User:Kuru/archive-2011

Frequent linkspam

Hi, could you add the spamming anom and his work, I have been trying to remove the last week, on the right black list. That would be great. -- Mdd (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yikes; I thought I had responded to this - must have lost it with a bad connection.  :( Concur with your edits - I will watch for another pass. If he continues to rotate his IP and adds the links to multiple articles, I would have no problem adding the domain to the black list. Kuru (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Competitions links and questions

Hi Kuru!

it goes about Kommandcore and other related articles. Thank you for your warning, now I see the problem. I thought that giving links to competitors would give more neutrality to articles and choise for users. So, it's better to make it by means of categories (like you mentioned "Project management software")? I'd like to work in WIkipedia more, because I really like it (worked before in Russian Wikipedia, started translating some articles), so, to rectify my mistakes with link adding should I delete them in all the related articles and replace them with categories?

I'd be very thankful if you control my actions and teach me a bit in some way to make me ready for self-reliant work on Wikipedia.

With best regards, Damir Zakiev (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if that came off as a warning; more of a stylistic issue that is up for discussion. In some cases, calling out specific notable competitors is infomative where the specific rivalry is covered in third party sources (say, Coke and Pepsi). Simply listing all vendors in a specific genre on each vendor's article is redundant with the two lists already available (the comparison article, and the category). If I can help you at all, please let me know. Kuru (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's ok).

Yes, I had some questions, if you let: I started improving Kommandcore article, and wanted to know - can I remove {{No footnotes}} template (and {{Notability}}) or it's the administrators only who can do this? Am I on the right way with editing?
Is it normal if I expand the article or it's better to work on improvements according to the tempaltes?

With best regards, Damir Zakiev (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can remove them; they have nothing to do with administrative functions. They serve as maintenance tags and illustrate that another editor has a significant concern with the article that cannot be immediately rectified. Once the issue has been corrected, it is safe to remove the tag yourself. The 'no footnotes' tag is easy - simply use inline references to tag which source in the references applies to assertions in the article. The syntax for this can be a little tricky; if you need more info on this, let me know.

The notability tag is a little more difficult to remove. It does not appear that any of the given references support Wikipedia:Notability (software); they mostly appear to be trivial mentions, directory listings, or press releases. Additional assertions of notability supported by reliable sources are needed. Kuru (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

About references - I made changes - could you estimate this? Kommandcore

Currently working on notability:).

Thank you very much for spending your time on me,

With best regards,

Damir Zakiev (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI where you are mentioned

Hi Kuru, I mentioned you as part of the background in a section I started on ANI regarding User talk:193.255.108.20. LadyofShalott 00:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Si. I still have the page watchlisted. I'm fairly sure the expiration of his block will be short lived. Kuru (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

q on request for citations: Business Transaction Performance

Can you please explain your comment on citations? Are the four there insufficient? How many would be sufficient? thanks Charleyrich (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what comment you are referring to. My edit there was to remove a citation to another wikipedia article; this is not a reliable source. Simply replace the "citation needed" tag with a reliable source that supports the tagged statement. Kuru (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

SAP Business One

Hi:

Please refer to http://www.heinzpauly.net/contact/ for the license release. Heinz is the inventor of B1i Integration Framework with all patents. He is a VP in SAP. He has released his blog posts under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. The knowledge is non promotional and should be available to public using Wiki.

I will appreciate if you include the sections.

Regards, Kamal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamal-Karmakar (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

The person blanking talk pages is using this IP now: 86.129.128.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can you block? Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 00:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nakon beat me to it. Thanks for the head's up. Kuru (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another possible Kesha495 sock

Elen of the Roads has previously expressed concern about Varmengolem (talk · contribs) as a sock/alternate account of Kesha495 (talk · contribs). How say you? Favonian (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably. There's a bunch of edit filter entries to go through - will look tonight. The Percy Jackson stuff seems to be recurring, which makes me feel guilty since this is likely a very young user. Checkuser would be helpful.. :( Kuru (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we have a confession: [1]. Yes, this is likely a very young user, and we get to play the part of the Grinch. Not pleasant. Favonian (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's no reason why you have to be the bad guy, so I'll block this one. Favonian (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry I had to step away. At least they're not making it hard; any activity from that long "retired" account would have been enough for me to block. Much less an actual unblock request. Kuru (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering shouldn't there be a sock puppet investigation case started about Kesha495? Baseball Watcher 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Was there another sock? Kuru (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I read somewhere about Kesha495 that someone wanted to do a checkuser on the socks. Right here anyway. Baseball Watcher 23:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI I just submitted the case to WP:SPI. Baseball Watcher 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The case is right here. Baseball Watcher 16:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comparision of project management software - discussion page

Hi, I would like the opinion of someone who has been involved with the above page. I was reading through the discussions and they seem to be - mostly out of date from a notability debate in 2007 - or the issues they are discussing have been solved by adding the project

Can we just archive them all and leave one of the many discussions saying add a notable page and then link it ? Wakelamp (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Si; once a discussion is stale or resolved, there's no problem with archiving it. Kuru (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Executive Search

Hi Kuru

re reverted edits to Executive Search from 13:27, 1 February 2011

Before making a change to the actual page I'll put it here for comment.

I recently made a change to a sentence on the page Executive Search from 'Such executive search companies will have many offices all over the world and the consultants will typically be split by which sector they are expert in' to 'Such executive search companies will have many offices all over the world and their consultants will typically be organised by market expertise, business funtion and geographic location'.[refs]

The intent of making the change was to inform that consultants in large global executive search firms are not only split by which sector they are expert in but also by other factors such as their geographic location and market expertise.

The included references were to two Wikipedia pages of large global executive search firms organised by market expertise, business funtion and geographic location.

I'd be grateful for your guidance on an appropriate approach for making the change to the page if suitable.

Many thanks for your help.

Zumiloko (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kuru

Looking forward to any comments you might have.

Thanks.

Zumiloko (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for missing your earlier question. WP:RS is a link that may help; linking to wikipedia articles is not a reference. Linking to a third party reliable source would be the best option. Find a book source or a news article; simple links to 'examples' does not support the statement 'will typically' and comes off as promotional. Please let me know if I can provide better assistance. Kuru (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! :) Bonusballs (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please assist me

Hi Kuru

I would like to add information which I believe it valuable. I also want to abide by the rules of Wikipedia It is relevant to the topic but you keep deleting it. On the Due Diligence, I have removed Gillman and the website information.

Please can you give me some guidance.

Kind regards Expertz123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertz123 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Question

What part of my posting did you consider "soap box", the fact that I metioned my company name? There are several other company names listed in this article. I said the company name to illustrate who I am. Rather than kill my addition was was very instructive, what is that you suggest? Lets not reject without some sort of fairness or constructive feedback. Are you saying I should take the company name out and re-post? Gregmurtagh (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quoting yourself and using an example of your own company is a poor idea. You can use reliable, third party sources to support your changes. This is a problem that comes up often on business and marketing related articles; people who are experts will eventually want to promote their own original research on the topic. You might also look at WP:COI. I know this sounds absurd, but unless we insist on verifiable and reliable sourcing, the project would simply become one large blog. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Kuru (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

user Expertz123 ‎

Looks as if the "Gillman" WP:REFSPAM account continued...after warnings and IP blocks. Ive indeffd' the account, Expertz123 (talk · contribs)--Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How disappointing; I thought I left a big enough clue there about REFSPAM. Will look at it later.  :( Kuru (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I will have no issue if you want to unblock for probation, or whatever. Sadly it appears, thusfar, there is little reason to believe the outcome will be any different.--Hu12 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:142.25.4.3

Editors at this IP keep blanking the their talk page, including the shared IP header. Can they also be blocked from editing their talk page? Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Done; thanks for the note. Kuru (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

86.41.39.209 blocked.

Hi, I'm currently using this IP address. I was just wondering why it was blocked? I looked at Special:Contributions/86.41.39.209 at there are no edits at all by this IP address, so why is it blocked? Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 16:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It was blocked as part of a range of IP address to prevent a rather prolific vandal from hopping around. You should not be affected by the block. Kuru (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A Person You Recently Blocked

Hi Fellow editor, could you also look at this with regard to an editor you recently blocked. I have concerns regarding WP:COMPETENCE and WP:Verifiability as well as elements of WP:GAME. Also note his edit warring here with another editor. Thanks --SH 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

About TARGIT Business Intelligence - thank you!

Hi Kuru! Thanks for fixing my incorrect CSD tag for this article.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy Land USA

The Ip you blocked has moved onto a different IP to continue the disruption. I requested protection for that page. Kuru (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Appears Barek beat me to it. Thanks for the head's up. Kuru (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

blocked user

Hi Kuru. I would like to ask you to reconsider your recent blocking of my account (syaskin). I am a software industry veteran of 15 years. I successfully started and ran several startups. In the course of my career I published numerous articles and made various contributions in writing to the industry. I am active on dozens of IT blogs, i.e. Google GWT and ITToolbox, where I received numerous readers recognitions and editorial awards. I also contributed to many Wikipedia articles in Data Virtualization, in which I specialize for the last 10 years. I disagree with your rather harsh decision to block my IP and user account. I acknowledge reading the warnings posted by you and other admins. I would like to ask you to reconsider the blocking decision and reinstate my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvirt (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I regret you've decided to use Wikipedia to promote your business, and now you've evaded your block by creating a sock account. Post an unblock message on the talk page of your original account, using the instructions at Wikipedia:Appealing a block. You will need to provide an explanation for your actions, and a much better proposal for future actions; "acknowledge" does not imply a change in behavior. Kuru (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of external link

Hi Kuru. I was surprised to find that the external link I added to "Harmonized System" was deleted. The link was to a FREE program used to search and browse Harmonized System codes. The Wikipedia page currently lists an external link for a webpage (supported by ads) with a similar function, but with incomplete search results: "HS Code Search Database by Foreign Trade Online". In contrast, the HS Code Handbook that I linked offers accurate results and is also 100% free. I believe my link was a useful reference for Wikipedia users. Thanks in advance for your feedback. 64.69.33.93 (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw no content at the link provided. If your link requires the installation of an app or is of limited usage (i.e. a random mobile app), then it is not permitted here. If you feel the other links are of low quality, please feel free to remove them with an explanation. Kuru (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Verax NMS deletion

Sorry. Could You please help me with establishing the sandbox? I've tried to make those articles as much informative as possible (e.g. presenting requirements not features). In case of providing relevant refrences - I’ve compared the quality of my references with similiar software to avoid mistakes. It’s very difficult to find reliable and relevant sources when it comes to software. I could use some help, I guess.--Timeport101 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. I'll restore a version of the article to your userspace (basically a sandbox) and we can look at what the problems were and how to fix them. Because this was deleted through a community discussion (here), and not just administrative action, we need to be careful that you do not restore it to project space until we get a consensus for that action. I'll leave more notes on your talk page. Kuru (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me with sandbox. I've prepared a draft and I consider it ready for the review. Could you give me some feedback on it? Do I have to report it to some admins committee or something?--Timeport101 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you help me with my draft. I've requested for general feedback but I would appreciate if you could give it a look. User:Timeport101/Verax NMS -- Timeport101 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you chceck if it's ready to move ? User:Timeport101/Verax NMS ----Timeport101 (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I left feedback at here on 2/22. I have not seen any changes since then to address the problems. Kuru (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Gantt Chart external link

I had a question about the removal of an external link I placed on the Gantt Chart page. I thought it added value, but I probably didn't explain what it was well enough. It's not just a picture of a Gantt chart, it lets readers interact with and experience a Gantt chart via the web. I think that adds another element to the page, as the pictures on there currently only show what a Gantt chart looks like, not how it operates. For example, in the link I added, readers can move the colored blocks (time slots) and the chart will update the corresponding blocks automatically. I think giving readers the chance to use and play with a working Gantt chart adds a valuable element to the page. Please let me know your thoughts. Cavejohnson2 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely missed that it was an interactive example; unlike all of the other pre-existing examples. I'm not sure it still covers the external link guidelines, but my primary reason for removing it is alleviated. Kuru (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request for Syaskin

At User talk:Syaskin I was initially inclined to refuse the unblock request, but the user's latest comment seems to be an undertaking not to promote their business, so I am shifting towards unblocking, but I thought I would consult you first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My sole concern is the addition of anything promotional related to his company. If he can commit to refraining from any COI, I'm 100% on board with an unblock. Kuru (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

208.66.198.180

Sorry about that, I accidentally overwrote your block on User:208.66.198.180 with the exact same block, haha. I didn't see you'd just blocked. Just thought I'd let you know in case you see it in the log. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 16:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Same net effect. :) Kuru (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

86.44.206.220

Hiya! Thanks for your help with the 'GMTV Chart Show' vandal - unfortunately they've returned a few times since the range block expired, and are back this evening on the above IP address. It just seems to get worse and worse, it seems they're spraying unsourced material and incorrect categories of hundreds of articles as quickly as they can before the individual IP is blocked, then they pop up again on another address in the range. It takes hours to clean up each time. Hope you can help once more - thanks again! Bonusballs (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This may be of interest to you

There's some activity which I think may be an issue with GS: [2] [3] If not your area feel free to remove. Thanks Lionel (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked User Dowynne

Thanks for your intervention. Is there a case for Wikipedia:Revision deletion on some of his/her edits? I'm not familiar with the policy and don't know whether they would qualify or not. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Boyd crowder

You blocked this user recently for vandalism on the Amber Benson article, now an IP is making the very same edits. It seems obviously that its Boyd crowder evading the block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked the IP. If it rotates again, we can semi-protect the article. Kuru (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hi

There has been a history of socks and block evasion around the Hunyadi family articles. Does the IP Special:Contributions/79.114.124.67 need a check?. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt there has been fun there. Are these edits similar to those of another editor? If there is no behavioral evidence, then it's just fishing; something the checkusers will decline. Kuru (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion/Re-addition

Hey Kuru,

I was inquiring about the deletion of the page "Ford Austin"

23:27, 2 January 2011 Kuru (talk | contribs) deleted "Ford Austin" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.fordaustinproductions.com/Ford-Austin-Bio.htm)

Recent attempts for a page addition have been poor in my opinion. The obvious reasons for addition were self promotion or a "friend" was promoting, however a small and correct page seems logical. "Ford Austin" is of note, just not in the same manner previously attempted. I heard of this person in the LA times to then discover him in the Boston herald. Legend, Tony Curtis had passed away and these news sources all attributed Ford Austin as Tony Curtis's last Producer. Plus the same film holds, Oscar Winner Margaret O' Brian and Golden Globe winner Tom Sizemore. Wikipedia gets 1.5million additions per day it seems for indie filmmaker pages, however it seems as though this person is one of the few exceptions. A person who produces a movie with multiple Oscar Winners is of note, plus other works of his are on Wikipedia already and are solid pages.

I would be willing to write up the new page, THE RIGHT WAY.

What do you think?

Legitreport (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. The version of the article I deleted in January was a copyright violation lifted directly from the subject's website. There was a previous version of the article in 2007 that was deleted for notability concerns as well. Neither version contained any third party references, which is critical for biographies. A cautious way to re-create the article would be to start a draft in your userspace. Normally, I would be delighted to restore a copy of the article there to get you started, but I cannot do that with a copyvio. The hardest part is figuring out where to put the draft, so I created a start for you here. Find another biography of a similar producer and hit the edit button - you can then copy the format into this new page and start. Again, the most important part is sources independent of the subject. I'll take a look when I get time to see if I can help or you can just ask any questions here. Kuru (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kuru! I have already gone to the link you have provided and started working. I still have more sources and content to add, but I'll try to make it speedy and "Legit"! Legitreport (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Please help, this user, User:Ryulong keeps swearing on my talk page! Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

G-WAN systematic Censorship

The reason for you to remove G-WAN this time was "addition with no article". Since the G-WAN article HAS BEEN CENSORED by Wikipedia 'moderators' like you, this is a vicious circle: you make your own luck to justify blatant censorship. In the past, similar fallacious arguments were used, like removing all references and then claiming that no references were available, or claiming that G-WAN is not 'notable' while G-WAN is the fastest Web Server on BOTH Windows AND Linux (and by a large margin, see the links), and whether user-mode or kernel-mode servers are considered. For the record, "notability" means "the quality that makes somebody or something worth paying attention to". PLEASE, stop doing the wrong thing. 81.62.185.143 (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why your article was deleted, and your random accusations do no inspire me to look into it for you or assist you. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"you have no idea why it was removed from 'Comparison of Web server software" - but YOU DID IT REPEATEDLY (hence my question to YOU).Bugapi (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your article wasn't deleted, it was removed from the comparison table because it was redlinked because you had typed the article name incorrectly. I've fixed that. You seriously need to begin to assume good faith Bugapi, or your stay here will be very short indeed. Syrthiss (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you seemed to alluding to the deletion of an article, not simply removing it from a list. I did indeed remove a red link from the article twice, and clearly explained my action in the edit summary. Syrthiss has kindly fixed your broken link for you. Kuru (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And you removed this article (several times a day) when there was no typo, claiming that there was one in the title of your "edit". How fair is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.183.121 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You still appear to be confused, so I'll try to explain further. "Articles" are collections of text which describe a specific encyclopedic subject. For example, G-WAN (Web server) is an article, as is Comparison of web server software. You also have the ability, within an article, to link to another article by placing two brackets on either side of it. If you attempt to link to another article, but misspell the article's name, the link will appear in red; blue links indicate a successful link. In your case, you have repeatedly mis-linked to the G-WAN (Web server) article. This has been corrected for you, several times. In no case has your article been "removed" or deleted. The "link" you placed in Comparison of web server software was originally removed since that article requires entires to have a fully formed article; the broken link you placed there made it appear there was no article for the software. You have repeatedly replaced the broken link, which multiple editors have kindly corrected for you. My correction indicated that the link must not only be spelled correctly, but it is also case sensitive. At this point in time, all three links correctly point to your article, as was fixed by myself and by Syrthiss. Your reversion broke the links, which defeats your purpose. So far, your article has not been deleted, which would require an administrative action. It may be that, in your excitement, you are making mistakes and hurling accusations which do not help. Kuru (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate links

Hello,

Thank you for your letting me know about the policies regarding external links. While I will admit that that was a shameless promotion of my site, I would like to point out that I could be considered a 'scholarly source' for Project Management. I have had work done that has been peer reviewed, so, it is not necessarily out of line to us myself as a reference. Or is it? Any way, I just wanted to mention this to you. Thanks again, and I will pay closer attention to the use of reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLynnMPM (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly refer to your published material, such as article published in periodicals under editorial control of a third party, but it does not make your commercial site the type of scholarly source that is covered in WP:RS. If you had specific examples, I'll try to help. Kuru (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI

Hello Kuru,

This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look at some point. There was more background to that editor's past than I could spend time researching; I don't jump into big debates without doing my homework. I despise that kind of nationalistic nonsense to begin with, so I typically avoid it. Kuru (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Bugapi

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Bugapi (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi. -- RadioFan (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dropped a note there; Ihcoyc's view was pretty stellar. We have a fairly messy environment around business articles that could use improvement and clean-up, and extreme personalities will see nothing but conspiracies there. No excuses for his attacks, but there may be some opportunities to prevent things like this in the future if we could develop clearer guidelines. Kuru (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Request For Help In An Edit War

Would it be possible if I can get your help in stopping an edit war between Raptor Red, myself and some other users at Walking With Dinosaurs? Raptor Red's edits are original research and speculation made in order to imply that the Walking With series is factual correct under all circumstances. He also does not reference his edits, beyond mentioning that "it's true" or that it's said so in the book, or referring to some dubious source like another wikia or the talkforum of a defunct fanpage. Could I ask you if you talk some sense into him?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the article for the weekend to encourage more discussion and stop the reverts. If you come to a consensus before the 48 hours is up, please drop me a note (or a request at WP:RFPP and the page can be unprotected. I've left a note explaining this one the article's talk page and on RR's talk page strongly urging discussion. If this does not work, an RFC may be a good idea. Kuru (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the edit war with Raptor Red is flaring up again. I do not think he understands the fact that simply saying "this isn't original research" does not automatically makes something not original research (or synthesis).--Mr Fink (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Si. I am watching. Kuru (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

And thanks for your help on the Cheshire, Connecticut article. If you agree with me that the IP that has reverted the Mayor-thing back and forward is out of line please help me report the IP. The IP has been terrorising me for months.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Si. Have left him a message on his last edit; will review the rest of the article. Will also watch those pages. Kuru (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes please add Cheshire, Connecticut and the Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders to your list. It is there the IP has been doing proven vandalism. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks

at least you explained it and I hope it is understood that I am not trying to create any trouble and I was being wrongly accused of whatever user babbaq was saying. He/She appears to be trying to prove a point or something. Thanks Again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.149 (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop immediatly to slander my person. You should be thankful that Kuru fixed your wrongs made on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Kuru I had to report the IP for harassment. Sorry to say, again for the fith or sixth time this year.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

While the edits back in February were certainly insta-blockable, this recent back and forth is fairly tame. Since I've now made content changes to those articles, I will let another admin evaluate. If no action is taken, I would suggest dis-engaging from the IP and simply make cited changes to the article. Kuru (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you, I shouldnt feed the possible vandal.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But I hope you can see my side of it. Its not fun when an IP is in your face constantly reverting edits and making comments like the one that made me react for a new vandalism report. Maybe if you just could post a message to the IP telling him to gently back off from editing the Cheshire articles mentioned. The IP seems to not be able to edit those two articles in a good way at the moment.Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I see now that you have already left a note to him below here about the mentioned behaviour. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand; it appears some of the named accounts in that article have been pretty creepy. Still digging through the history; please be patient and don't get baited in the meantime. Thanks! Kuru (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes creepy indeed. I believe the IP could be responsible for many of those different IP edits. Also chck this out two slander messages on my user page made by the IP in question and another IP in the same manor. Just to show a pattern. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

hi

As you can see from my above comments, I amm trying to understand this sysytem and this user babbaq does not stop commenting. What in the world does he mean by slander??? I am simply writing to YOU and commenting on what I feel is harrassment wrongly directed to myself. This needs to stop as I am doing nothing against anyone. Please help stop this. Thank You Very Much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.149 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Start making relaible contributions to the article. To be frank, you first edits were to harass Babbaq and you were blocked for it. It should be fairly clear why he may be upset. Future contributions should be reliably sourced additions to the articles in question, and stop trading comments with him/her. Kuru (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Old warnings

I haven't really edited anything on this site for several months. It's possible that someone is trying to frame me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.35.227 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The warnings on your talk page were from 2008 and likely done by someone else. Safe to ignore them. Kuru (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If I did vandalize, then I didn't mean to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.35.227 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They were not the kinds of edits that were accidental.  :) Just ignore the warnings. Kuru (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding Links from Bond Tutor

I understand it might not seem like much from the webpages we are adding, but we figured that some of the articles on wikipedia lack external links that we could add our own to help give more information on the subject. Each link we posted is part of a series of chapter type modules that you read and then proceed to the next one to learn more about the subject. We put our contact information at the top of the page so that people can get in contact with us if they have questions about the website or other inquiries. it is not an ad just the name of our country. i wrote Mr Ollie on the subject and after waiting for a few days without a a response i figured it must not be a problem.

also it may seem like low content but several chapters contain calculators and other modules that can be quite useful for the research and data gathering purposes

Justin

Justinfts1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

Si, I noticed that you had left an unresolved question before re-adding the links, that's why I left a detailed response on your page instead of a boring standard waring. Our strong preference is to add material to articles that is supported by reliable sources, not to simply add external links to sites that have minimal content or duplicate what's already there. Since you're knowledgable on the topic, it would be fantastic if you could add material to wikipedia, instead of adding links to your site. Thanks! Kuru (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring Again

Hi Fellow editor. I noticed you blocked this Editor for two weeks for edit warring. He seems to be having problems understanding the rules around getting consensus on the article Kapoor family. See the discussion here Please have a word with him. Thanks--SH 11:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll like to bring to your notice the whole case, I edited some parts of the page in accordance with the sources mentioned only to be reverted by User:Sikh-history, then I started discussion too, in the meantime some IP from London, reverted it again, I corrected it with the summary mentioning the discussion page and here we are, Thank You. Winston786 (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That does not excuse you from reverting or deleting valid references does it?--SH 12:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The reference was delete as it was not required and was recently added to support wrong data, also plenty of them were already there, to support the correct sourced version. Winston786 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I think enough said. Thanks--SH 12:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much edit warring on the article page and the discussion seems healthly at the moment. I would encourage both parties to use the talk page exclusively as it is clear there is a content dispute. I really cannot help you evaluate the dispute; it is not a topic I am familiar with. Kuru (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about a revision

Hi! I see that you deleted an addition I made to the comparison of time tracking software page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_time_tracking_software. I added the company BigTime to the list yesterday. I'm not sure why my addition was deleted?Cagarland1 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the larage block of comments at the top of that page when you click on 'edit', you need to have created an article that meets our notability requirements before adding it to that list. Kuru (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic

This is not the place for this conversation. Kuru (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kuru, After making this my post:[4] I realised that you already analysed the same issue, therefore it would be correct if you returned to it taking into account new evidences. Briefly, by making three reverts Tentontunic removed the movenotice tag ( a step he could not do as an involved user), and refused to self-revert after he has been informed about this violation. He also removed the POV tag twice, despite the fact that the "POV issue" discussion is open on the talk page. In connection to that it would be good if you reconsidered your decision. All needed diffs can be found on the noticeboard following the link provided above. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Paul appears to be block shopping, having also approached another admin here. --Martin (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Just a warning to you Martin. You are really close to an AE request against you with your unacceptable behavior towards myself, Paul, and Tentontunic. Not to mention a revert of the article move. That is 4 reverts by any counting technique. (Igny (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)) Reviewing it now, starting with the report at WP:EW. Kuru (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC) @Martin. That is not my fault that Tentontunic appeared to behave disruptively in two different articles simultaneously. And, please note that I did not combine these two cases together. And, please, can you answer a simple question: do you find the Tentontunic's behaviour appropriate? --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC) @Kuru. I see you closed the Igny's case. In connection to that, I would like to know if you are intended to analyse the Tentontunic's steps further, and do you think that removal of the "movenotice" tag by an involved user, and repeated removal of the POV tag despite the ongoing discussion about the article's neutrality are just ordinary reverts and are not signs of the disruptive behaviour?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC) It seemed like a really bad idea all things considered. I'm not sure that administrative action is warranted or helpful, but if there is continued disruption at the article I'll look in to what temporary sanctions are available to encourage discussion. I'm not a big fan of wading in to extensive discussions that are outside of my expertise; it's hard to understanding the nuances. Hence why I've tried to stick to the black and white policy violations. Kuru (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Removal of the move notice tag and refusal to self-revert after explanations have been provided about inappropriateness of this step, removal of the POV tag (twice) during the ongoing POV dispute -to make a conclusion about all of that no specific expertise (besides standard administrator's expertise) is required. This user definitely games the system: observes the letter and violates the spirit, and I anticipate that if he will not be stopped, the situation will escalate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Were did I refuse to self revert? Tentontunic (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC) "Tentontunic removed the RfM tag[5], the step, he, being an involved user, could not do. After the issue has been explained to him[6], he refused to self-revert. This[7] is a proof that he has read my post. This[8] is a proof that he was an involved user by the moment he de facto closed RfM. This[9] is a proof that he removed a POV tag despitre the fact that the thread named "POV issues" is still active on the talk page[10]." The inappropriateness of your steps has been explained to you, however, not only you ignored these explanations, you reported the user who reverted the inappropriate removal of the tag. Frankly speaking, I have no illusion that you do not understand that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC) So you are in fact trying to deceive an administrator. I had not in fact refused to self revert at all, that is just a lie. I did not know I was not allowed to remove an RM tag whic hhad been on the article for 20 days, TFD removed RM tags from left wing terrorism even though he had voted. Between my asking [11] and you fixing the diff was I online? No I was not. And when I did come online the following day Igny had already reverted me, breaking 3R in the process. Now I suggest you stop making things up in your pathetic attempts to have me blocked, next time provide a diff should you accuse me of refusing to do something. You have still to remove your personal attacks on myself on the communist terrorism talk page, if you have not within the hour I shall remove them under talk page guidelines. Tentontunic (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC) "Ye shall know them by their fruits." The removals have never been reverted by you, despite the fact that the issue has been explained to you. And, when you came online you reported a user who fixed the mistake made by you. How do you explain that? Re TFD, I do not remember this case, however, I do know that removal of the tag from the "Occupation of the Baltic states" article, which has been done few days before, faced opposition from others. Re my attempts to get you blocked. You probably noticed that the person who has filed this ANI report, which triggered this nasty quarrel, was you. I see no serious violation in removal of the tag made by you, although I strongly recommend you to read at least recent talk page posts before attempting to make changes in the articles, and this my advise is generic (i.e. it refers to all articles you work, or will be working with). I even see no too big violation in the fact that you hadn't self-reverted after you were informed about the need to do so: you could simply be online. However, your ANI report against the user who fixed a mistake made by you (re-added the tag you had no right to remove) is a clear and unequivocal demonstration that you refuse to self revert. Interestingly, the article in its current form[12] still has no tags. That means that not only you refused to self-revert, you continue to refuse to do that, although you still have a chance to do that. And, interestingly, you left beyond the scope the removal (repeated removal) of the POV tag made by you. Do you have something to say on that account? In summary, I have to concede that you are right when you applied a word "lie" to this situation...--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Kuru, if you want this to stop I suggest you collapse this discussion like EdJohnston did[13] as Paul seems not to know how to WP:LETGO. --Martin (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate link on 'Configuration Management' page.

Hi,

I have added the Configuration Management Resource Guide (http://cmpic.com/cmresourceguide.htm) to a few pages concerning Configuration Management. I was wondering why it was removed since it appears to be a relevant link concerning configuration management and has been cited on many other CM websites. It contains an extensive list of CM & related standards, white papers and articles concerning CM, lists of PLM tool vendors, books, conferences, and organizations dedicated to configuration management, and links to places where you can obtain CM standards. This link was placed on the pages Configuration Management, Software Configuration Management and more CM related pages.

I was hoping I could add this link once more to the two pages above and not have it removed.

Thanks, Keebrook (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't look at it at the moment. From what I recall, the content was pretty sparse, and the primary links went to pages selling classes and conferences. Will look again later. Would suggest linking directly to the actual content revelent to the topic, instead of a "hompage". Kuru (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

link to online var calculator

Kuru, I would like to add a link to an online var calculator that I have been working on and believe would be of added value to the community. The var calculator uses an unweighted historic approach to calculate a var for a set of stock in a portfolio that can be defined by the user. There is no commercial benefit whatsoever in this tool to the site owner. http://indoorworkbench.com/?financerisk.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoorworkbench (talk • contribs) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw no content there that was available without coughing up an e-mail. This is not an acceptable link per WP:EL. Kuru (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The field that requests an e-mail actually allows users to put in any name, so in essence providing an e-mail is not a precondition to gain access. If you type in "JamesBrown" in the field it will let you through and simply record your positions under that name. I have edited the text to indicate that users can use any word to remember their positions, not necessary an e-mail. Can you please revert your deletion.

As revised, I would not delete it or contest re-addition. Kuru (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "Roots and Shoots" page

To Kuru, I realised you deleted the "Roots and Shoots" page on wikipedia and would like to know why. Blackstar111 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Blackstar111

I deleted Roots and Shoots as it was a "link" to another page that had been deleted. It linked to Roots & Shoots which was previously deleted as a copyright violation. Kuru (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Redlink

I added "Market Entry Consultancy" in the 'see also' section of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consultant I thereafter created the start page on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_Entry_consultant. I went to wiki article on "consultant" again (To link with this new page) to find it has been removed by you. You should consider that its not spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilmahant (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I never considered it spam. The links in the 'see also' sections are intended to provide navigational assistance; if there is no article to navigate to, there is little point in the addition. As you've created an article, I've restored the link. Kuru (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

user name southwest reseach

Hi,

I have created a new account with an appropriate user name. Ian M. I am not sure how to deactivate the other account, other than let it die on the vine. Southwest research (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you,

Ian M

Die on the vine works perfectly. Thanks for fixing that and for your contibutions to the SWR article. Kuru (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Workflow

Dear Kuru!

The following link (http://guse.hu/), P-GRADE (http://portal.p-grade.hu/) SHIWA (http://www.shiwa-workflow.eu/), that I added to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workflow page are really important links, and they will help the users to get more informations about Grid-technology and workflow-operation. Except that, the origanal page was created by my Institue and my task is to complete the workflow-wiki.

Thank you to readd them, happynya18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happynya18 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw nothing of use at any of those links; they added no value to the article. Instead, they seemed to promote a specific product which you appear to have a conflict of interest in. Kuru (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

The reason why I thought I was blocked was because the "New Messages (last change)" box appeared very late. My aplogies. -74.72.94.222 (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem... :) Kuru (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Song edit zajdi zajdi sonce, and my autoblock

I discussed about this song history in [Discussions], - I only changed and removed statement of Member of Cultural chamber of Macedonia who claims that this song is "composed and written" by Aleksandar Sarievski. Mr. Sarievski was just a folk singer not composer like Mozart, please understand the differerence between the two, Aleksander sung what they gave it to him to sing (recording companies at the time)--70.130.144.54 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I really have no position in your content dispute. If you continue to edit war on the article before completing your discussions on the talk page, you will be blocked again. Kuru (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Groopease

Kuru-

I have additional content to add to justify the page creation. groopEase is the first music only web-based company to offer the "daily deal" purchase model. This in itself justifies a page on Wikipedia. Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenmaso (talk • contribs) 00:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine any random "deal" website that just started operations last week is going to meet our notability requirements. Before re-creating your article, I would focus on finding high quality reliable sources from third parties which support the claims in the article, otherwise it is quite likely to be deleted again quickly. If you need help determining what is or is not a reliable source, please let me know. Kuru (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User:184.107.21.25

Can you extend this user's block? The blocking admin did not know of the repeated talk page blankings by this user in order to circumvent our 4-level warning system.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar appears to be checking to see if he rotates off that IP. If he pops right back up after that, I'd be happy to block again for a longer period. Kuru (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kuru. You have new messages at KnowIG's talk page.
Message added 01:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

KnowIG IP range block

Hi. Just to let you know it looks like a registered user (who has just tried to edit after a long break) has got caught in the 2.102.152.0/22 range block you set to stop User:KnowIG evading his block - see User talk:Lorddeox. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why I set the first one as a hard block. I've fixed it and apologized to the affected editor. I really hate range blocks.  :) Kuru (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

117.205.82.45

They're back as two different IP's ([14], [15]). —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 13:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Has he ever used an account? Kuru (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Never. He has always edited anonymously. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Back again ([16]). —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I did gather up about 15 of his IPs to calculate a range block. I'm afraid that the primary block has far too much traffic on it to justify and there were several IPs outside of that range he could still use. If it's not too much trouble, let's just keep blocking individually and see if he grows bored at some point. We can also re-protect any of the articles if he's hitting them multiple times. I'm so sorry this is distracting you from your other contributions. Kuru (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Back. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 13:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've tried sprinkling in some semi-protections on pages he's hit three times or so. Kuru (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Promotional Addition?

Dear Kuru,

I was just wondering why my post on the Talk page (in this log: (diff | hist) . . Talk:Quickbooks hosting‎; 18:53 . . (-551) . . Kuru (talk | contribs) (rmv promotional addition)) was deleted? Clearly pointed to Intuits page where they claimed that they are THE exclusive provider, and it was simply a question whether or not it would be allowed to link to them in the article. Wouldn't there be an appropriate way to link to it, and still have it abide by the Wikipedia TOS because Intuit clearly stated it on their website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboutin (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be curt, but it does not say that, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the article at Comparison of accounting software. The article at Quickbooks hosting is already pretty spammy, and I'm fairly tired of people doing an end-run around our external link policy by planting a promotional blurb on the talk page under the guise of "asking" about the site. I'm sure that is not what you intended, so perhaps you could use your knowledge of the industry to improve some of our core accounting and business related articles instead of looking for links to add? If you need help on how to do this, I would be happy to assist. Kuru (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please explain your comment

Please explain what you mean that I must "stay cool". What are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddylovely (talk • contribs) 21:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC) In addition, you say I have made nonconstructive comments, but you cite nothing. I explained that my post was to correct the error that corporations are not formed exclusively by states. Why would you give a warning for this? I really think that if you're going to give warnings that your should explain precisely what they're for, don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddylovely (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link. The warning was pretty clear. I'm not sure where I've stated anything about your content dispute. I think that if you're having trouble discussing your position without insulting other editors, this may not be an ideal environment for you. Don't you? Kuru (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what is going on. Pls help.

I volunteered for RPQs according to request and found my name came up in red. OH.

So I clicked to see what to do. Create user page apparently. OK. Did more clicking.

It said to enter something in the box to create the user page. OK. Typed in some filler.

Then I notice that a box said:

20:01, 5 April 2011 Kuru (talk | contribs) deleted "User:JonRichfield" ‎ (G3: Vandalism)

Does this mean that you did my user page? Could you please elucidate? I don't actually remember anything in the box, so I am not actually in pain, but it seems a peculiar thing to do.

If you did not, what am I misunderstanding?

If you did, then why??? What was in the box? (I have been spending my energy on articles and edits, not discussions, and have no idea what if anything I put into my page, or why.) JonRichfield (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Another editor vandalized your user page, along with many others, and was later blocked for it. It was deleted, and should not impact your ability to create your own page there. Just ignore it; if you need help creating your own userpage, please let me know and I'll provide any help I can. Kuru (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Phew! That is a relief! Many thanks for your offer, but I am not at present aware of anything that needs to be done. All the best, JonRichfield (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Medeis

Hi! I'm a tad confused as to why you blocked Medeis for 3RR - the edit in question was made at TeasuryTag's suggestion, and was not related to the content that they were edit warring over, as the questionable text was much more extensive and contained OR. It seems odd that TeasuryTag would suggest some text, only to report Medeis when Medeis added pretty much what was suggested. Or am I missing something? - Bilby (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

He appears to have mis-read the suggestion and inserted the very statement that was at the heart of the objection. There was no need to have let it get to that point anyway. Kuru (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't the statement that was in question. That it was the first appearance of the Silence is a given - they questionable bit was a bunch of OR that Medeis was adding earlier. I agree that there was no need to let it get to that point, but it just seemed odd that TreasuryTag would report Medeis for following TreasuryTag's own suggestion. I'm not sure what was going on there. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the entire exchange at your request; I detested doing that block. Give me sec. Kuru (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. His edit was different than what was suggested. TT offered "The Silence appeared in The Impossible Astronaut in 2011" and he went with "make their first on-screen appearance", which does indeed appear to be contested by TT. I can't tell you if it's true or not, or if it is a given, as you say, since I am not the biggest Dr. Who fan, but he should not have made a fourth contested edit. Kuru (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The first on-screen appearance isn't contested. I do agree that Medeis should have stuck to the exact wording offered by TreasuryTag, though, just to avoid any further dispute - I just think something else is going on here, as it seems to be an odd exchange, given what Medeis added. Anyway, I guess we'll see where it goes. - Bilby (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Um hi

I have no idea what you're talking about. What edit did I make to Fresno, Ca?? Care to show me before you make threats? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.90.9 (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The warning is dated from three years ago. You can view the edits from your IP here. Kuru (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

hi

There is serious problem going on around the article on South Asia. Technically there may not have been 3R breached, but any change to restore the lead was reverted, edited out in phases or thwarted otherwise. Threat me with ban or a full article protection for all I have, but it should lead to betterment of the Wikipedia project. If I understand correctly, bullying isn't very conductive of motivation (no wonder the Wikipedia community is getting smaller by the day). I really resented your style of dispute resolution (which incidentally didn't correspond with Admin behavior guidelines either). But, I also think it's better to let my resentments be known, rather than nursing a grudge. I believe you're not going to check the situation to any depth anymore. But, I definitely can hope that you understand that threatening a person (and that just because you can) already threatened wasn't a good thing to do. TC. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused; WP:ANEW is not intended for dispute resolution. I'm sorry if you're involved in a content dispute and you feel you're being bullied by other editors; you can explore the options at WP:DR to seek a path to consensus. What you may not do is continue to revert other editors in lieu of finding a way to engage them in discussion. I'm also sorry that you felt my style did not suit your needs since I chose not to block every editor involoved; most experienced editors find that to be much more discouraging than a simple warning. If you need help trying to find a consensus, please let me know, but I'm afraid that it does not appear you've even started that route. Kuru (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

extension please

There is still robust debate occurring on the talk page for Southern Adventist University and I don't see it being settled by the time of the protection expiring. Would you mind providing an extension? We have settled 1 out of 3 issues and we used the request for edit template so it's already been made. BelloWello (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Avanu block

Kuru, when you declined his unblock request you wrote to Avanu that "If you feel Sarek is an involved admin, I'd be happy to re-apply the block in my own name, but that seems silly." As an outside observer can I tell you that it isn't silly at all. Sarek was involved in the edit war, and on the opposite side as Avanu. Since when is using ones tools when one is so blatantly involved OK? I agree that Avanu was edit warring and should get blocked for it, but not by Sarek, and letting that stand or calling the objection to it silly doesn't send the right message IMO. Thanks for listening. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the block, and it is a simple, easy call. Now that you've had a review from an uninvolved admin, what purpose would re-applying the block serve aside from bureaucracy? Kuru (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK then what are you planning to do about Sarek's misuse of tools? The issues are separate. The block is good but the blocker should not have done the block, and while this appears clear to onlookers the reviewing admin is skirting the issue. Will you warn Sarek at least or even more simple, will you admit he was involved and should not block per WP:INVOLVED. If he isn't warned, or doesn't promise not to do it again, what is to stop him from using his tools the next time he's in a content dispute? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're free to castigate him yourself as an experienced editor. If you're proposing that I use administrative tools to assist you, then I decline to do so. Kuru (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that you use your tools? Didn't suggest one of two things - 1) You warn him or 2) you at least that what he shouldn't have made the block. Can you explain how either option requires that you use your tools?Griswaldo (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You are free to warn him as an experienced editor, and you are free to ask me as an administrator to take action on your warnings. If you have no administrative tasks for me, then you must be asking me as editor. As an editor I'm a pragmatist and I seldom get involved in pointless drama; you'd have to prove to me there was some horror here that was worth the waste of my time. So far, I've been asked to review his block. I find it not only valid on technical merit, but childishly simple. If you're miffed that he was involved somehow, you can probably take it ANI and stir up a lynch mob. At the moment, I have not reviewed his own edits to see if there was involvement - it would not have changed my review of the block itself. I hope that was clear enough for you. Kuru (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I get it. You reviewed the block but you're not going to review the blocking admins actions. It might have been a good idea not to comment on Avenu's complaint about the involvement in your block review, IMO. That's the only reason I raised this with you directly. In the second review Sandstein did not do so, for instance. Regarding ANI, no thanks. It's not worth the drama. I'll just have to remain disappointed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Kuru, Skomorokh re-opened the EWN report today after Avanu changed the template again. Could you take another look? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You might also mention to Kuru that it was new and different wording and that it fell in line with several discussion points raised by a poll on the page. I'm not simply reverting back what I put there at first, and I have been more than willing to listen and propose alternatives and work with others. Yesterday, I tried to add only 1 word, and it was reverted. Continually saying "we can only have what is there now, and nothing else", expressing ownership, and being negative rather than working collaboratively will get us nowhere. -- Avanu (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, on the positive side, protecting that template will prevent any further accusations about Edit Warring and will keep the focus (hopefully) on the issues rather than editors. -- Avanu (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

For a bit, presumably. If you can make progress on the talk page before this expires. Kuru (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I also responded to you on other locations. -- Avanu (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Medeis

Hi, Kuru, I'm having a problem with Medeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked a couple of days ago for violating the 3RR. He's still constantly edit-warring, now being very careful to stick to exactly three reverts per 24hrs – just now, he only just skimmed past an AN3 report by 12 minutes. More serious is his absolute refusal to participate in a talkpage discussion without simultaneously insisting that his version of the page stands and edit-warring to that effect. When you blocked him it was over Silence (Doctor Who). Today and yesterday it's been about The Impossible Astronaut and Weeping Angels.
I wonder if you wouldn't mind giving him a caution that constant reverting and refusal to discuss is still blockable even if the 3RR isn't quite broken? I think it would come better from someone who isn't me! Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. I can see he did the "miss it by 12" at The Impossible Astronaut, and I'll discuss that with him. I can also see that you "missed it by 45" at Weeping Angels. This feel like those "I learned it by watching you!" drug commercials from the 80's. I understand that you cannot let up on issue like the FUR at Weeping Angels; that's a legal problem. It might help if you could ease up on some of the others, however. :) Kuru (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I realised how close I came at Weeping Angels just after I hit 'save' actually, although that case was a little different because I was applying the (very clear-cut consensus) recommendations of an RfC talkpage, part of which was an amicable agreement with Medeis himself. Anyway, thanks for agreeing to have a word with him, I hope it helps! ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 18:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, you tried [17] :( ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 08:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring continues

Hi Kuru, User:Butterfly2011 has again reverted the 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey page to an older version without explanation or discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; this has been taken care of and the ANEW status amended. Kuru (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears the user is undeterred. Here's a diff of the latest incident, which happened just a few hours ago (User:Flinders Petrie has since reverted it). -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

SAU

Hey, I noticed you said three reversions. I see three (including the per talk one), but wern't two of them consecutive? BelloWello (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

03:14 + 03:16 count as one. 03:31 is a revert of FVW's word "suspended". 00:47 is the 'consensus' revert. I did not count one self-revert in there. Again, please slow down and use the talk page more. It's obvious at this point you're walking in a minefield and that most changes are likely to be contentious. This is not a Pokemon article. :) Kuru (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well. 00:47 added a section, per discussion on talk, that had never been in the article before. I don't see that as a revert. I agree that everything done to the article should be discussed on the talk page. I've made this point a number of times and I'm hoping FVK will start doing so instead of warring while discussing. BelloWello (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are completely correct; I was going from memory that the phrase was in the older series of edits on 4/25. I forget I'm old and that memory must be fact-checked.  :) Will retract from the ANEW report. My apologies. Kuru (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. BelloWello (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• On a different note, do you know how to set up talk page archiving? I can't seem to figure it out on the Southern article or my talk page... BelloWello (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. My archives are cut&paste. Kuru (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Giulio Clovio and Davide41

Hi Kuru. Thanks for protecting the page. I think that was the only option at this point. I just filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents against Davide41. Talking to him is somewhat like banging your head against a brick wall. Equally useful and painful. I'm not trying to get you involved, but since you had looked at the page and protected it I thought it might be courteous on my part to let you know. --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

1 revert per week

hello. I have a question. Why did you put me on one revert per week? And you put me on one revert per week only and you did not do the sane to User Marshall Bagramian? Do you not think it is one sided? Do you not think it's unfair? Please explain. Dighapet (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See [[18]]. You've been edit warring with another edit despite being warning about the situation on articles in that space. I requested that you work out your differences with the other editor. Your response indicated that you would continue the problematic behavior. This is not about the other editor; this is about your actions. Kuru (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What??? Where did you see me edit warring after the report? Show a diff not link to AN/Edit Warring. You are taking sides in this which is not good action by administrator. Dighapet (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The restriction is a result of your actions in that report and designed to prevent future disruptive editing. I'm sorry if you feel I'm "taking sides" in some random nationalistic squabble; I'm afraid that such an accusation does not convice me that my action was in error. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very sorry but you said I edit warred in previous edit in this section. But I did not edit war. In the report he made accusations and false comments and you put me on restriction and at the same time ignored his actions. This will make anyone think you are taking sides. What disruptive editing can you talk about when you let one user in dispute situation go free and another one you restrict. To prevent "disruptive editing" and to be fair, administrator would limit both people, especially when you said "no one has violated 3RR" and "you both game the rule". So, I hope you put yourself in my position and understand. Dighapet (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand perfectly, it seems. You did not cross the 3RR, which would have lead to an immediate block. Instead, the two of you edit warred (different from 3RR, please see WP:EW) up to three each and then submitted a request to ANEW. I kindly asked if the two of you were capable of working out your differences on the article's talk page, and your response was a vindicitve rant which I read as "no". Again, I will not discuss the other editor; this is about you. He responded and I'm still discussing the issue with him. At this point, I've been clear, and I have little interest in giving you an outlet to argue. Kuru (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See

[19] BelloWello (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I've requested a ban/indef block at WP:AN/EW.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Si. Disappointing. Kuru (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid & Bellowello

I completely agree with the current block over at WP:ANEW of Fountainviewkid, and his venom on his talk page is totally uncalled for.

I have to ask though, after being warned for 3RR and edit warring before, then reverting FVK four times [20] [21] [22] [23] how did Bellowello escape a block? I appreciate your time. Dayewalker (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support a block for 24 hours - a short one. Gaming the system is not acceptable, but, this user is still apparently learning.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

24 hours would be a good start, but Bellowello is not a new user. He's a renamed user, and has been warned before. He's well aware of what he's doing, and has discussed being careful not to violate 3RR before. Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that then, 36 or 48 hours may be more appropriate, but, 24 hours is a good start.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything in the last year or so that was reverted at 20:08 - it wasn't anything contested recently. I seriously considered an EW block, mainly for the gaming of 3 reverts and his appearance at an article that is clearly frequented by FVK. I'm not sure of the best course of action to avoid a third entanglement with those two editors; interaction bans seldom work, protection is not a good option on multiple articles, and there just seems to be little interest in WP:DR. I don't see any interest in FVK to actually talk about anything, so I don't think mediation is going to be helpful; especially since he's gone down the path of profane insults. I left the warning for Bello; I will be happy to block for any more revert warring, but let's see if the explicit warning that #rr is not an entitlement has any impact. If you feel this is too soft, you can file another request at ANEW specific to Bellow (the one I responded to was specific for FVK) and I'll let another administrator handle it without comment. Kuru (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As I recall you issued a warning to them both that you would block for EW, not necessarily 3RR. Bello was clearly EWing over the word "suspended." He would change it to "discontinued," Fountain would put it back to "suspended." This is the same issue that these 2 EW'ed over last time! He's not a new user. He's been warned. He's edit warring in defiance of your warning. It's unfair to block Fountain and not Bello, based on your warning against EW, not necessarily 3RR. With all due, why haven't you blocked him? Lionel (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this may make it easier... this looks like it will just pass for a 4th revert: [24] Lionel (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How is rewording something a revert? That change of wording didn't change the meaning, just made it sound better, and has never appeared in the article previously. BelloWello (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A revert is defined as undoing the action(s) of one or more other editors, regardless of the content involved.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not know they were going at it at the Southern Adventist University page as well. I see four reverts even without your most recent one, and it's with FVK again. Wow. Kuru (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that they both know what the community expects of them hopefully the disruption will subside. Lionel (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a revert

I'm still not clear what's considered a revert, so if you don't mind, I'm going to provide examples and ask for "yes" or "no" with hopefully a rationale? Are these edits I made a revert of this? It didn't remove what was added but it did condense it some and clarify/rephrase it. BelloWello (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bello

When you get a chance, perhaps you could take a look at [25] for May 5. Bello has been busy restoring stuff that multiple editors disagree with. Now he can't revert anymore for the day due to 3RR. While he's "handicapped" other editors are working to "fix the article." So he made multiple edits consisting of "spacing." This broke up Simba's edits into multiple reverts. And then he warned user:Simbagraphix for 3RR. If this was any other user no big deal. But based on his history it seems he may be gaming the system. On another note, he insulted Fountain today; I reported him to WQA. Lionel (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly gaming the system, and, it seems this user (BelloWello), while being bold as he should be, hasn't learned from the previous 3RR incident.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies; I'm going to be out of town until Sunday, so my opportunities to connect will be brief if at all. I simply can't play around in a complicated dispute like this if I don't do the homework. If there's any overt edit warring, please post it to ANEW and another admin can intervene. At this point, formal dispute resolution might be the best path if this is turning into a long term problem across multiple articles. Kuru (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is BelloWello canvassing?. Lionel (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

86.180.46.1

Hi there, just a quick question re:your block of 86.180.46.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - you blocked it for two weeks after it posted "traitor" on your talkpage (potential COI?), and you don't appear to have posted a reason on the IP's talk - do you intend to? Regards, GiantSnowman 23:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user/sock evading...see this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, thanks for clearing that up. But if Mikemikev is editing from an educational institute such as UCL (i.e. in the public), won't other (innocent) users of that computer be caught in the block? GiantSnowman 00:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Kuru but you have to weigh the positive contributions versus the trouble level coming from the IP range. In this case a two week block (where they should be in the middle of exams or just finished) to prevent someone who causes this much trouble is probably worth it. You can check the level of positive contribs that come from those IPs and give it consideration if you like.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Berean is spot on. For clear or prolific socks, I seldom post a lengthy reason. I'm sorry you feel there is a COI in play; if you would like to point out where I have edited articles in common, or where the COI is, I'd be happy to unblock and turn it over to another administrator. If you feel that a sock placing a taunt on my talk page automatic disqualifies me from taking administrative action, I would respectfully have to disagree with the restriction. As to length, the first thing I look for is collateral damage. In this case there was zero other traffic from other good faith editors; all edits were clearly the problematic editor. The block was also paced as "anonymous only", so legitimate logged in editors would not have been inconvenienced. I also take into account the dynamic nature of the IP; in this case he has apparently held it for a week or so; short blocks would not be effective. If there's anything else you feel is strange, please feel free to ask; I'm always open to discussing blocks as I feel they are indeed the most potentially damaging tool administrators have. Kuru (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Berean - I had no idea that editor was as 'prolific' as he was, and I'd say it is in the community's best interest for him not to be editing, even if that means other anonymous editors are potentially disrupted for a short period.

Kuru - first of all let me know apologise if my original post seemed like I was questioning your abilities/motivation - I wasn't. I'm looking to become an admin myself in the not-too-distant future, and so was just asking general questions more than anything. My "COI?" question arose from believeing that you had blocked after a personal attack, and not for block evasion. I am now more than happy that this was a sound block. Regards, GiantSnowman 10:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize at all; you're right, if the only thing wired was the single odd personal attack, I'm not sure I would have even batted an eyelid, much less blocked him. That would have been something irrational that needed calling out. :)

Contribution to Wikipedia with good intentions deleted - Need More Transparency

Dear Kuru, Given you deleted my entry on the Playbook page, I simply want to get a good understanding as to why. If you analyze the other content of this page, you will notice this highly commercialized, obvious sales entry: "BlackBerry PlayBook, a tablet computer developed and manufactured by Research in Motion, makers of the BlackBerry" is still there yet another technology, Team Playbook has been deleted.

My simple request is for some transparency regarding how you make your decision when you delete some links but not others. The link I added was rooted in fact. An encyclopedia such as wikipedia is in theory fact-based. If a commercial organization such as Research in Motion is allowed to create a product page and post the name and link of their product from the Playbook entry, I feel it is reasonable for me to do the same for Talent Analytics Corp's product, Team Playbook. After all, they are both verifiable products that really do exist. If I am misunderstanding the ethos of your site please let me know and I will adapt my contributions accordingly. Otherwise, I do not see the point of spending time and effort on something for it to be instantly, erroneously, and without justification deleted by someone who does not know me, my organization or my product. If the goal of wiki is to collect fact-based knowledge, it would do well to be more transparent about why some links are deleted while others are left alone.

Looking forward to hearing from you on my talk page.

Respectfully yours, Mkennedy1981 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkennedy1981 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You added your material to a 'disambiguation page'; these pages are used to help navigate articles with similar names in Wikipedia. It is not a directory for external links. This is very similar to why you may not add a link to your "linkedin" resume on the disambiguation page for "Michael Kennedy". While it may be possible to create a real article on the subject and link to it from that page, we generally ask people with a conflict of interest not to write about themselves or their products. You can read our policy on external links at WP:EL and our policy on COI at WP:COI. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, he did it again . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mayor_of_Los_Angeles,_California&curid=357012&diff=428454633&oldid=428440932

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wheel war picking up steam

Would you please revisit the "WP:FLAGBIO wheel warriors" issue in light of subsequent edits.
An editor with a named account reinserted the Japanese flag.
I rolled back, manually and put an explanation on his talk page.
He blanked my explanation. Then he re-inserted it. At this point, a new IP entered the wheel.
I rolled back again. I'm at my 3RR limit, and I hate to see bullies prevail. Can you help? David in DC (talk)

I think you misread my warning to the earlier IP; I strongly cautioned him against personal attacks, but I have no position in the content dispute on that page. It is not clear that your reading of that guideline is correct, nor is it clear that the guideline is binding. Please be careful about edit warring over WP:FLAGBIO. Kuru (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. If you've got a minute, just for your own edification, would you please review the talk page associated with WP:FLAGBIO. We sure thought we were tightening the language to say flags could never be used to identify places of birth, residence or death. If we've left a loophole, it'd be helpful to know where. David in DC (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Preemptive notification.

Before it becomes an issue to a tenditious editor, I felt I should notify you that I have kept to the letter of my promise, but I did propose in 'LiveSpace' a change to the documentation for the Template:Rescue. It actually solves pretty much 90% of the issues that people have complained about, and the wording was proposed by someone else, not me. If you tell me to, I will self-revert, but seeing as how we actually got a tiny change made yesterday (and it took 3 years to get just that much), I would ask you to let this ride. Here's the diff - [26]. Again, please understand, I'm trying to work with some people who apparently have been arguing against all change for nearly 3 years. The claims that they will accept change, but just not the ones I make, are a bit hollow if you look closer at the long term edit history for this Template. This one change to the documentation might actually end (or minimize) 3 years of problems and arguments, if only these editors will accept it. So, I'll accept your decision either way, but I think this might just work out for the best. Kick me if needed. -- Avanu (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User Fleetham

Hi. Recently I was involved in an edit war with Fleetham about Lanix. I violated the 3rr rule and you blocked me for 24 hours, which is fair. Now, the user continues to act unilaterally and now has tagged the article for speedy deletion. He has no interest in consensus, nor in keeping with wikipedia guidelines. You can see in the Talk page the history of his disruptive edits and edit warrings with another editors. I will refrain from edit the article until the dispute is resolved, but as you can see in the talk page, talking to him is pointless. Could you recommend a course of action please?, can you do something?. Thanks in advance. --Odiseo79 (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No sane administrator would have acted on the speedy deletion tag. I've asked him to expand on his logic for using it. I would encourage continued discussion, regardless of how frustrating it may be. Kuru (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lanix spam

Yeah, I would be happy to talk about why the page is spam. Thank you for taking an interest!

Uncited claims inflate the company's importance

Lead section: "[It] is also an original equipment manufacturer (OEM)... [and] also an international original design manufacturer (ODM)"

History section: "The company... is a rival of Brazil's Positivo Informatica for the third-largest share of this region's [Latin America] consumer electronics market."

Electric hardware section: "As of 2010, Lanix makes LED & LCD, televisions, semiconductors, DRAM, SDRAM, flash memory systems, hard disk drives, organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays, desktop computers, tablet computers, netbooks, laptop computers, smartphones, DVD and Blu-ray Disc drives, servers and wireless routing systems."

• Please note that from the company's front page, it appears to assemble PCs. This official source only lists (more than halfway down the page, under "Important figures") "PCs, laptops and servers" under "equipment sold in 2005". And I doubt a company with less than 500 employees (same official source) has the wherewithal to purchase LED, LCD, and OLED display-making equipment, etc.

Electric hardware section: "While Lanix produces a full range of desktops and other electronic devices, it specializes in ultra high end desktop computers."

Smartphones section: "...Lanix Kip which is for the Latin American, Chinese and developing markets as a competitor for mid level, full featured smartphones from the likes of Sony, Samsung, Nokia, ZTE, and Huawei."

OEM activities section: "In 2006, Lanix started building electronics in Mexico on behalf of Sony using the firm's own components. Lanix is very secretive about its OEM activities to keep its clients' designs and data secure."

Much of the information is not supported by given source

Lead section:"It won an Intel award for best integration of Intel technology into a mobile phone in 2011"

• The source, this youtube video, seems to be shot at the 2009 Intel Solutions Summit. It shows (1:30) an award that says "Lanix" and "Mobile Solution", but does not explain why the award was presented to the company. The Lanix spokeperson says they made a "mobile computer". Intel provides these awards to its "channel partners".

History section: "In 1990, Lanix began making semiconductors, and light-emitting diodes (LED)"

• Lanix appears to assemble computers and make mobile phones. It's more an HP than a Foxconn. Machine translation of a Lanix source says "1990: Lanix began operations in Hermosillo, Sonora, with 20 employees. That year in Mexico launched its first product, PC Lanix 286..."

History section: "Lanix has announced plans to enter the global market by 2012, and an ambitious plan to gain a 40% market share in the quickly growing Latin American consumer electronics market by 2014."

• The source provided is the company's front page (http://www.lanix.cl/). It does not support the claim.

Mexican government contracts section: "Lanix has won several contracts to provide electronics to the Mexican Federal Police, Mexican Army, Mexican Navy Satmex, and the Mexican space agency, AEXA and many government entities in Mexico."

• A company source says, "With a long history and extensive experience in the public sector, Lanix has become one of the most significant technology brands in support of various government projects related to technology"

The sources fail WP:Sources

1/14th of the provided sources seem to pass WP:SOURCES. (It's the one at the very bottom.) The others are either official Lanix websites or self-published sources.

Tablet PC section

There is a relatively large section, supported by self-published sources, about tablet PCs that makes the reader think Lanix sells such products. There is a similar sentence in the Smartphone section about android phones. From its product page, the company does not appear to sell a tablet computer (or an android phone, see the Lanix mobile product page) but may have shown one at a tradeshow.

Conclusion

I really appreciate your taking the time to review this, as I've had an absolutely awful time with this article. The only change I've been able to affect is removing the claim that the company makes Playstation 3s. Every change elicits quick and angry reverts. Fleetham (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the analysis I was hoping you could provide - do you mind if I move this over to the article's talk page and we can work from there? Kuru (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Fleetham (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved this to the Lanix talk page on User:JamesBWatson's request. I hope you could weigh in on making changes to the article so we can reach a consensus. Thanks! Fleetham (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Kuru, thanks for your mediation. It has been very helpful. --Odiseo79 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I'll take a look at this tonight when I have some free time. Kuru (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Watershed map

Over a year ago I created this watershed map for Cibolo Creek, which is not too good. I really like the watershed maps you've made, so could you make a map for the Cibolo Creek watershed to replace the one I created? Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, I've been meaning to start playing around with maps again for years. Let me see if I can get something set up this weekend when I get some time. Kuru (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks magnificent. Thank you very much.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What should I do?

This message is related to the "Naming conventions of Indian colleges". Generally Indian colleges are titled under their original name only, without specifying their universities of affiliation, on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME policy of Wikipedia, unless to avoid any possible ambiguity. Few days back, User:Aashish.gupta made a proposal for renaming and moving a Kirori Mal College to "Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi" at the talk page of the article, but without getting any consensus and without following any of the guideline of WP:RMCI, he did it by himself and showed the act of WP:OWNership, which is clear violation of WP:Cooperation and WP:Consensus. This user has just completed one month on wikipedia, but is a troublesome, the problem is not that he vandalize the article by intension, but the real problem is that he doesn't understand policies of Wikipedia which causes disturbance, even though I welcomed him by myself with all the guidelines, like his current activity on some article — [27], [28] and [29]. So please help me to handle this situation, thanks. — Bill william compton^Talk 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Unless I can understand Wikipedia and how people here make decisions, I think I'm about done with this project.

How is it that this isn't notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catalyst_%28company%29

But this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harte-Hanks

Hare-Hanks cites no notable sources whatsoever. Absolutely none. Wikipedia:CORP -- And here you as an administrator move to keep a completely useless Wikipedia article entry.

I really don't understand it. --Vcardillo (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the three books I just added and the newspaper articles? The PROD you applied looked odd since this is an 80 year old company, and there was no shortage of sources when looking around; I presume you simply did not look. Looking through your recent editing history I can see you're upset about an AFD that did not go your way. I'm sorry that was the case, but randomly trying to delete other articles to annoy other editors seems like a poorly thought out approach. If you'd like help in trying to create an article, you can find people that will gladly assist you, but not by WP:POINT. Kuru (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I did try, and I did ask for help, and no one answered me questions, or refuted my valid points. An administrator also agreed with my points. Yet the magic wand of power was waved, no explanation was given, and the article was deleted. So, I fail to understand how that constitutes a valid delete. And based on the precedent that was set, I also fail to see the relevance, timeliness, and notability of any of the articles that I have also marked for deletion. --Vcardillo (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Template problem

Not sure if it's a problem specifically with the template, but the block you just placed on User_talk:213.202.133.145 has the word "hours" misspelled. Quite a character he was, btw Calabe1992 (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! No, that's the only part that's not a template. Just my stumbling fingers. :) Kuru (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

AN notice

Several of us appear to have been accused of an abuse of power, at WP:AN#Abuse of powers?, without being notified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I see anything coherent enough to respond to. Kuru (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Meepsheep is back!

hi I just found a new sockpuppet of Meepsheep called MeepsheepThinksSyŝopŝArePedòs and I've sent his name to UAA, its whack-a-sock time!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he was already blocked by meta. Kuru (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry...

I ec'd on your decline here - however, since your decline made it sound like he even had a chance of returning, and I was in the process of removing talkpage access, I overwrote yours...hope that's no issue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Mine was simply an 'eye roll'; yours is much more to same point.  :) Kuru (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

accounting software wiki article

Hi Kuru,

I understand that WikiPedia isn't just for links but the site is helpful, I'm not forcing it upon people, if people are interested in further reading then why can't a relevant link being added to the article?

Thanks, Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoughOutline (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. You've added, several times, zero-content links covered with ads and promoting your own affiliate link. I've left a final warning on your talk page. Kuru (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Hi,

I think you're being a little bit unfair. 99% of external links on WikiPedia are to for-profit sites who use advertising and affiliate links to generate profits, just because the sites I've added are smaller, it doesn't make any less legitimate.

How are small sites supposed to compete with larger sites, when I can't add links in places where they can?

Is there any sort of amicable resolution available?

Thanks, Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoughOutline (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being unfair at all. You've been given a link to our policy on external links. If by small, you mean "a paragraph I just slammed together in broken english and covered in ads and directed users to referral links", then sure. There is no resolution available. Do not spam here again; your sites will be added to our global blacklist which could affect your SEO efforts elsewhere. Kuru (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

News Publisher

What relevant wiki pages can this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Publisher be added to? Ankit (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any; there's nothing particularly notable about the software. Kuru (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Will this link work? http://www.lifetimeupgrades.com/windows/network-internet/browser-tools/news-publisher/
• Also, I believe the article News Publisher is not blatant advertisement as the article majorly talks of general online press release industry and provides neutral information on the topic. What are your thoughts on it? Also, will a link from site hotreviews.com be acceptable? http://hotreviews.com/press-release-submission-press-release-submitter-press-release-service-news-release-distribution-submit-a-press-release-submit-press-release-press-release-distribution-submit-press-releases-press-rele/ Ankit (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm mobile at the moment, so I cannot evaulate these links. I will take a look at this tonight. Kuru (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• will a link from site advice-and.info (advice and information site) be acceptable? http://advice-and.info/Computers-and-Technology/377160_Getting_Instant_Traffic_To_Your_Website_Using_Press_Release_Submitter.html

I only want to show reviews and stories from several site editors and admin of the site. It request you to not be biased to remove the article if I try to show you reviews, date verification and editor's comments from several links which are independent.

• Anyways, I will leave the discussion. If you feel the article has no genuine links or is a blatant advertisement. Please feel free to delete the article. I was trying to save the article which talks of general information and with genuine links from review sites. If given more time, I can provide more reliable sources. Ankit (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No, promotional articles can be fixed. I was looking at cleaning it up, but I could find no reliable sources to clean it up with. I will review your links above later. Kuru (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• An article that specifically describes CAPTCHA feature in News Publisher: http://www.thoughts.com/lucianomulli316/manual-captcha-bypass-gives-advantageous-alternatives-to-captcha Ankit (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Some more links: http://www.skyeclothes.com/news-publisher-grow-your-business-with-news-marketing.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit1 nagpal (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• It appeared to me that there is one article on Wikipedia: Universal_Converter_(Unit_Conversion_Software) with almost no reference from any reliable or unreliable source etc., would that not be considered a AfD? I am not trying to argue the rules, just want to me more clear why many articles on Wiki are perfect with no links, and I am showing many independent review links and they are not considered by moderators. Ankit (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Can the News Publisher article be left with "article needs improvement" tag so that moderators get enough time to improve article and find more links? 122.176.130.168 (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Hi, please see my last comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/News_Publisher about WP:RS clarification. could you please reply to my comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit1 nagpal (talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Kenzo400

Since you were the Admin over Kenzo400's 3rr, I thought I would let you know that Kenzo400 has returned to the devsirme article and re-initiated his edit war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Since I made a committment to refrain from editing the Rescue template without your express permission, I would like to ask for that permission now. The conversation seems to have stalled, with no one from either side having made new comments since May 20th. Being bold through WP:BRD would probably move things forward, and several alternatives to my original changes have been discussed since we decided to hold off on editing. I will take care to avoid edit warring, and if a change gets made, I will make sure and emphasize discussion ahead of editing. What has been positive, to me at least, is that we have made 2 changes, one minor and one somewhat substantive, that have improved the template already, but these only came through being bold. I've appreciated your involvement in this situation, and it seems to have been positive. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have the time to review the entire talk page at the moment. From a quick review, it appears that you started a discussion on alternatives which were all roundly rejected. The discussion then seems to have started over as a long "what is this for" meta-discussion which did not seem to resolve. Is your intent to simply use one of the rejected proposals? That seems to be the opposite of BRD, actually, and unlikely to provoke anything positive. I'll read through the rest later. Kuru (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right that I started a discussion on alternatives. There are a very vocal 2 or 3 people who seem to be completely opposed to any changes and don't see anything wrong with the tag being used in a manner that is outside its guidelines. There are also several other editors who are willing to discuss changes and improvements to the tag, and who see that misuse can be addressed, but there is some debate as to the best approach. -- Avanu (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I continue to fail to see how being bold in editing the template is going to solve the problem of people misusing it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We have several editors who believe the template has been due for changes for some time, and just now Jim Miller, who supports the template when used as intended, has said he sees a need for more vigilance on the part of editors to make sure the rescue tag is properly used. You have had people questioning this template since before 2007 and people independently are still coming to question it, yet each time a small yet vocal minority drowns out the questioners. I believe that there is a compromise that can be found here, and that a gentle persistence will get us there. Jim Miller actually acknowledges the possibility of misuse, which is more than several editors have been willing to do, and we need people in the discussion who can look at both sides here and help bridge that gap. BRD is but one way to get there, and I hope we can use all our communication tools to reach a positive conclusion. -- Avanu (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Still haven't heard a definitive answer from you yet, need to try and make the template work properly with the Incubator for this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Falling_In_Reverse_(band) -- Avanu (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Sarek got it working fine. I had overlooked an option. Still would love to hear back from you on the edit request. Thanks. Also the minor change to the tag instructions seems to have produced a new consensus for the tag which seems to have made everyone a little more satisfied with the current situation. -- Avanu (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have not had time to catch up there. Do what you think is best, but please recognize that BRD is likely not the best path forward in fragile environments. The sandbox (I presume that is what is implied by incubator) idea seems like a good idea. Kuru (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

E-procurement copyvio cleanup

I made a note of your removal of the copyvio text from E-procurement at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 May 26. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll follow up on a few of those today. Kuru (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Kuru, Sorry if I was more of a hinder than a help with the issue between Fountainviewkid‎ and BelloWello‎. It did just seem like someone should step in before things became worse on the talk page (I still don't get why that began anyway..) -=- Adam Walker -=- 23:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump BLP warning

Per who is it controversial? Victoria Beckham too denied her implants. Must the ladies come out & admit the implants? That isnt going to happen which is why we rely on the press. Thanks. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Speculating about the breast size of living persons will require better sources than graffiti scrawled on an image in a blog. Better yet, just don't do it; even sourced this is not a notable bit of trivia for an encyclopedia. This was your second violation of our BLP policy on that page; please do not repeat yourself. Kuru (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your speedy determination as to the validity of that 3RR. After all of the back & forth w/ the other editor, I think at this point it would be best for everyone if other editors had an opportunity to discuss the content and/or any changes. I will refrain from responding to the other editor until that happens, but it's tough when stuff like stuff like this pops up over a content dispute. At any rate, thank you for your remarks and your determination. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 05:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kuru,

There is something really wrong with the administration of Wikipedia, and I am not the only one to know about and complains!.

For quite a while I had been hesitant but after a comment by a Polish Wikipedian I was finally encouraged to leave Polish Wikipedia (for some time only perhaps). I decided to move to the English Wikipedia for a change.

Regards, Kpjas (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I am aware that he (Kpjas) have his "own problems" for some it might be a positive development!

I want to remind you that in US at one time they needed to block the IP of US gov ... because the politicians were polishing their resumes and were using the Wikipedia as they election platform!

You Have responded to my comments (in a way positively).

The problem is still that bunch of administrators have NO idea what the hell they are talking about.

Please read my comments and make appropriate corrections as a shoddy communist agent's tabloid operating the disinformation campaign shall NEVER be called a prominent newspaper! You do not call a clochard a prince and prince a clochard! There is to much crap like this specially related to abuse by the polish administrators who are either connected with the propaganda machine or are brain washed.

As an expert on many issues I believe that all IPs of some bloody idiots from Poland should be banned for all other languages so we will have the real and unbiased by the people who do not understand what is Freedom, Liberty and Democracy and vandalize the web pages with their totalitarian communist bias after being brain washed since 1945 by several decades from generation to generation and educated by the communist teachers!

By reading the crap on the PL Wikipedia some sections of it specially connected to the history, politics and resumes of politicians should be completely taken "off air" once and for ever! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.209.90 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Slim

Thanks for the revert of my revert (!) I have apologised. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem; I tripped on that odd sentence the first time I read it, too... :) Kuru (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Shurusheero

At this point, I'm prepared to impose a topic ban over 9/11 as a discretionary sanction. That, or an indef as an account that is clearly here for the purpose of pushing a single POV. Thoughts, opinion? Courcelles 13:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was actually reading through the "case law" needed to impose such a sanction. I would prefer the sanction first, then move to indef if the fringe additions move to another topic. Kuru (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 13:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just one product is actually a promotional thing

You have removed the link http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GuiPrototypingTools This links covers an comparision of 50+ tools and have been covering technology articles for last 15 years.

Just mentioning Assembla, IRise, RationalRose we are encouraging promotion. The current set is not acceptable to me. Please suggest how to cover it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinashak (talk • contribs) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Kinetic Concepts

Hello, Kuru. Thank you again for the help last week. I responded then to your note on the KCI talk page, taking the opportunity to ask if you would be willing to perform a similar review of the draft I have written for a closely related topic, Negative pressure wound therapy. My draft for that is also in a subpage of my account. I'll wait to see if you respond, but if you are too busy, that's OK, I will look elsewhere for oversight and guidance. Thanks very much, BexarTech (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it, but medical articles are not within my comfort zone as much as corporate/business topics are. Kuru (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş

Hi Kuru,

Just saw you blocked this user. Isn't a warning of WP:AE sanctions in order at this point? This is his third block for edit-warring in the last 9 days. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I usually don't dabble in AE - too much nonsense and inconsistent bureaucracy. I'll look into it. Kuru (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not saying formal sanctions, but at least a warning of the possibility of sanctions using one of the templates. Let me know if you decide not to, that way I will file at WP:AE. Athenean (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Responsive Software Ledger

I have been questioned a number of times by users of our software why it is not mentioned in the list of accounting software in Wikipedia. I was going to add a description on the page titled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive_Software_Ledger but it has been protected against recreation since Nov 17 2005. Is there any reason why this protection is still in place. 202.74.198.4 (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The first thing you need is reliable independent sourcing so people can verify the information you want to add. See WP:NSOFT for guidance.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Meepsheep/Hyteen

It's pretty rare to come upon a vandal who has a sleeper that hasn't edited in six months like Meepsheep. Given this, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a whole bunch more.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Si. He's been active, though. It's just RBI at this point; no sense in tracking. Kuru (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Kuru,

I have reread and reread your reply long enough, I would like to thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I will endure tirelessly to find reliable references (not LEGOAlliedForces.com) for the Halo (game) articles. It's, also, my of saying sorry.

Thanks, --Commander cody commander gree (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! Good luck. Kuru (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Good luck in your endeavors as an administrator. --Commander cody commander gree (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Good twins (KnowlG)

Hey, why can´t he blocked for all time as he is getting into wars everytime and talking bad about people in the edit summary? I had a feeling it was KnowlG before but at the Swimming article i knew it 100%. Thanks for the help at the article. :) Kante4 (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

He is blocked indefinitely; if you spot a new account of his, please let me know and I will block on sight. I usually only notice him when he attracts administrative attention through edit warring or personal attacks. Kuru (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I often notice it when he makes the edits he always makes with a bizzare edit summary most times, will let you know, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

2.98.205.1 is another one. Kante4 (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Doing the same removing edits KnowlG did during the french open now at wimbledon: 2.98.202.116 Kante4 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Kuru (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will let you know when he is back... Kante4 (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

89.243.201.235, another account from him to just deleting sections at wimbledon. Can´t you protect the page for two weeks? Kante4 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Would this be a possible sockpuppet of KnowlG? 78.147.16.43 Thanks. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes and another one: 2.97.74.57 Kante4 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the head's up; he's been pretty active today - I presume this means there's an active tournament somewhere... :) Kuru (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

comparison of time tracking software roll backs.

Dear Kuru,

You rolled back this change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_time_tracking_software&oldid=432205974

Why not add an article about GnoTime instead? GnoTime is a fine, and noteable, time tracking tool for the linux environment:

http://gttr.sourceforge.net/

and part of thoroughly reviewed debian and ubuntu distributions. In the same page I see less feature rich time trackers mentioned. Note that I'm not in any way involved in the development of the tool, so I have not other motives to include it in the table other than that it is just the standard - and I guess therefore noteable - gnome desktop time tracker tool. (the gnome desktop is by default used on many linux distributions, such as ubuntu and debian).

Another thing you (?) rolled back was the addition of a column. I miss important features each having there own separate column, as has been done for example for project management software comparison tables on wikipedia. These tables are much more useful than the current time tracking comparison table, with many important features jotted down with ad-hoc names in one feature column. The latter makes it tedious to compare the mentioned features, and difficult to enforce a standard way of describing them. I would say: reserve a separate column for each important feature. To prevent the table becoming to large, this could also be realised by creating an additional page "comparison of features of time tracking tools" or so. What do you think of this?

TIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.194.232 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely free and strongly encouraged to add an article on the software if you feel it meets our notability standards, which are pretty low for software. I'm not a huge fan of having a significant number of columns in comparison tables, as the data there is not exempt from our verifiability standards. If there are others willing to do the sourcing and upkeep, it is usually not a problem. If I removed your addition of a new column, it was likely inadvertent. Kuru (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your response, if I find the time I'm going to create that article (which I couldn't do at the time because I wasn't signed in - I only incidentally make additions to Wikipedia and didn't have my user and password at hand). About the 2nd point: I agree that it is better not having too many columns, however, couldn't this be solved by creating an additional table as I suggested in my initial mesage above? I've seen such a "break-up-into-more-tables" solution before on wikipedia and liked it, but can't remember where... 82.157.194.232 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Luxembourg and user Fry1989

Look, this won't work. I've tried reasoning with Fry1989 before I reported him, and am still trying to. But he just won't even read his own sources. Instead of listening to me, he has added even more errors to his files. I don't know what to do. Sources clearly show that I'm right, both my sources and his sources. The only thing he bases himself on is a badly photocopied pciture that does not show anything clearly. Adelbrecht (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

S. S. Miami sock

He's back, only the day after User:Mamma Rose was blocked: [30]. At least he's learned to fill in edit summaries this time. 86.134.119.250 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Project West

Hello. You recently reverted my Speedy Deletion proposal for Project West, citing that you found no evidence of past deletion discussions. While I admit that there was not a discussion, it was Speedily Deleted TWICE in the past by administrators (once for G11, the other for G1). A Speedy Deletion attempt for this particular article (CSD G10) was cancelled by others, with the only reason being circular logic and an attack on Wikipedia: "This page should not be speedy deleted because. wikipedia does not want to share the real truth. wikipedia is one of those puppet site that,provides false information to public When it comes to real issues they duck your informations are bogus and manipulated your site should be called shamepedia"

It seems that this should be an exceptional circumstance warranting a speedy deletion under CSD 4; if not, I will merely tag it for Speedy Deletion under G11, or G10, since there are grounds to do so under both of those (I only hesitate out of fear that such a speedy deletion tag will be deleted by conspiracy theorists, whereas CSD 4 is much harder for anyone to deny.) Marechal Ney (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

G4 is only for material that is substantially identical to material that was removed after a deletion discussion; in this case a full AFD. It simply does not apply as no discussion has occurred. The G11 deletion is baffling - I think he was shooting for G10 (which is what Mr. Wolfowitz tagged it with originally). I would probably have agreed with the G10 in that case since the article included a large number of e-mail cut&pastes in that version; not so much now. I don't see how G1 applies. Kuru (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

CE Score

You removed the CE Score category under "Credit Score" which effectively limits the subject to the FICO Credit Score. As the author of the CE Score and holder of its intellectual property I tried to eliminate the bias commenting that it is simply a representation of the FICO, which is not true. Also to correct the record, the CE Score publisher is CE Analytics -- just as Fair Issac is the publisher of the FICO as noted in the same category. The CE Score owns a market share approximately equal to the Vantage Score. It is also sold to lenders and investment banks and always free to the consumer.

It is neither promotional nor self-serving as originally written. I did cite an third party source but it got whacked too.

This is obviously a FICO influenced site and biased as to be a disservice to the reader.

I would urge you to try to be truthful and non-biased in your administration of this subject. I am interested in your reasoning on this.

Ed DeShields President CE Analytics, Inc. edeshields@communityempower.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edeshields (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you point at the edit that added a third party source? Did you mean the blog entry you authored or something else? Would be happy to review anything you can provide, but there's been a request for sources for 10 months on that paragraph. Kuru (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Usana article comment?

Just wanted to followup to see if you had a chance to pour through the long discussion over at the Talk:USANA Health Sciences#Stock price information talk page in regards to the stock price after a news event debate (Discussed in more general terms over at the content noticeboard for purposes of setting some kind of standard for the WP project). Looking forward to hearing your opinion on the matter.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

24.12.143.38

Hello, thanks for just blocking this IP. It looks like a talk page access revoke is in order, check the contribs. Thanks! --CutOffTies (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Kuru (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! --CutOffTies (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Block on user 188.59.163.169

I was trying to delete my block request as I noticed it was a duplicate but you were too fast! :-) Thanks for the speedy action and sorry for the duplicate request. Chris W4chris (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Temporary block on user 98.216.122.241

Listen: That address had been temporarily blocked ten million times because of persistant vandalism. Well, guess what: That address is a school address. The school is Rupert A. Nock Middle School, Newburyport, MA 01950. I know this because I go to school there, and I am typing this from that school right now, as I go to summer camp there. Kids here at school have obviosly been radically vandalising wikipedia. I reported the vandalism to the princible, Barry Hopping, but he hasn't taken any action yet. Well, I wanted to tell you that it is best if 98.216.122.241 be completely and perminately blocked, because these kids are never going to stop, and as soon as the temporary blocks are over, they'll just start up again. If you want to talk to me about it, please respond on my talk page instead of yours. Best, The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

SMART: Strategic Marketing And Research Techniques®

I recently attempted to add the subject company to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_marketing_research_firms.

You apparently blocked me? I did not understand that what I did was inappropriate; I am a new and innocent user.

To address your reason for delisting, I drafted a company article and want to 'move' it, but you are blocking me? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ler0y/Enter_your_new_article_name_here&oldid=437133453

Would you please unblock me so I can publish a notable company page? I am very frustrated beacuse I have ethical intentions and I am not an expert on Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ler0y (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You were not blocked in any way. Your addition of a promotional external link was removed from a list, and you were left a polite warning to avoid this activity. I'd be happy to take a look at the article you created. Kuru (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't really help you with the article; you will need to provide significant references to the company in third-party reliable sources. I would help, but it is near impossible to find material given the company's rather generic name. Articles about the company in publications, books, papers, etc. would be helpful. Kuru (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ler0y (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Did you actually review the article and its reliable sources and references? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ler0y/Enter_your_new_article_name_hereThank you Ler0y (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Note the the company's rather genrric name has been a USPTO registered service mark since 1993 (see new article references that I'm attempting to load). Thank you. Ler0y (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I guess I'm 'moved.' I trust that the article meets all requirements. Take care. Ler0y (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How long does the notice have to remain?

I'm just wondering how long the AfD notice has to remain on Quickbooks hosting. I've pleaded my case and nobody replied to it... so I figured the case was closed. Nobody made an argument as to why it should be deleted, either.--Jboutin (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

An AFD will usually run for seven days or so. An uninvolved administrator will then close the discussion and act according to the consensus illustrated in the discussion. Kuru (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I also posted this on the article talk page, but will also post here to ensure you are aware, as your comments suggest you thought the discussion was supposed to occur on the article talk page. The AfD tag on the article points to this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page - the discussion is taking place on that page, where other editors have already voiced opinions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey, just a question as i don´t want to get blocked for 3RR. On the article 2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup User talk:Yeaplc98 constantly changing the times and dates to his local time and i reverted him 3-4 times the last 24 hours because of vandalism, i hope this is not against the 3RR rule, if so sorry and i stop reverting him today. Kante4 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not consider that vandalism; please be cautious reverting over formatting issues. Wait and see if he'll respond to the request for discussion. Kuru (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Tesoro

Hello Kuru, I am new to wikipedia. I still get a server not responding message from a major European service provider. But people can find out themselves. Thanks for your message. Zitbart Zark (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

added semi-protection icon for Kuru.

Hi, Kuru. I added the icon to the SAU page. Did I do it right? Thanks for your action! --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Si. I tweaked it slightly to reflect the reason I gave in the protection log. Usually there's a bot that comes around and applies those tags, so I'm fairly lazy about it. :) Kuru (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sí, señor! About how long does the bot take? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding An Unregistered User and a Controversial Article

Hi Kuru, Mojoworker suggested I contact you regarding this minor (I think) concern. Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

Here is the section under present dispute.

Here for the talk page discussion.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I had already gone offline for the night. It appears that HelloAnnyong has taken action on this to your satisfaction. Kuru (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the material that i am posting on the articles.

I have added new content without changing the old one on the page URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_time_tracking_software why are you deleting it. its a genuine content, you can check it at http://www.timemerlin.com/blog/ or see the blog at http://www.timemerlin.com/blog/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clark1977 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah, but since when do blogs become reliable sources? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when you edit that page there is a notice that begins "IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE ROLLED BACK WITHOUT WARNING". It goes on:

Only place entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable time tracking software. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not time tracking software will be removed. If you have questions, use the talk page. Please try to keep entries in alphabetical order. Adding unnecessary links or text to any other section (such as the "References" section) will also be removed. Thanks.

This criteria was established to prevent the article from becoming a random directory listing and a spam magnet. You will need to establish an article on your software before adding it. I noted this each time I removed your entry. As Mr. Wilkins notes, you will need sources other than blogs to establish said article. Kuru (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for attention

Hi,

You have recently placed User:Dighapet under 1RR restriction, which means he should behave in a responsible manner (at least). However he made this move without even a note in the talkpage where he had been run out of arguments.

Could you please recommend the right action in the current situation?

Thanks, -- Ashot  ^(talk) 06:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be his first edit to that page; I do not see a violation of the 1RR. WP:DR is a good start for resolving content issues. I cannot participate as I have no interest in the subject matter. Kuru (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching that. I must have clicked edit instead of undo. I was distracted. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Kuru (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

MyndBook Entry

Hi,

We saw that you removed our edit to add MyndBook to list of mind mapping software. Could you clarify, please? Thank you.

Regards, MyndBook Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.130.36 (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Si. WP:WTAF is as good an explanation as any. As the list is designed to house notable entries, consensus on the talk page of the article has limited the inclusion of list item to software with an existing article on wikipedia. Kuru (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. How do we get an article on our software in Wikipedia -- do we initiate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.130.36 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First, we would have to make sure your subject is notable enough to be included, and find reliable sources (third-party sources required). Then the article can be written, preferably not by you because of the conflict of interest you have.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

TandM Production

Good work on the quick deletion of that page, good to see vigilance here. Zarcadia (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

However, the editor has re-created the article. Zarcadia (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Already taken down again. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Zarcadia (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It was User:Favonian who got it. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Legal status of Texas and Republic of Texas (group)

An article that you have been involved in editing, "Legal status of Texas" and another, "Republic of Texas (group) has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent ruling at Edit warring

Kuru, you ruled "no violation" here..[31]

Given the hours I spent making my case, I was hoping that you could assure me that you read it.

You said that there was only two reverts but there is evidence of more.
For example
diff USchick, removes image with full explanation. Then Fistoffoucault, reverts it with no comment. diff

diff Fistoffoucault changed image from Young Women Drawing to Shaman with no comment. USchick then reverted it with an explanation and Fistoffoucault reverted with no explanation. I changed it back referring him to the talk page. He then again changes it back, with no comment and deletes the history section while he is at it.

I reverted it.

[32] Aroneol changes it back.

They clearly went against consensus, that is my point.

Is there any chance of getting a second opinion?

Dave3457 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit warring notice board is not designed to settle content disputes; it is there to prevent abuse. If you'd like me to look back a month or so, I can see that you've also reverted many times. There is clearly not a bright line violation of 3RR in this case, and the editor is communicating with you. Perhaps you could discuss the issue or move on to the one of the dispute resolution processes? Kuru (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You keep missing the point, this was not about 3RR it was about edit warring, which is...

when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion....The three revert rule is a convenient limit ... but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

The links above alone are proof that he was warring.

It was also about him not living with consensus.

I was seriously asking you if you quickly skipped over what I wrote rather than having read it thoroughly. The evidence is overwhelming that he was overriding consensus about the image and not discussing things which is warring.

You say he has started to communicate but he only did that because he though he might get blocked. You're suggesting that someone can engage in this type of behavior as long as they change their ways when someone reports them. Meanwhile I'm out hours of my time. There has to be consequences for people like this or they will just engage in this type of behavior until they get reported, at which point they will agree to change.

Also, what does whether I ever reverted someone have to do with anything?

Do I have a right to a second opinion?

Dave3457 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of what edit warring is. I cannot help you in your content dispute. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

number

You have 229^th place in most edits (78632). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:

A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 23:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

www.homeequity.webs.com

Hello-

I am not sure how to post, so maybe I have been doing something wrong...I am new!!!

I felt my site http://www.homeequity.webs.com was quite appropriate for the credit score page, or the home equity page in Wikipedia. I have taken off the ads and still got denied...I am not sure why? Is there something wrong with my site?

I have attempted every which way, but it does not work?

Especially on Home equity, if you look in the links of the wikipedia article, there is a site- http://www.homeownerequities.com/home-equity-credit-overview/ which has a landing page that is clearly affiliate ads and google adsense.

How can this site be more relevant than mine? It sure seems that there are some shady practices going on on your end of things, like maybe people are paying you guys to stick their irrelevant links, notably the one I mentioned above?

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeka622 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering to find spam links for us! There are thousands of links which violate our current guidelines, and it is kind of you to help with this effort. You can start by reading our guidelines for external links at WP:EL, then the outline of the specific problem at WP:SPAM. Remove links you don't feel meet the guidelines while leaving a note explaining your removal. I'm glad you've chosen to switch sides and help us with the problem instead of contributing to it! Kuru (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, and it was never my intention to be a spammer. I am still learning SEO and how all of this works, and what is acceptable to the internet community at large. I now understand that I must build up an authority on my own first, and will work hard to do so.

I am now unemployed, and have way too much time on my hands. Thank you for your patience, be well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeka622 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR all over again

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lightpositive reported by User:Dave1185 (Result: No Violation)
• United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lightpositive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hi Kuru, I need your help to file a report but the noticeboard is stuck with the old one, can you help? His trend has gotten from bad to worst after I've reported him for the first time, which I'd hoped that he would cool off and learn that edit warring is not the way to go on Wikipedia. Now, he's really done it on the aforementioned article page, I've double confirmed to be 4 times in a row. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to do the bureaucracy; I've blocked him for a clear violation on United Kingdom. He's well aware of the rule. I'm not inclined to block El0i as he was never warned prior to his violation. I also considered simply protecting the article, but I hate to do that on a high traffic article when there are only one or two offenders. Kuru (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• My bad, trout me please, I tend to get carried away sometimes when these jerks get on my nerves. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change

I noticed that back on 19 July 2010 you created User:188.220.41.240 and placed the IPsock template on it. You also blocked the account for six months. You could have added the "confirmed" parameter to the IPsock template, but didn't. So now I'm confused about the proper use of that parameter; I would have thought that if there was enough evidence, there would also be enough evidence to apply the parameter. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I usually only put "confirmed" if there is a checkuser confirmation or self-admission. Seems pretty clear on that one at any rate. Kuru (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that it is a judgement call rather than having some clear-cut algorithm tucked away somewhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Si. I never found one, so I went conservative. Kuru (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please help me

Hi Kuru, I'd like to ask you if you could provide me with some feedback on Verax_NMS. I've already requested for feedback but there's no response... --Timeport101 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

After a quick glance, I would suggest finding some reliable sources as soon as possible. The only ones I see are directory listings, press releases, and blogs. Since the article was deleted at an AFD for just this reason, it will need to be improved quickly before it is re-deleted. Kuru (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please watch out for Serienfan2010

This user has started an edit war on Futurama (season 6). I impelled them to use the talk page and they refused. As a result, both of us have reached three reverts; I have pledged to refrain from editing the page for the next 24hrs. I have given this user a warning [33], but given that they have violated the 3RR many times and given that you were the last admin to block this user, I thought I should tell you. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: South Carolina Research Authority

I appreciate your note but would like to point out that the site I used as reference for information about the South Carolina Research Authority, called The Nerve, is the investigative arm of the South Carolina Policy Council, a 501(C)3 nonprofit. We also belong to the South Carolina Press Association. We have three journalists on our staff with combined journalism experience of more than 50 years. We were set up specifically to investigate South Carolina state government and our detractors have attempted to discredit us by referring to us as a simple blog. However, all our stories are referenced and sourced, and several have run verbatim in other newspapers in the state. --Carolina cottonTalk 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you appeared to be linking to a wordpress blog. This is probably not a good forum for you and your group to practice advocacy; it is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. If you think it is possible for you to manage your conflict of interest, you will first need to immediately stop edit warring to keep your material in articles. Two articles I can see have been fully protected to prevent your disruptive editing. If someone reverts you, please start a discussion on the article's talk page to determine if there is a consensus to keep the material. If you need more specific advice on how to avoid edit warring, please leave me a note here. Kuru (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Kuru, I agree with your decision on this. Carolina cotton has made similar edits to other pages and your post here has now brought the South Carolina Research Authority to my attention. I just wanted to let you know one thing about what Carolina cotton told you. I looked up and called the South Carolina Press Association and they said the The Nerve nor the South Carolina Policy Council are NOT considered reporters and are NOT members of the press association. They are Associate Members, basically they give a donation each year to receive a newsletter. The Press Association said that anyone who donated money can gain this status but are not considered members or reporters for doing so. This looks like just another effort of this blogger to mislead you and the Wikipedia community. EricJ1995 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Kuru, EricJ1995 is an individual who has been deleting factual information I've been posting to the page for Robert W. Harrell, Jr.. Further, the S.C. Press Association does not simply allow anyone to join as an associate member because of a donation of money, and my goal is not to mislead you nor anyone else. The S.C. Press Association awarded The Nerve's parent organization, the S.C. Policy Council, a first place and a second place for reporting done in 2010. (That information can be found here: http://www.scpress.org/Documents/SCPA_Winners-release.pdf). The Press Association takes its award process very seriously and doesn't hand such honors out to just anyone. The Press Association states that: "Associate membership is limited to persons, firms, agencies, and associations found by the Executive Committee to be appropriate with furthering the objectives of the SCPA. Associate members may include representatives of syndicates, trade journals, advertising and public relations firms, government agencies, and manufacturers and distributors of printing supplies and equipment." Further, the Press Association has stated clearly that it will not allow simple blogs to become members. Other associate members include: The Associated Press, The Catholic Miscellany newspaper and SC Lawyers Weekly. (Complete list here: http://www.scpress.org/associate.html.) In addition, I have contributed to well over 2,000 Wikipedia articles on a wide range of topics over the past couple of years and take the accuracy of my contributions seriously. I find it ludicrous that someone whose Wikipedia contributions consist almost solely of additions and/or deletions to a single S.C. legislator’s page would accuse me of attempting to mislead the Wikipedia community. --Carolina cottonTalk 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

All I can advise you to do is gather a consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm pretty conservative with WP:BLP; if you can find a group of editors that feel differently, then that is probably a better path. Right now, if you continue to edit war over BLP related material, you will likely find a difficult path ahead. Kuru (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition to corporate behaviour

Amorality is a type of corporate behavior and was properly described on the stub that was edited. Could you please provide me with a reason that this information could not be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.231.84 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't source it to an essay on someone's blog; you may want to use one of the many scholarly works on the topic and describe it correctly without editorializing. Kuru (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Clickjacking - Comitari free product

Hello, I have been asked to add information about Comitari-Free product only from informational source - and this what I did. Please advice how should I add this valuable information to the Wikipedia.

This is the only solution to Clickjacking attacks and it's free product - I think it have to be shown on this wiki entry. Shlominar (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Input requested - Talk:USANA Health Sciences#Correct company description (Direct Sales, Network Marketing, MLM)

Kuru,

We are still working through some hotly debated issues on the USANA Health Sciences article, which you protected last week due to content dispute/edit warring. One of the current issues, is which is the most appropriate term used to describe the company - I'm reaching out to you, because I brought your name up when you commented that MLM is often used as a pejorative term. I have provided some arguments and the other "side" has counter-argued.

If you have the time, it may be worth your read and comments/direction on the debate.

Thank you for you time.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Project management lay out

Hi Kuru, could you take a look at the latest discussion on the project management talk page, and comment. User:Tony1 doesn't seem to agree on anything I say, for example my first and latest statement:

• Wikipedia is an interactive medium, and figures can be read by clicking on them
• With lay-out we should look at FA as example

Now I know lay-out design is no exact science, but these are simple basics of Wikipedia article design. Could you comment on this. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ring Cinema

User talk:Ring Cinema seems to be up to his old ways, now with an editing dispute regarding the name of the article The Beatles (album). Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

In view of your opinion as stated on my talkpage, I'd like to hear what you say about [34] and [35]. Where another editor and another admin decided that by comments can be overwritten, even though they were most certainly accurate and neutrally worded. 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Nueces Watershed Map

I am working on a CIAP grant to produce an educational poster for San Patricio County Parks (on the Nueces River) and would like persmission to use your Nueces Watershed map on the poster. The poster will be free to the public, teachers, county parks and other county organizations and not offered for sale. Would you please advise me of the wording I need to use to give you credit for the image? Janice Minter, Grants Specialist, Naismith Engineering, Inc. Thank you.Texcoast (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how the credit needs to be worded for printed pubications; it seems something like "This map is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia image at Nueces Watershed; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 attributed to author Kuru" suffices. If using a psuedonym hurts your project, you can use "Sam Kuru" as the author. I can release the original to you as public domain if it is easier for you. Kuru (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University

There is a discussion about sourcing occurring and your opinion would be appreciated.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked account

Hello. You blocked IP140.251.15.145 at 13:52 UTC. It seems that they are vandalising again using IP140.251.15.179. Can you check? Denisarona (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Si. Fixed. If he/she IP hops again, I'll protect the target pages. Kuru (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Spamming by 70.230.200.194 and 70.230.192.82 in Insurance

Please note User:70.230.192.82's recent reversion of your revert of User:70.230.200.194's spam in Insurance. Jojalozzo 23:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least it's not marginally promotional; it's full blown spam. I'll try semi-protecting a bit. If he switches to another article we can add the URL to the blacklist. Thank you for your help! Kuru (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of user page

I noticed that you deleted User:Amit Prasad, and that it has been recreated. This is just FYI; no need to reply. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

74.178.195.23

Right back to the same behavior of adding unsourced information right out of the block to television station articles, didn't seem to listen at all despite the red box. Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Man, that's just odd. I extended the block. Kuru (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:82.35.202.156

Hi, I've seen you contacting User :82.35.202.156 in his talk page. His edits, I've encountered, are disruptive with random word removals and constantly inserting controversial materials without any creditable sources or none at all. If your an admin, can you do something about it? --LLTimes (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Jazb665

Thanks. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of legitimate links

I have contacted the proper administrators to resolve this issue. As the Executive Director of Earthwave Society, a legitimate non-profit organization registered with the federal government as such, I asked for reprimands for the treatment our organization has received for adding a LEGITIMATE EXTERNAL LINK TO AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION who worked directly with the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the US Army Corp, the Bureau of Land Management, the Missouri Dept. Of Conservation, NOAA, Nebraska Game & Fish, North & South Dakota Game & Fish, Louisiana Game & Fish Commission, Montana Game & Fish, and Virginia Tech in a cooperative effort to document the life history cycle of the paddlefish, crayfish, sturgeon, alligator gar, and piping plovers. I added a LEGITIMATE LINK AS PER WIKI'S EXTERNAL LINK POLICY, and have reported YOUR abuse along with Dream_Focus, and whoever else has incorrectly deleted the link. You need to refresh yourselves on Wiki's external link policies, and try to acquire a better understanding of the work and research educational non-profit organizations actually perform. You are out of line, and will be hearing from your superiors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if you were a non-profit or Exxon itself. You're adding links with no content and the intention of selling videos; that is very much prohibited by our external link policy. You are, of course, free to contact my "superiors". Kuru (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I did contact two Administrators. Earthwave Society is not selling videos any more than Wikipedia is charging for its services. We ask for contributions the same way Wikipedia asks for contributions. Teachers, students, and resource agencies can request a DVD at no charge, so you actually don't know what you're talking about. Regardless, show me where it says in Wikipedia's External Link section that you can't include a url where there is a charge for shipping, and duplication. If that were the case, you would have to delete almost every single Wiki page that has an external link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 04:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• • If I may pop in here, your links, Atsme, have nothing to do with the articles and are not legitimate at all. For instance, if you make an external link for 'gar', make sure the page actually deals with it (and in a reasonable fashion) or it will be deleted...Smarkflea (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Links like this are nothing more than a plug for a product. Links not to the specific product page apparently are just to a generic home page with no content. You are more than welcome to add referenced content, but you seem to be very, very confused about our external link guidelines. As requested, please cease adding links to your organization. Kuru (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My block

Now that my block has finished, and I have returned to editing Wikipedia, I would like to say that even though I understand the reason for my block, that does not mean I think you handled this well. As to Yadua the Babylonian I still think that in view of the fact that I clearly was not aware of the nature of my transgression, and had stated my willingness to undo any problematic edit, you should have explained things rather than blocking me. And as to Serge Gainsbourg I think that you should have taken into account that the opposing editor was removing sourced content, and that he has a history of warnings for doing so. You might at least have posted warnings on the talkpages of my opponents, especially the latter. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I offered you an opportunity to revert yourself; instead you started a new edit war on a different article. I would have loved to explain the situation to you in more detail, but your subsequent actions dictated the outcome. If I could offer you some unsolicited advice, as you have, you may want to cease referring to your fellow editors as opponents. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent advice, Kuru. Atsme (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Beating me to the punch

How is it that when we are both in fighting mode you keep beating me to the draw? I have just followed you right through AIV and you got there first every time! (Not really moaning; it doesn't matter who does the work so long as it gets done). Happy wikying. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Too fast today, it seems; I messed one up earlier.  :) Kuru (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We all do sometimes: this is why, notwithstanding various comments at RfA and elswewhere, we need a constant flow of new admins. As you may have noticed, they do not stay. It seriously concerns me that I am now one of the longest serving active admins, and I do not feel that I should be. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are the same Anthony who has contributed feedback to my external link dispute, I just wanted to add my opinion for why you may be one of the longest serving active admins. Quite simply, you are good at it!!! Even though I may have disagreed with you on the issue, you were always polite and courteous. Wiki should double your salary. (wink, wink) Atsme (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Brownsville, Texas

Thanks for reverting the info on the article. It is greately appreciated. Keep up the good work, like you always do! Cheers! ComputerJA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC).

Hosfelt Gallery

thanks for the heads up. I was no longer watching that user's page. Have a good day. StarM 02:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Block request

Please block this person:[36], he is the same person as User talk:98.64.75.179 and has continued his racial attacks. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, semi-ed, and cleaned up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, let's see where he/she pops up next. I'll let you know. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, had stepped out. Thanks, Sarek. Kuru (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Project planning

@Kuru: Is it okay to cite Michael D. Taylor's work if Dennis P. Miller's work is not acceptable? Dennis P. Miller is also cited as a Further Reading in Work breakdown structure. The planning process described in Project planning is really not consistent with the planning process described in the Work breakdown structure entry.

Michael D. Taylor's "How to Develop Work Breakdown Structures" in page 4 describes a Verb-oriented WBS (among many) which is task-oriented and is consistent with the Project planning description. Taylor is cited as a reference in the Work breakdown structure entry. If citing this is not acceptable in the Project planning entry, can I then add a section in Work breakdown structure listing the different WBS types?

Pmresource (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Kuru. With successive typhoons, I had lots of free time these past few days. I went back to read Wikipedia policies and guidelines but this time with greater focus. I also read the discussion page of the Work breakdown structure article. It appears that a lot of debate were made on this topic already. I'm daunted to add a new section on WBS types since it would be a controversial edit-- at least for now. What I've realized though is the polite way you reverted my edits WP:SPS in Project planning. I've also seen your contribution on my first article. Thank you for being civil and polite to a new Wikipedian. Most of all, thanks for your work. I will be bold and give you this star though. Until I get a good grasp on how this Barnstar thing works, I guess this would suffice. I really wanted to give you something better and I doubt it if this is something proper but I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For being almost everywhere on the Wikipedia articles that I read, thanks for your hard work and polite ways. Pmresource (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kuru.

I've now familiarized myself in greater depth with most Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays that relate to core content policies. Hopefully, this will enable me to better edit Wikipedia articles. Any tips from you are welcome to better improve my editing. I also want to create more articles in the future. Pmresource (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

With Applogize…

Sorry, Andering, at the moment it appears you've been "bold" by ignoring the discussion on that article's page, and have now been reverted by two other editors. It would be a good idea to stop adding the material, and conclude the discussion before edit warring further.

At the time the complaint was made, only User:Berean Hunter had reverted it. The sources have been presented; That I don’t understand how to put a citation in does NOT change the fact that it is here. Simply put, Berean Hunter is stalling.
I’d not reply after the decision was handed down under normal circumstances, but he’s trying to accuse me of a “bad faith” complaint. I apologize for my lack of civility in making said reply. Please delete this message as soon as convenient (not necessarily as soon as possible). A. J. REDDSON

Email

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and next task?

Hi Kuru

Thanks for making references more specific on value proposition page, I didn't know how to do that. I have been looking at the customer value proposition page for some time as it needs a major edit, a lot of it is old or incorrect content, but am too daunted by the task and not particularly proficient! If you are knowledgable and interested in this topic would you help too? Siztrust (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

CAN U PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE PAGE White Brazilian SECTION - The American impact on the study of race relations in Brazil

Hi i would like you to take a look at the page - White Brazilian section - The American impact on the study of race relations in Brazil

The new section is full of factual errors, and seems to be a biased attack on the U.S. It contains many criticisms of the U.S, and makes contrasts with Brazil, without makeing any criticisms of Brazil.

I have removed the factual errors , and provided my explantion as well as sources at the talk page but the user Darkness Shines keeps restoring them. The user Darkness Shines has not responded at the talk page, and yet continues to restore factual errors.

Could you please take a look? --Kay43 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is already a criticism on "race" relations in Brazil. The new section is a valid text (by the scholars Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, by the way), since it exposes the impact - not always positive - American thought has had on the study of "race" relations in Brazil. Since the wiki articles in English tend to be dominated by the Anglosphere academia (the articles for the most part quote just English speaking scholars), it is healthy to show that even the Anglosphere thought on sociology and "race" relations is relative and prone to bias. And it is a fact that the Ford, Rockefeller and other American foundations have been interfering in the "race" dynamics in Latin America.Grenzer22 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Velayudham

Hi, you have blocked this user for violating 3RR on the above mentioned page. I still do not know the duration of his block. He has made legal threats through email. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 15:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wheel_warring_by_DragonflySixtyseven. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The decision is yours, but..

Hello Kuru,

The decision is yours, but...but I would like to give you some enlightenment on this case [37].

In his request for unblock, Samofi told that [38]

• I undestand my ban. I agree that I was guilty. I have not used sock puppets for a significant time. In the past I was offensive, I have not read Wikipedia´s fundamental rules. But I had a half year for a study of Wikipedia´s rules and for the studying English. I understand that Wikipedia is not battlefield and it can exists more opinions. I would like to contribute to less controversial topics and more discuss about my edits. I think I had a enough time to understand my faults to not make it again. I would like to have a chance to edit Wikipedia again

But there was a discussion in which an uninvolved user ,Divide et Impera, coming from the U.S.A. told that [39]

• In my opinion though Samofi is following a battleground mentality in wikipedia. I saw him edit warring in Martina Hingis, because he couldn't accept any source that her mother was of Hungarian descent
• Samofi disputed each one of them and did not accept consensus, forcing an admin to close the whole issue by semiprotecting and taking away the right to anyone to say anything about Carol Hingis descent (See admin's edit).
• Samofi ran to send to deletion Fakirbakir's article Principality of Hungary on September 5th, and, after that, seeing that the AfD might have a keep outcome, he opened a request for a move from Principality of Hungary to Hungarian Tribal Union on September 7 without seeing the outcome of the AfD and without retiring the nomination.
• Please notice that, at least recently, all Samofi does is to diminish the importance of the Hungarian population of Slovakia: He didn't get any clue from the admin intervention on Martina Hingis, but continued in the last week to make edits such as this, where the outcome is just to use a redirect, and to make the word "Slovakia" appear before the word "Hungarian".

But when Samofi asked User:Divide et Impera for a mediation, Divide et Impera told him that [40]

• A mediation is used when both parties are likely to listen. You decided to not to listen to me: I warned you to delete your canvassing and you didn't. Now I poured my thoughts on you here.

But I do not want to get senteces out of their context, please read the whole discussion before taking a decision on this case: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#I_can_not_write_a_proper_comment_anymore_because_of_user_SAMOFI --Nmate (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also

Notwithstanding the fact that Samofi is being reported for edit warring for which he may receive an indef block as well, he is still edit warring on an another article [41].--Nmate (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop to canvassing a other users. All what I have made was sourced by a reliable sources. Show me the sources which says that mother of Martina Hingis was of hungarian origin. You lie all the time about me and you hates me. You just make a ctivities against me and other Slovakian users. Iam sad from you.. --Samofi (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea Handler's father's name

Hi,

In the introduction of Handler's new book, Lies That Chelsea Handler Told Me, she states that in her previous books, she used fake names to protect people and their privacy. She used Melvin for her father. Further, I cited her mother's obituary, where it states her husband is named Seymour.

Edit: here is a link to the book's introduction: link Cg41386 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct; apologies for the mis-read. Kuru (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring block of User talk:203.117.10.66

Hi Kuru,

I think you and I handled the same problem in different ways just now. I thought they were both edit warring, and protected the page so they could resolve things on the talk page, rather than block them both. I see you just blocked the IP. So should we:

1. Block Woz2 as well and unprotect the page; (note I'm not in favor of this option)
2. Unblock the IP;
3. Is there something I'm missing where Woz2 is acting better than the IP, and we should leave the blocks as-is, and I should unprotect the page?

--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This was from a report at AIV; I didn't see any vandalism, but there was certainly editing warring. At first glace I did not see a 3RR from Woz2, but clearly one from the IP against multiple editors and a recurrance today. Concur that leaving the article protected makes the block non-preventative; the more "good faith" option to resolve the contradiction is to unblock the IP and see if a discussion starts. I'll do that and leave a note for the IP. Kuru (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's where I saw it too. It's likely the IP violated 3RR and Woz2 didn't, so you probably had a good point; I tend not to focus on the bright line aspect of 3RR the way I should. I like your solution, thanks. I think they really just need some outside input from other knowledgeable editors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You rock! Thank you! NinaSpezz (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox person discussion

Hello, Kuru. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox person#Nationality.2Fcitizenship_documentation.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Confused if this is an edit war

Hi Kuru.

I wanted to post the message below on my dispute tag for the Schedule (project management) article. Is this the right way to do it? Kindly delete the message if this violates Wikipedia guidelines. If it doesn't, I'll proceed on posting it in the article's discussion page. Thanks in advance.

Pmresource (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello once again.

After substantial time familiarizing myself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in greater depth, I have decided to delete most of the above message. I think it's civil and prudent to do so.

Thank you.

Pmresource (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

217.209.82.165

I would suggest a longer block than 31 hours for the IP in question. This person has already been blocked for much longer periods of time on many other language versions. I put a block on svwp on six months, and the global block is until February. Why the global block doesn't work here I really don't know. As a side note I earlier asked for rollback for countering this person. I was told I had broke WP:3RR by reverting the edits, despite the fact that the information is hoax. Is it possible for you to give me rollback rights? I'm mostly editing enwp for countering crosswiki vandals I encounter from svwp where I'm an administrator or for following up on users who for one reason or another have been blocked there. GameOn (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm really only comfortable blocking for activity on en.wiki; I have no way of really following the discussions on other wikis. However, after looking through the article histories, I can see several other IPs that he has used here, at least one of which is still blocked for a long period of time, so I'll revise the block length. I'll also set you up with rollback, but please be very careful with this and only use it when the hoax is obvious. The edits from today were pretty clear hoaxes (voice actors added to a show created decades after they died), but some of the others are marginal and can get you into trouble. When in doubt, just use the edit summary explaining it is a long term abuser. Kuru (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, mostly for the block. I'll make sure to try and use the rollback feature with caution. Hopefully I will not need it on this user again. GameOn (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

firm value

Hi. You reverted my post and I am wondering if you have a definition for "firm value." I don't there there is one beyond the market values of equity and debt. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few valuation methodologies for companies; fair market and liquidation values come to mind as most often used. These exist outside of the concept of a stock market; otherwise the contention would be that private and non-profits have no value, or one that cannot be altered. Kuru (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Links to S-Cube

Hi, Kuru.

I have recently added some links to the web site of the S-Cube project, which were removed, if I understood well, because they go against the policies for linking to external sources. Ok, I don't want to question that, but there is one instance where I think the deletion was unjustified.

In the article on Semantic Web Services ([42]), there is a list of related European projects, namely those financed within the Framework Program Seven (FP7). For instance, it lists SOA4All, etc.

S-Cube is indeed a European (EU-funded) research project, it is part of FP7, and I see no reason not to include it in the list. Especialy because one part of its research is related to ontological/semantic web services. It is not only about that, but that is the case of all listed projects.

Best,

Dragan Ivanovic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idragan (talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your position on the SWS link; I would not have a problem with the link re-added there. Kuru (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Millionaire

Can you revert the deletions please, as I'm at 3RR. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I did. Let me know if other socks pop up. Kuru (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Timeport101/Verax_NMS

Hello Kuru, Could you give me some feedback on my article (it's about network monitoring software User:Timeport101/Verax_NMS). I'm writing it since almost 6 months. It was my first wiki article and I made some mistakes. Last time I moved it form my user space without waiting for review and I was punished for that (it won't happen again). Could you help me ?

Timeport101 (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources still seem to be problematic. #2 is a press release. #3 is a blog. I cannot access #1 to give you feedback on it, but the title of the article does not seem to indicate the software is a main topic. The external link you have in the 'see also' section is a directory listing. Since this article was deleted as a formal AFD, you'll need to coverage the sources problem before re-creating. Kuru (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for feedback, I'll try to find more. But honestly, there are plenty of similar articles that don't even have one source.--Timeport101 (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're taking an interest in other articles; I was beginning to think you were a single purpose account with the sole intent of promoting a specific product. Perhaps you could improve those other articles by looking for sources and updating the material? If you can't find sources, tag the article with a request for them - that would be very helpful. Kuru (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Another Favor

Would it be possible if I could ask you to page-protect my talkpage for a while? I've been pestered by some annoying anonymous editors in the last few weeks.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look; I'm not huge fan of semi-protecting talk pages. Kuru (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Kuru (disease)

Hi! Just wondering if you know that Kuru is a neurological disorder transmitted via cannibalism? LK (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. :) Kuru (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Enomatic

Hi,

I previously created an article about Enomatic, that was deleted because of the username and the lack of reliable sources. Under my new username, I've created the article again and would like to have your feedback about it. It's still a draft, so no worries, it won't come online before you've checked it. Thanks ! User:Arseguet/Enomatic (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Arseguet

Edit warring, question.

Hello Kuru. I have a problem. I am having trouble dealing with a user here. I am trying to reason with the user, but the user is obsessed with my nationality. User was blocked for 24 hours from 3RR by you, so I wanted to ask you. What can I do under these circumstances? --Khutuck (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow response; Tznkai seems to have resolved this for now. Kuru (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Request sock block notification

Greetings Kuru, you appear to have recently blocked User:Bigsean0300 for WP:SOCK violation. I noticed that the block notification is not present on his talk page - only his user page. Prior to this being noticed, this had led to some confusion for multiple users and an error on my part as the user page and the notification there were not observed. Would you be so kind as to place the notification on User talk:Bigsean0300 as well, and also ensure such & similar notices are placed on user talk pages to help alleviate potential confusion in the future? Thank you! :) Srobak (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Disregard, I found the appropriate notification. Srobak (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Person you blocked yesterday

The IP address you blocked yesterday has hopped IP addresses to get around the block and is now vandalizing once again on Design the Skyline under this IP address (which is a very similar to the address you blocked yesterday) and this account. Both edit in the exact same styles and vandalize the same exact pages. I have already reported this to ARV, but if you so happen to get to the situation first, please block on sight. Thanks for all your help. • GunMetal Angel 17:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: Amatulic seems to of blocked him, but only for 24 hours for edit warring. That doesn't fit the bill hence that this guy was not edit warring, he actually committed mass repeated vandalism, sock-puppetry and made personal attacks. Sockpuppets are supposed to be permanently blocked, are they not? Although, I cannot make a say on what should happen to his IP address though since as I once read on here, IP addresses aren't necessarily ever permanently blocked unless the situation is really bad. • GunMetal Angel 17:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

got your name in my preference tab.

Hello,

i have your name written on my watch list with (rmv external link).

what does that mean ?

AslamraoAslamrao (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

190.161.134.66

Hello. I thought I would pass on to you some information on a user blocked for disruptive editing 190.161.134.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the same individual for sock-puppetry under the IP 200.83.32.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and blocked by you for block evasion.

This person has also been editing under the following IPs:

186.107.167.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

200.83.32.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

200.104.181.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

200.104.121.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and using a couple of which he has managed to stir up more trouble. He has lately been using multiple IPs on the same discussion page. (I have placed more or less this same message on User:Fastily's page, the admin who applied the intial blocks, but I think he may be unavailable for the next month.)

These four IPs are currently unblocked and are still available for him to use although there has been no activity on them for the past two weeks. I don't know if you want to just keep an eye on these, pass them on somewhere else, or just go ahead and block them also. Personally I dont think any action would be too harsh in this case. I briefly dealt with this person about a month ago over the abusive language he was using in his edit summaries. The user responded as if he was more interested in picking a fight with me. Reading through his contributions under 190.161.134.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) painted a disturbing picture to me. The user took to extremely aggressive and abusive tones over the most minor of edits and corrections, at times spouting off at no one in particular or at whoever may have been responsible for the content he was editing. In one case he entered four consecutive aggressive taunts in edit summaries on one page, without anyone responding in between, arguing with...no one! Like I said, disturbing, and I for one felt uncomfortable editing any page he had anything to do with.

One thing I don't know is what IP he editing under now, if he is in fact still editing. Perhaps he has moved on to something other than Wikipedia to occupy his frustrated life.--Racerx11 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Beaulosagne

At Micronation, Beaulosagne (talk · contribs), whom you blocked for edit-warring on this in September is back to adding their fictional state to the list. As I've reverted I will not take administrative action. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You have been mentioned here. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Byproduct of closing reports at the edit warring notice board. Not day goes by that I'm not accused of having a viewpoint opposite of the person blocked. I suppose it's a normal part of any ideological dispute - if they're not with you, they're against you. Kuru (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for sorting out that school IP for the next year. Alarbus (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

datavisualisation article

Hi, I was just wondering why did you delete the update i made on the data visualisation software table (embeded in the data visualisation article) i edited this morning? I really think that a few softwares should be in this table and i started to added them. are you ok with that? best regards,

Nicolas Hafner Data Descision Think Tank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akakluster (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Because the entries you were adding are not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, and are therefore inappropriate to add to a list of "notable" applications/producers? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. what about qlikView? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akakluster (talk • contribs) 13:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Addition to Personal Finance Software removed

I would like to know why was the update to Accounting Software Comparison, adding AceMoney and AceMoney Lite removed? The search for 'personal finance software' on main Wikipedia page immediately shows this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Finance_software

AceMoney and AceMoney Lite are personal finance software applications, and as such legitimately belong to the comparison chart.

Regards, Alex

Alex1844 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There does not appear to be an existing article for that software; as noted in the comments when you edit that page, links to non-existent articles will be removed. Kuru (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please refer me to a policy to why you removed my External links?

Hi Kuru, Can you please refer me (to a policy) to why you removed my External links?

I believe my articles are well research; accurate and on topic; they also give user further information on the topic. Which is valuable to users? I am not promoting or advertising in anyway. I'm also confused as to how you can leave my page edits (which clear are useful and relevant); but not have the source from where they are from? If you believe that my information is inaccurate please delete all my editing not just the links.

I understand a lot of people attempt to abuse wikipedia with advertising and spam; this is not my intention. I only wanted to added links to relevant useful information. My organisation does not provide logistics consulting or services (we are not prompting this). I wrote these articles to provide useful information to users; to improve the content and usefulness of our website; which well hopeful improve our websites reputation and authority.

---

Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Some external links are welcome (see What can normally be linked, below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources.

---

Also What this??? """"Otso is one of the reusable containers classified as hazardous by HAZMAT.""" Did you add this? Or did I make a mistake when editing? As it doesn't make any sense to me?

Please explain. Thanks, Kind Regards, Lindsay

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindz123 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Lindsay, as I noted on your talk page, you have added links to a very, very low content blog on a commercial site. It would be far more helpful to add content here and ensure that it is sourced to reliable sources. Your blog is not a reliable source. If you have questions after you've read that link, please feel free to ask. Kuru (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, after reading the reliable source link you provide I understand. Thanks

Would writing a page about an organisation that I work for be consider bad / or self promotion? I heard that a organiation has to be notable to have a wiki... but I'm not sure what the definition of noteable is? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindz123 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ip talk Block

Re User talk:193.53.4.252 which you just blocked talk page/email access for, would it be ok if I undid that action, I've already deleted and create protected the talk page for a month, and I think blocking talk page access for the full 2 years is overkill--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem; that's a better solution. Kuru (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Seems the perp has no trouble hopping anyway, User talk:78.155.208.9--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

page redirection

hi, I search "autocratic management" in wikipedia and it came up with no results, so i though to make an information page, I made a page and added information, but some one keep on redirecting it to autocracy, can i have any solutions please. Muddaseraltaf (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Tally Solutions

Please don't try to use your head...while undoing what we have edited about the Tally page....whatever info is given are 100% true...so no need to worry about its reliability.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxbaruah (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was unambiguously promotional, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. And reliable sources are third-party (so the first or second parties do not count).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

/* Insurance / Waivers */ linked bullet to Damage Waiver article

I discuss your update in the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Damage_waiver#Gaps_in_coverage. Not sure if this is the best way to let you know. Numbersinstitute (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - will respond there. Kuru (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

San Antonio meetup

This is kind of spur of the moment but I was browsing WP:MEETUP and noticed that San Antonio hasn't ever had one. I was considering putting one together but I dont know how much interest there would be. I was thinking we could get some folks to meetup somewhere, we all put $2 in a gas-pot, and then carpool around town knocking pictures off this list. What do you think?--v/r - TP 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, you can be the navigator since you have an interest in maps ;)--v/r - TP 18:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha. I'm out of town on business right now, but I'll send you an e-mail when I get back in (just a few days). Sounds fun. Kuru (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

SEO

If I ever have to hire an SEO consultant, I'm going to search the history of the SEO article and automatically reject anybody that was incompetent enough to try and spam it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Truly. Kind of them to provide such a metric on their competency. Kuru (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony List

Hi, Kuru,

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, you offered to help repair the edit conflict and 1RR problem at Susan B. Anthony List. I have a list of changes that were made to the article; ones I noticed were reverted twice by NYyankees51. I focused the report only on the word "scholar" to keep things as simple as possible, but there are the other changes that were made twice. NYyankees51's edits have the effect of attenuating the influence of Rachel MacNair who first conceived the idea of the SBA List and who first announced its existence to the world. MacNair is the one who filed political action committee papers with the federal government to make the group official. See Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List#Founding for the arguments. Here are the edits that NYyankees51 made twice on the 1RR article.

(trim changes)

Thanks for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the entire founding section to the state it was in at the time of your revert, along with the other minor changes. I only do this to avoid blocking someone; I have no attachment to any of the content. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I don't expect anything further regarding content. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Edit to my talk page....

While I am grateful for what appears to be a rectification of my talk page, can you explain this[43] please? You might have at least left a message. Are you attempting to tell me 1. Either Salvio is one of the IPs or 2. An IP is posing as Salvio? Djathinkimacowboy 08:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Which scenario do you think is more likely, given the actions visible to you? Kuru (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I offer my apologies. It sounds worse than it was meant to sound! I know what occurred, I've examined it much more carefully and again, I'm sorry if I sounded brusque. Salvio and I have both been taunted by this person who seems capable of changing IP ranges easily. We think IP will become bored and go away if we ignore IP. That was an edgy day for me. Djathinkimacowboy 22:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Pope Joan

Sorry, I wondered if you could help. I think I contacted another editor about this, but I just can't find out who it might have been. "Boredom is Wikipedia's secret weapon."[44] Though seemingly out of context, it does highlight exactly the attitude taken by certain editors who want to own the article. Whilst they cannot effect any blocks (even though one is an admin), they do their best with a knee-jerk approach to reverting any edits they didn't make. They also refuse discussion, thus attempting to trick editors into violating 3RR, yet they themselves are engaged in edit warring during the course of it. Is this ossification? Will you look at it for me? Djathinkimacowboy 22:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You ought to know the history of the issue, see if you are willing to assist. I first went to this article to see what info I could find; the grammar was horrific so I first edited[45]. A few unreasonable additions drew attention to me, but I have no issue with those. Then I saw the thing was a horrific mess and edited again[46]. If you will examine the remainder of the history[47] you'll see what transpired, and I suggest reading the talk page[48]. Then there was the meddling of a vigilant editor, from whom I assume good faith here[49] and here[50]. Hope this helps give you a taste of what is occurring. Djathinkimacowboy 23:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I really need help. We have a problem at Pope Joan. These edits (later{[51] and earlier[52]) show a proclivity to edit warring and article ownership. Editor was warned here[53]. I'd just like the editing to disengage from warring and go back to a reasonable state. Please notify me at my talk page if you cannot assist, because I need some support in this. Djathinkimacowboy 02:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate you did not wish to assist. This issue has been raised ANI. You of course are not involved or named. Djathinkimacowboy 21:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I have a crowd over for the holidays and my time is limited to 5-10 minutes spurts when I can sneak away. It is unlikely that I will involve myself in a dispute that I cannot monitor - "drive by" administrative actions are a pet peeve of mine. Kuru (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Kuru,

Perhaps my understanding of edit warring is not entire clear. Could you please clarify for me below.

Intro Content

• Content introduction by Karthikndr.
• Reverted by another user a few times.

Begin Edit War

• 1st revert: [54] Prashantkharat
• 2nd revert: [55] Prashantkharat
• 3rd revert: [56] Prashantkharat
• 4th revert: [57] Prashantkharat

In that alone aren't reverts 1-4 edit warring by definition? On the fifth revert he added a citation which doesn't change the content any. If you exclude the single purpose IP's and save that for SPI, it still has even one more revert following that. Mkdw^talk 18:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As noted at ANEW, I can't block someone for an edit war three weeks ago. You can respond there. Kuru (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Azlan Iqbal

After my second, more stern warning for edit warring, that user stopped edit warring and began a long discussion.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for clearing up that mess with Jww047. He/she kept adding unsourced fan speculation to Will Horton and then had the nerve to accuse me of vandalism. I laughed. Anyway, thanks again :) Rm994 (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)