User talk:Kukini/Archive12
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Aset
sorry! i just presumed there was a reference to it on the Isis page as Aset is used on other pages, eg Aset Ka, and that other Aset terms redirect to the appropriate page. Heru-sa-Aset redirects to Horus for instance. Coda littleking 17:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen and edited many pages with a top disambig link instead of a whole page. I presumed that you would only use a disambig page if there was three or more entries that someone might be looking for. In fact I just looked up the page on disambiguation and it is standard to do so, even though i appear to have not used the correct template.Coda littleking 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
chaparral page
why, may i ask, do you continually edit the chaparral high school page? what knowledge do you have of the school? (unsigned comments by User:68.231.87.34)
changes
what you determine to be porn sites, i do not know. in addition, there have be no personal attacks made on this wiki entry, only truth, which can be confirmed if you only give me the chance to find the citations. please, refrain from deleting an entry until you have given the poster proper time to find a citation. or, better yet, instead of deleting a new member's changes, message him and suggest how he might better post...thank you for your concern. (unsigned comments by User:68.231.87.34)
changes
sorry about forgetting to sign, my bad. if you look at who made the changes you just referenced, it was not i. i would ask you not to delete changes made that do not reference porn cites or make personal attacks. again, thank you so much for your concern. 68.231.87.34 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
User:70.246.18.216's comments
look read what i removed before tagging me. obviously i had a good reason for it as the part i removed talked bout sound clipping, which had nothing to do with the article. read my comments for the rick rubin section discussion.--70.246.18.216 06:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
ok thats my bad. i apologize. now will u change back the article as i had it? --70.246.18.216 06:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk Page
I've responded to the posts by subwayguy on his talk page - so deletion should not be seen as hostile? And as per the link you've referred me to (under the Etiquette section), this now means I am free to remove his posts, without insult. I have done three major articles in the past, discussed them, and removed old posts. In any case, thank you for the advice. --Kelly Kohnen 06:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Would you prefer I pull old, deleted comments back on the page before archiving then?--Kelly Kohnen 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've begun creating an archive page... seems better practice than to have people refer to deletion history. I've taken no offence, and appreciate your desire to maintain organization among the many users. Happy holidays! --Kelly Kohnen 06:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Editorial of my recent submission
Hi Kukini. I am new to the world of contributing to Wikipedia and don't [yet] understand all the protocol nor means involved. You cited my Spiritual house entry as lacking appropriate references and/or citations. My thought when I submitted such was that the article itself links to sufficient references within Wikipedia. However, I now realize that existing references may not be sufficient. Could you offer me suggestions as to how to bring Spiritual house up to par? If it matters to you and/or facilitates such improvement, I've found that Crossway Bibles of Good News Publishers in Wheaton, IL, who publish the English Standard Version, post the verses I referred to in the page under probation at http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Peter+2%3A5 and http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Cor+3%3A9.
Thank you for you time any help,
Ben Winsor
Benwinsor 07:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
My Request for Adminship
Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asteriontalk 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you recently added a warning to my talkpage. Unfortunatly in the process you removed some of the comments on my talkpage. I am fully aware that I am to leave comments on that page. But I refuse to have it filled up with spam from that bloody Orphanbot beacuse of images I uploaded over a year ago. Fosnez 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Greetings once again. Have a look at Image:Cobb & Co. coach No 48.jpg and at my talk page. This is what annoys me and why I "archive" botspam the way I do... Fairuse has been satisfied but still the bot spams me... Fosnez 18:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Users
I now that Louis23rd is a sockpuppet of Shadez. Shadez should also be deleted as he stole my account from wikipedia. Can my user talk page be deleted? please. RealShadez
I am leaving wikipedia today and making sure that the Shadez and Louis23rd names are taken away too. Please could you delete my talk page, the Shadez userpage and both pages of Louis23rd. Louis23rd is a sockpuppet account, it should be blocked as should Shadez. Once this is done I will leave. RealShadez
Yes, I would like to close the account permanently. But first can you delete the Shadez page and LOuis23rd pages and make sure they are blocked. Please at least delete the pages. RealShadez
Promise me you will look into there accounts and monitor for any obvious sockpuppeting. Please close my account. thanks RealShadez
- This is the duty of every administrator. --Kukini 19:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Please close my account. RealShadez
When will my account be deleted along with my talkpage? How will i now? RealShadez
'RealShadez' has contacted me by email to ask that I give myself in. Well, yes, I am Shadez and Louis23rd and I found out the password for the Shadez account. Not much of a challenge. You might as well block my account if you wish, I am a sockpuppet afterall. Delete my userpage and talk page too if that's what RealShadez wants. I won't be using this or any other account for malicious intentions and under the rights of the Right to vanish on meta. Thank you for your time in reading. Louis23rd 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Message
I don't really get your message about my activity on Wikipedia. I pretty sure I'm free to edit, am I not? semper fi — Moe 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
school counseling category
That's a good idea for a category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whicky1978 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
I have added a new article, and moved "Jesse B. Davis" to that one. I have reccomended that the "category:counseling and guidance" be removed b/c "school counseling" is more appropriate.This article needs to be linked to the appropiate history categories and articles.whicky1978 talk 05:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey...
Thanks, for your comment. I have a question though. By policy, do you mean what the purpose of this project is? I mean, I think I understand this seeing that I have over 3.500 edits on the Bosnian Wikipedia and I am an bureaucrat on the Bosnian Wikinews. you are one of the first to give a useful criticism. Thanks, Kukini 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit Summary
I'm pretty sure I've been using edit summaries, aside from a few instances of reverting obvious vandalism where I used rollback--71.247.246.54 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
hello
Sorry for driving you nuts, i'm just a new user. are you really able to block people?
- thanks for the welcome, how long to you have to edit wikipedia to be an admin, do you work for company? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wariovvare-2007 (talk • contribs) 04:30, January 2, 2007 (UTC).
Mak82hyd comment
Its Not written in a neutral manner. it looks more like critism page then islamophopia watch page.Mak82hyd 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry slow computer
My computers slow i try to be fast and you already reverted the page before it was done so it was reverted twice once by you once by me.The Great White Hunter 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)User:MikeWinters
Noel Mewton-Wood article
Hello,
What do suppose is going on with the vandalism of the Noel Mewton-Wood article by 172.203.47.53? Do you think it should be protected for a while, or is that an over reaction?
Curious,
- Michael David 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I'll keep it on my watchlist. Thanks. -- Michael David 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
67.36.63.229
- Well, right now this user is adding some aesthetic changes to Street Fighter character articles. Most of them are okay. Danny Lilithborne 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- After me repeatedly removing Britain as a birthplace from Cammy's article, the anon stuck it in "residence". It's not part of the template so it won't show up, but it probably shouldn't be there and I don't feel like reverting *again*. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- He's at it again. Danny Lilithborne 23:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've had to ask for Street Fighter II to be protected at WP:RPP because of his antics. :( Danny Lilithborne 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- He's at it again. Danny Lilithborne 23:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- After me repeatedly removing Britain as a birthplace from Cammy's article, the anon stuck it in "residence". It's not part of the template so it won't show up, but it probably shouldn't be there and I don't feel like reverting *again*. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
User_talk:212.30.31.19
ok i know how to warn people, now how do i ban people this guy has reached his vandislism limit. --The Great White Hunter 12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Mike_Winters
S_Vecchiato
And thank you anyway for welcoming me (>^_^<) --S vecchiato 21:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it was me. Erm... Perhaps you are talking about the edit summary ? (*^_^*) --S vecchiato 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you are right but the comment I cut was mine, I am User:82.52.183.188, I only thought of replacing the comment in another section. Sorry--S vecchiato 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"I am not an expert of telecommunication and relied on Basilio Catania's work, available on the net. However, through helping for this article I discovered how many pioneers of telephone were there at the very same time. The word "telephone" was used for everybody. Look at wikipedia articles about: Emile Berliner Charles Bourseul Thomas Edison Elisha Gray Innocenzo Manzetti Philipp Reis What should the name "telephone" only be precluded to Meucci, if many scientists developed several models of telephones at the same time?--82.52.183.188 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)"
Weasel
I mentioned it in the discussion page, but I tried to highlight where the problems are by using the tag. There should no part in Wikipedia where a study is mentioned without a reference or words such as "some people say" "some people claim" and "it can be argued that"... it almost invariably leads to bias or unfounded claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.135.82 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Thank you. Rklawton 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're doing on Starwars1955's talk page, but please stop. He has every right to remove stuff from his talk page. I've asked him to leave the unblock notice, which I see he's done, but he can remove anything else. Your threat to block him for removing items from his talk page is completely unwarranted. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- We see this differently. I see deleting notices on a user talk page, and not archiving them as a form of vandalism. --Kukini 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, he does have the right to delete the notices; there was a recent ArbCom ruling that supported this. Removing notices or warnings is considered an acknowledgement that they've been read. See Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette, which says that reverting removals of notices is "not proper," especially for vandalism warnings. You are also at three reverts on that talk page, and if you revert again, you will be in violation of WP:3RR. I hope you haven't blocked any other users for removing notices from their talk pages, but if so, you should unblock them. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just because we're admins doesn't mean 3RR doesn't apply to us; you reverted three times, and your reverts were improper (although I understand now that you didn't know the rules on talk pages). All the user was doing was editing his own talk page, and violated no policies while doing so. There really wasn't any reason for you to give him a hard time, especially since he's in the midst of a week-long block already. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Happy editing to you as well, and no hard feelings. I was unaware of the ArbCom ruling myself until 2-3 weeks ago, but hey, things change quickly around here. Take care. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- We seem to handle anon accounts and pages differently - besides, I don't think talk-page-protection really causes as much harm as a block, so I certainly wouldn't squawk at what you did there. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like we've opened up a large can of worms, but perhaps in a good way - this bot idea sounds very interesting, and if this arbcom case doesn't exist, then people need to stop referring to it at AN/I. (I do believe it exists - I may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I know what I read!) Pleasure to meet you as well! | Mr. Darcy talk
- We seem to handle anon accounts and pages differently - besides, I don't think talk-page-protection really causes as much harm as a block, so I certainly wouldn't squawk at what you did there. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Happy editing to you as well, and no hard feelings. I was unaware of the ArbCom ruling myself until 2-3 weeks ago, but hey, things change quickly around here. Take care. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just because we're admins doesn't mean 3RR doesn't apply to us; you reverted three times, and your reverts were improper (although I understand now that you didn't know the rules on talk pages). All the user was doing was editing his own talk page, and violated no policies while doing so. There really wasn't any reason for you to give him a hard time, especially since he's in the midst of a week-long block already. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, he does have the right to delete the notices; there was a recent ArbCom ruling that supported this. Removing notices or warnings is considered an acknowledgement that they've been read. See Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette, which says that reverting removals of notices is "not proper," especially for vandalism warnings. You are also at three reverts on that talk page, and if you revert again, you will be in violation of WP:3RR. I hope you haven't blocked any other users for removing notices from their talk pages, but if so, you should unblock them. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries
I just remembered this because I had the same issue before. I am not an admin, so it's all good. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am unblokced
its over. i can write here now72.184.201.3 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Your congrats
Hi Kukni :-) I appreciate your congrats very much! Take care, FloNight 04:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
S_Vecchiato again
Almost all my changes of yesterday in Antonio Meucci's page were deleted!!! What happened??? I provided every quotation as possible(-_-#) --S vecchiato 09:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Autoblock
It appears to be an autoblock to a pool of aol ip address. CarmenBryan 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary
thanks for the tip CarmenBryan 07:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
it wasn't vandalsim
what you all find vandalism is mostly fact. you are not the curator of information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.135.201.190 (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
IT WASN'T BLANK! I WAS TRYING TO CREATE A NEW STONEWALL JACKSON PAGE! HE'S THE WRITER OF A FEATURE FILM THAT JUST GOT GREENLIT! BUT THANKS FOR NOT KNOWING ANYTHING!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.135.201.190 (talk)
This editor is single-focused on Olympic articles (as I seem to be ;), but doesn't seem to engage in project or talk discussions. I think he reads his own talk page because suggestions I put there seem to be heeded. I think I understand what he was trying to do, but his methods (i.e. section blanking with no discussion or edit summaries) look like vandalism. I suggest removing the block soon, but also insist that he work on those editor "communication skills" a bit more.... Andrwsc 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Chair
Antivandalbot has made a mistake on the Chair article and i cant revert it to its other revision The Great White Hunter 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Mike_Winters
request for peer review
Kukini, I have requested peer review for my Ellis Paul article. I would appreciate feedback from you at your convenience. Thanks! Kmzundel 12:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome
Hey, thanks for the quick welcome! --Zulemais 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocking 170.161.70.98
I see you blocked 170.161.70.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for vandalism. I recently tagged that as a school IP. You may with to replace the current block with a longer softblock. —Dgiest c 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This is what cilvil rights mean is...
You should do this is treat people the same like you won't to be treat it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.145.188.55 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
194.144.111.210
I saw that you had previously blocked User:194.144.111.210, and was wondering if you would be able to do it again as (s)he has been waging an edit war on [| this page] after the genre of the album was agreed upon by multiple editors on [| this page] and by other editor in the history. It far exceeds the 3RR. (unsigned comment by User:Inhumer)
My RFA
Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)
Apparent Vandalism!
You left me a message threatening me about a block if i don't stop vandalsing pages. I find this insulting because i often use Wikipedia as a learning source and i find i a brilliant source of information. The page that i 'changed' was not an article it was in fact the 'Discuss' section. I wrote that i wanted someone to make changes to the Sunderland AFC page regarding two player transfers who are no longer at the club, i could not do this because the page has been blocked due to recent vandalism. So next time, before you accusing people of vandalism, look what was written and what was changed and then take action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.122.91 (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
Evidence
Any evidence of the response you sent me, 'all you have done is change user pages'. I would be grateful if you pointed out these occasions because your pointless accusations are beginning to annoy me. I don't make changes very often at all and i apologise if i don't do things completely to the book but i am a fairly new user and after studying the 'Welcome Page' it encourages first times users to make changes! So i'm not really sure how you got all these so called 'awards' because you are not ver welcoming at all!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.122.91 (talk) = I don't know what that is you have just sent me but it is of no use to me at all! It has other users on there!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.122.91 (talk)
Hey man, im not a stupid racist, im just writing what the cranial measures says. Search yourself.
200.139.115.11 03:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but do not concur
from Lahainaluna's webpage:
"In the fall of 1923, Lahainaluna became a public technical high school, admitting both girls and boys."
If we want to split hairs, Royal Elementary has the claim to being the oldest non-tertiary school in the state. Punahou was founded in 1841, Iolani in 1863, and McKinley as Honolulu School in 1865. I did know that Lahainalua existed in the 19th century, but it served as a seminary and teacher's training school for nearly the first century of its existence. Hilo High School was explicitly founded because of a lack of secondary education on the outer islands, which was true at the time. Students who wanted to continue their education would have to go to Oahu to do so.
I am not trying to claim that Hilo High School is any way better or older than any other school. It was, at the time, the second public high school in the state, and only high school in the outer islands. If you want to pick hairs about bias and such, check out Punahou's page. I was simply leaving the note as a strand for what will eventually be an article on the English Standard School System. Now, if you want to talk about post-colonial babble and who has/who should not/and who has and should not have a claim to what in the state, then that would certainly be a starting point.
And please, check your facts. I'm not trying to be a noob, or a dick. I think that the Hilo High School page is one of the least boastful pages written about high schools in the State of Hawaii. The notable alumni/alumna all warrant their own pages, and have good pages to boot. Check in on Moanalua if you'd like to crack down on schools who need a reality check "regarding [their] primacy."
Holo Imua Kakou, C.S.L. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.241.118 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
Oh, those comments were both from me.
Just pointing out that your last three edits to your talk page (sans your deletion of my last, unsigned comment) were pretty critical of your administrative work. You do, of course, "encourage constructive criticism regarding my performance on Wikipedia." [1]
My edits were not, ever, trying to be controversial. I was quite offended by your deletions, because I was simply trying to clarify work which was continually deleted, unnecessarily, from the introduction to that page, coupled with what I saw to be a snide, "I want to show these NOOBs that i'm an administrator" comment on my edit: "'(correcting info on age of schools, once again)" [2]
Though you say that your "reversion and correction served to encourage other editors to verify claims," [3] your removals and later edit as administrator lacked the very verification you were critical of having been absent in previous revisions. That's blatantly hypocritical, and implicitly elitist. I'm just pointing out that your assumption that IP address edits are done by noobs and therefore subject to deletion should be a little more tempered. Also, learn what it means to be from the outer islands if you're going to keep making these edits, it’ll save you from being called a haole. Seriously. That was the fundamental oversight that was spurning you to make unnecessary deletions.
I was also frustrated that my unsigned edits were not taking effect on the main article page. I assumed that you had blocked my IP, but am now curious as to what you actually did that made unsigned editing impossible on the page. I have been a longtime reader and user of wikipedia, and have, at times, had personal accounts for editing. I abandoned them in favor of anonymous editing, feeling the ability to do so is integral to the spirit of the free dissemination of knowledge on wikipedia; users need not make wikipdia a significant component of their personal life to be able to contribute. Please respect this view. Not doing so engenders what Colbert termed Wikiality [4].
mahalo a nui loa, C.S.L. 140.247.241.118 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)