out of the notice and onto the article's talk page.
I fixed both of these, but if you plan on closing AfD discussions in the future, you might want to keep a tab open to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions, which walks you through every step. There's absolutely no shame in bookmarking that page and using it for a reference when you do closes -- I've been closing AfDs for 12 years and I still need it myself. :) Cheers, A Traintalk 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:UAA reports on users with no edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.
For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. So we add the {{wait}} tag to the report, it goes to WP:UAA/HP for a week or more, and must then be reviewed again to see if the account has since become active before removing it. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Will try again to understand the rules better. Many apologies — Preceding unsigned comment added by bKiteinthewind (talk • contribs) 05:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
re United States
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I agree that it's a major thing, but it's probably too early in the process to put that much detail about it. --Golbez (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The Russian influence is probably the least likely thing to go in, because the investigation is still ongoing. It's a bit much to put in an encyclopedia that it happened when there's multiple ongoing investigations. --Golbez (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- All presidents have controversies, and we don't mention Hayes, Harrison, or Bush not winning the popular vote. Please don't misunderstand - I want him impeached and out as much as the next guy. But we shouldn't let the article become a coatrack for everything Trump. Yes, he is worse, but things are way too in flux to justify any statement right now, imo. Others may disagree, so you should discuss on the article talk page. I won't edit war over this. --Golbez (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How is stating the truth being disruptive? I do not intend to sugarcoat things as you seem to insist on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotinvasion (talk • contribs) 14:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)