User:Kuru/archive-3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Bobert.mik

Bobert.mik wrote a completely unencyclopedic article praising his high school history teacher. I saw that he vandalized your user page before. Should he be blocked? LittleDan 16:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] drink

Thanks for the drink the other night - all those feet, I needed it!

--Charlesknight 08:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DISCUSSION symbolic anthropology article

July 8/9, 2006 There is an article for symbolic anthropology. But for some reason the link doesn't work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_anthropology I don't know...

... OK so I posted a question about how to fix this linking problem, I think it is item 119 at the bottom of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29

If you don't know how to fix the link problem, please don't take out VALID article links, even if they ARE red. Someone else may be able to figure out how to fix them. Thanks.

Also, please do a SEARCH for these links BEFORE you delete them. You will see that articles DO exist for these topics.

Just deleting nonfunctioning links does not help. There ARE articles on these topics! The help information tells us to go ahead and include links even if we don't know how to make them work, because someone else will know how. I am following the proper procedure by keeping in the red links.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.249.2 (talk • contribs) .

I removed a bad link three days ago that had been on the article for a week (6/6). I'm afraid that the cursory search I conducted did not turn up a valid article to link to, so I removed the red link. A better tactic may have been to ask for assistance and to politely point out what you were attempting to do. You seem to have received responses to your to your subsequent poostings to the Village Pump, so I will assume I cannot be of any assistance at this point. Kuru talk 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
On further review, your IP address's edit history makes it fairly clear which article you were trying to link to since you had edited it frequently - I should have checked that and corrected the link. You have my apologies. Kuru talk 13:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link Question

He appeared in, produced, and owns the DVD so why is it a problem that it is linked to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.41.60 (talk • contribs) .

You've inserted an external link to a site that is nothing more than an ad for the video, complete with a big giant price tag and 'add to cart' button. The link has no other purpose than to sell the video and adds nothing to the article itself. Please read the policy guideline that I inlcuded a link to in my comments (WP:EL), namely the part about links that "primarily exist to sell products or services." Thanks. Kuru talk 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Kuru. Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. - Gimboid13 16:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts are facts

I am not sure why you keep covering up for the local crooks here. The facts placed in the Big Spring entry are true, and reported by the Big Spring Herald. Could it be you are more interested in helping to hide the corrupt,evil,diabolical people who have a stanglehold on the city? I was under the impression facts were facts, but alas, it appears not to be the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob White (talk • contribs) .

I assume you are the user who posted this [1]. I'm very sorry you're having some sort of problem with the officials in your city. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia is not a soapbox that you can post random uncited commentary and accusations on. This is not an internet message board. If you would like to seriously contribute, please read our policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, and original research. Thanks! Kuru talk 01:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you are getting at or referrign to. I saw a useful site and I added a link. I have no websites of my own.

[edit] Thanks

I appreciate the help with the rabbit article. Thanks for being a part of the Wikipedia team!--71.255.212.152 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Pee Wee

[edit] Whitman link discussion

Sir, I mistakenly placed someones copyrighted website to expand the articles. The site is copyrighted and the "discussion" is over. There is no need to debate an issue that is illegal and not going to happen. The owner has threatened a lawsuit if it is not removed and left off Wikipedia; now consider yourself warned!71.121.103.147 02:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You would appear to be very confused. You have posted a link to the original website, and you have not 'copied' any of the content into the dozen or so articles you spammed the link to. Those edits were no only perfectly acceptable from a copyright standpoint, but they have since been reverted. So the original action has no issue other than the violation of Wikipedia's policy on linkspamming. But that's all immaterial to the action you were warned about. Since you're trying to delete the discussion about the link - what in the world would that have to do with "copyright"? One would think that the author would like to have a record of the "transgression" and the discussion of it so that future "violations" would not occur. Again, please do not remove discussions from article talk pages. Kuru talk 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
You have a curious way of phrasing sentences and words. "You would appear to be very confused." Is that what you meant? Wrong on the copied into the article part - my copied parts were reverted by Sherurcij in the Charles Whitman article! I then posted it as an external link to other articles I felt it was pertinent to! If you weren't so assumptive and investigated this prior to making spamlinking allegations you would know that! Are you an administrator? And there were no "transgressions" or "violations" Mr. Kuru, only an honest mistake! That's all!71.121.103.147 03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1. You were attempting to add links to many semi-related articles to promote a website. Several other editors reverted your edits, and began a discussion on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas. You were presented with our opinion that your links were excessive and were not in alignment with policy. You agreed not to continue to post the links. Honest mistake. This is no longer an issue.
2. You are attempting to remove this discussion from all article and project talk pages. This is an issue. You have been asked not to do this several times. You are claiming that there is some unspecified 'copyright' issue involved. The above comment stated my position on why this is not the case; please clarify what you, or 'the author of the website' feel this to be. Kuru talk 04:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got this GIGO karma going and it is quite annoying! Stop telling me what my attempts were, and I know I was asked a few times to stop! Get over it! The copyright owner wasn't asked if his copyrighted site could be used! You have to have permission to use it by the copyright holder! You get his permission and the discussion is over!!!71.121.103.147 05:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

GIGO karma. Right. Kuru talk 05:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Right!71.121.103.147 05:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
See how easy dispute resolution is! We both agreed in the end!71.121.103.147 06:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for comments - would appreciate your offered help on edit-- Topiarydan 05:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kuru: Thanks for help - yeah I screwed up and didn't know how to delete the other entree made for Risk Management Information Systems where I put in RIMS instead of RMIS (like I correctly did for the other entree). Any help on removing or how to remove/delete the other would be appreciated. Topiarydan 05:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Dan

I don't think there's a need to delete it - I just made it into a 'redirect' - going to the mispelled version will send you to the correct version. Thanks for taking the time to make a good article! Kuru talk 05:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank for reverting my page. Thief Lord 17:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem.  :) Kuru talk 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pug

Hello there; sorry for the belated reply. Feel free to edit away, I don't own the article! I have removed the GA nom for the time being until you have further expanded the article. Thanks and regards, Iolakana•T 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Weinberger

Thanks for removing the prod, my understanding is it that when a prod has been removed, it is not supposed to be added again. However within minutes after your removal, a friend of the original PRODer (judging by where his edits are) has put it back in. --Brat32 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As I typed the above you had already dealt with it, thankyou. --Brat32 00:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] solomons key link spam?

Hi

I'm a little confused as to what constitutes a "personal" website as the other external links on the page are distinctly of a "personal" nature.

I'd appreciate if you would re consider the entry.

Thanks Mike —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikerealhot (talk • contribs) .

I'm sorry for the confusion, Mike. After I initially looked at the site, it had very, very little to do with The Solomon Key and would appear to simply be a promotional front for an online casino. It was basically a "raffle" for a book that had not even been published and was not an official event. The second time you added the link, it pointed to a small (dozen) list of articles that had nothing to do with the book. Of course, this discounts the advertising slapped all over the page. I have reviewed the link again, and it is unchanged; I'm afraid I don't see any reason the link meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.
Please read the policy on external links at WP:EL. Thanks for taking the time out to ask about the policy instead of re-adding the link. Kuru talk 02:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Kuru,

I have taken into account what you have said and have massively improved and ammended the news page on the solomon key. It now offers a relevent news feed with the added value of being displayed on others sites - this is a unique feature of the site and I personally think a wonferful one offering both relevency and of course something valuable for free. The articles will also be archived allowing for a historical review of relevent news pertaining to the topic of the solomon key and of course dan brown.

Please let me know if you permit my re-submission of the site as an external link for that topic.

Thanks!

Mike

p.s. the link to the solomon key news page http://www.solomonskey.net/solomon-key-news.asp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikerealhot (talk • contribs) .

Hi again, Mike. I'm not really in a position to 'permit" any thing; we all are of equal footing to edit articles according to the established policies and guidelines. In all fairness, I don't think my opinion of your link has really changed all that much, so I've asked some other editors to take a look at it and see if I'm just being too picky. Kuru talk 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Help

Kuru,

Since you were kind enough to welcome me to Wikipedia and encourage me to "BE BOLD", I am asking for you help.

I decided to be bold, and placed a POV-check on the [Refund Anticipation Loan] article. I explained my reasons on the talk page. If you have the time, could you take a look and let me know if I did alright?

Also, what do I do now? Should I sit back and wait for responses, or should I start to edit the article to add more arguments for support?

Thanks for your help.--Keith 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the article and it's history, I'd say you've done the right thing by starting a conversation on the talk page first. Some articles are very, very prone to advertising, spam, and promotional editing. Editors who have cleaned up those articles are usually very quick to react to strange edits that are not supported with neutral cites and lack a good summary. A solid editor named Quarl (talk • contribs) has been watching that page, and will probably be delighted to work with you to address your concerns and improve the article. If someone does not respond to your note on the talk page in a few days, start adding some content to the article as you see fit - just be very careful to source your statements and always be very clear in the edit summaries on what you're trying to do. I'm afraid I'm not terribly versed on the exact topic, other than working in financial institutions for 20 years - I've not seen the specifics for that type of loan. Otherwise, I'd be happy to help. If I can offer any other advice or help in any way, please let me know... Kuru talk 02:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: NAIC

No offense taken at the (inadvertent) change in meaning -- I assumed it's just part of the Wikiexperience. Thanks for fixing the (inadvertent) errors I left in the page for a user like you ;) Oblivy 03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work!

Keep up the good work on reducing the amount of linkspam in Wikipedia! Your efforts are noticed. -AED 17:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] but nagin is an idiot

i found this in your policies

"You are a Wikipedia editor"

i reserve the right to edit what i find fair and balanced

there is no editor in chief —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.219.100 (talk • contribs) .

Roughly half of the article is devoted to controversies and criticism. Please feel free to contribute factual and verifiable information to those sections. Simply calling him an "idiot" is not encycopedic. Thanks. Kuru talk 00:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] careful!

Your reversion of Church actually restored vandalism... that image definitely doesn't belong :). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My reversion actually was to remove the image. I did miss the change to the disambigation line due to a previous partial revesion. Kuru talk 16:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs

I saw your vote on Alex Martelli's. The short story is that a bad-faith editor is doing scattershod AfD's on articles simply because I created them. If you feel like opining at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (second nomination), I'd welcome that too. It's unfortunate that Yee had a prior article that failed to properly assert notability, and was deleted... I believe overall, Yee is of similar notability as Martelli (in a somewhat different way, but not entirely different). LotLE×talk 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. The Martelli AFD was a little odd for me; since I'm actually familiar with the author's work. I'll look at Yee; thanks for the comments. Kuru talk 02:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for keeping the vandals off my user page, it is much appreciated. Cheers. Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 03:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Beck

Dear Kuru, As a new contributer to Wikipedia, I am appalled by your characterization of my contribution to the Glen Beck page as "Vandalism." Every element of my small contribution to the section devoted to the subsection, "Glenn Beck on Headline News." was factual and pertinent to the topic. What you may consider "Vandalism" will no doubt be regarded as honest and worthy commentary by many others. In fact, my insertion is merely a collection of pointed observations by an objective and unbiased viewer who had never heard of Glenn Beck before two days ago and could therefore have not held any previous opinion on him as a broadcaster one way or another, as opposed to someone like you who seems to be motivated by a distinct political agenda and affinity for Mr. Beck's extremist views. Through my addition to this entry, I was seeking merely to add a deeper perspective and analysis to the extraordinary circumstances under which a major news organization with a reputation for objectivity would hire such an inflammatory persona to fill their most watched newshour.

An intent to disparage Mr. Beck or create vandalism on this site would have included the use of abusive language, indiscriminant commentary, and extensive changing of any of the ten subcategories or frames prior to the section devoted to "Glenn Beck on Headline News." Instead I limited my comments to a only few sentences devoted to the reasons why CNN picked up this controversial host that was literally buried within the body of the entire article in the eleventh subsection, and addressed an area of expertise which I am qualified to contribute.

As someone truly alarmed by the decline of our nation's civility, morality and decency, my entry is a heartfelt contribution which no doubt runs contrary to much of the prevalent negative and biased political thought that dominates our nation and the irrational hopes expressed by Mr. Beck and his supporters for further war in the Middle East. Just because you do not agree with my contribution, I think you are being completely abusive to the spirit of Wikipedia, by engaging me in an "edit war" though your continued removal of my contribution and am writing to inform you that I intend to take this matter up with other editors at Wikipedia, who may question the political biases behind your ungracious actions, which from my perspective, are abusive and undemocratic. sincerely, Robert Schoen—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.98.130 (talk • contribs) .

There's no "edit war" here; I'm not a fan of the man myself. Your edit [2], however, was simply a random string of incoherent gibberish. I'm afraid you lost me at "his illuminati handlers" and "ongoing mind control programming of the general populace, including fluoridation, ELF signals from cell phone towers". I'm assuming at this point that your feigned indignation is simply an extension of this attempt at humor - feel free to take it up with the other editors who have also reverted your edits if I am incorrect. You have some way of determining which are not mind controlled, I presume. Kuru talk 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ballotechnics

Hi Kuru, You helped us so much over at the proposed deletion of the Sharon Weinberger page, that I was hoping you would be so kind as to help us again on a page Talk:Ballotechnics about a related topic. The last issues on the talk page are of current concern. I think all participants make good points, but at least two of us are new at this and do not know how to revise a title of a page to preserve the historical development of the topic while showing that the page is dealing with the same topic that appears in technical literature under a different name. The details of our concern are already stated at the bottom of the talk page. Sorry if this is not the "correct" way to get help. All advice and education is appreciated. Many thanks.

--Drac2000 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ref problem

Thanks for replying to my talk. I found that out myself too, and I'm glad to say it's worked on all the pages I've been on. Thanks for your help.--Dark Kubrick 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership

Kuru & AbsoluteDan,

Allow me to clarify why The Noble Leader is a legitimate external link.

I am writing a book on leadership, not just my 'musings' on leadership in a blog. I've spent several years researching the topic, and am considered an expert on the topic by my peer reviewers. If you're in doubt, then actually read what's on the website - not just what's on the front page.

Your point that I shouldn't add my own link is reasonable and I accept that. That's not a problem. It was a reviewer of mine that suggested that I put the link on Wikipedia. He thought it would be worth sharing. I will mention to him that it's not appropriate for me to add it, and will suggest that he do so.

Additionally, I've changed my approach on my own website. I will not publish "rough draft" material, but rather material ready for publication only. This may reduce the content somewhat, but everything within would be considered expert opinion by reasonable leadership aficionados.

There's one other thing that I want to say here. Wikipedia is about all of us. It's not just about your view of what you consider legitimate or not. I'm not in this for selfish reasons. I am passionate about leadership, and have spent years learning about it. I have a right to share my knowledge and a link to my book's non-commericial website is reasonable act.

Please stop forcing your views of what is spam on other Wikipedians.

Sincerely, Chris Benson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.23.201.99 (talk • contribs) .

So noted. Good luck with your book, Chris. Kuru talk 01:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purge

Thanks very much for the handy tip! I'll remember to use that in the future. Also, your signature is really cool - great color! Okay, thanks again! —L1AM (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem: Mis-numbering and doubling of references

Kuru, a number of us are having problems with articles in which the references have somehow mis-numbered themselves and the Reference section lists each reference twice. You suggested emptying the articles' page caches by appending ?action=purge to the page URLs. That temporary fix works ... but only until someone edits the page and triggers that same mis-behavior. Please, is there some way you could alert the appropriate administrators that someone or something has screwed up the use of Cite.php references?? Thanks in advance. I will watch here for your answer. - mbeychok 07:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The programmers are aware of it and tracking the issue here. It looks like they have a fix; I have no idea when the produciton version will be effective. Kuru talk 14:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Zubrin spam, etc.

Ha! You beat me to reverting a couple of those. Thanks! I also added our pal to Wikipedia:Favorite pages of banned users, and updated Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily with the new IP. It's been a while; I was hoping he had gotten the medication and therapy he needed, but sadly, that doesn't appear to be the case. William Pietri 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I was actually pretty disappointed with myself for actually checking every one of those links to see if they were real. I'll never learn.  :) Kuru talk 04:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas deletion

Wikipedia:Verifiability#The policy says that the "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." There were NO sources cited in the paragraph that anonymous editor removed. He had the right to remove it without any explanation. ClairSamoht 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing I can see that contentious about the statements; they are easily supported by the general HBOT citation given at the bottom of the article. If you'd like links to the specific parts of the HBOT, please ask. Random deletions from the article without comment are not productive or useful for improving the article. Thank you for the feedback. Kuru talk 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Since he deleted them, it appears that he disputes those statements. FWIW, I suspect you're right that the statements are easily supported. But if it's easy, you should simply support the statements with citations. That way, he'd be in the wrong in deleting them without explanation, instead of you being in the wrong for reverting.
The question isn't whether you think or I think the statements are contentious. The question is whether they have sources cited. Wikipedia policy puts the burden on you, as the person who wants to include the statements, not on him, as the person who wants to delete them.
If one clicks on the Handbook of Texas Online link (which took me a long time to find; HBOT is Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy, and you're talking about HBTO) at the bottom of the article, you don't find anything that supports those statements; instead, you find a search engine. Hell's bells, if that's citing sources, you might as well put a link to google on the sidebar, and claim that everything is cited. But if we do that, might as well shut down Wikipedia, and put a redirect to Google.
If you're unclear on Wikipedia policy, check out Wikipedia:Citing Sources. If you simply want to know how to cite sources, Cite.php is recommended as the preferred means of citing sources, and you'll find great documentation at Wikipedia:Footnotes ClairSamoht 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that he simply removed an entire section of easily sourced text. Without some entry in the edit summary, some attempt at explanation on the talk page, or some history of contention over that section, it appears to be either an accidental deletion or blanking. Since this isn't a WP:BLP issue, and since there is a general cite on the page, I have no problems with simply reverting the deletion and adding a query to the user's talk page, which I did. This occurs with great frequency, and while I try to use discretion as outlined above, this would seem to be a fairly random deletion which warranted reversion. While the burden is indeed on the person supplying the information, it might be wise to verify that there is indeed a contention, or even a request, first.
You have my apologies for using an acronym; I had assumed you frequented the article, or Texas related articles in general. The Handbook of Texas (HBoT) is actually a very large published book, and you're looking at the online version of it. I left specific links to the pages in question several hours ago to avoid just this confusion. It is no more an invalid reference than any other general publication cite. The correlation to 'google' is a bit of a stretch, but I see your point.
As to my familiarity with fundamental concepts in citation on Wikipedia, you can probably simply assume that I've been here a while and that I'm very familiar with them; feel free to look at my history. I'd be happy to work with you to address specific concerns about an article, but let's both dial it back a bit and look at the problem: you feel that there are large segments of the article that lean on a very general reference and should probably point to specific parts of it? Is that the gist of it? Kuru talk 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wrong attribution in comment

You listed your comment as (revert: vandalism (to last version by Hack-Man)) in changes you made to the entry for WWE's Jonathan Coachman. I think you meant some other user, as all I changes was the single removal of a duplicate link. The revert you did was to someone else's vandalism. Please be more careful whom you defame in the future. Hack-Man 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'to' refers to the version being reverted to - not the name of the person vandalizing the article; I could care less about them. It is a courtesy to state where you're reverting back to so that people checking the logs won't have to look at each intersecting edit. Kuru talk 22:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandalism

Drat, you've beaten me to reverting an edit to Neopets! Good job keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism. --Gray Porpoise 00:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism on 24

I know, Kuru. If you'd read the words at the top of my talk article, you'd know that I'm running some experiments on vandalism. Thanks for being a part of it. So far, every edit has been turned around in less than two minutes. It's a testament to the amazing quality of wikipedians such as yourself. 58.107.16.154 02:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise Resource Planning

This page appears to be paraphrased from my www site. However as soon as i added a link to the source material: Revert-link-spam. May i respectfully suggest an impartial editor consider adding a link to http://www.listensoftware.com/hrxp/silvercacheinfo.asp?txtGlobalVariableName=1002 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.0.106.130 (talk • contribs) .

No, your edit history clearly shows that you've simply inserted a spam link to your corporate pitch page. I can see no text or 'paraphrase' from the link you originally inserted to the text in the article. I have additionally reverted your latest addition, which was to simply vandalize the article by hijacking links and inserting your opinion about your product. Please stop. Kuru talk 12:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bachelor of Engineering page link removed

Hi Kuru, could I request to make my link to my site www.engineersvoice.com be placed as an external links? It should serve people from every engineering background to participate in it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.7.248.137 (talk • contribs) .

I'm sorry. You've posted a link to your site/forums on about 20 different randomly selected engineering articles, and I really can't see what it adds to any of them. Please consider using your knowledge of the subject matter to add content to the articles you're editing; I'm afraid that it is not appropriate to advertise your site here. Please read the applicable guidelines for external links. Kuru talk 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Kuru, I admit that it was a bad idea to advertise the links on 20 pages. But they weren't randomly chosen. For each page that is a specific engineering field, I would make an external link to my site for that specific field. ex. Aeronautical engineering in wikipedia will have an external link to aeronautical engineering on engineersvoice.com. Apart from the fact that engineersvoice.com is still quite new and doesn't have much discussions going on yet, I'd love to make it a learning and discussion place for engineering topics. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

[edit] Watershed maps

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thanks for your excellent watershed maps for rivers across the state of Texas. --JFreeman 18:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User talk:61.247.240.96

Not by me please. Thanks.

--Dore chakravarty 13:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bornardbeit

Hi there; just so you don't feel by-passed, this is to tell you that I have placed a {{speedy}} tag on this article which you marked for {{AfD}}. When an article is clearly patent nonsense there is no harm in going straight to the point and saying so.--Anthony.bradbury 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] external links

Hi Kuru.

Can you please clarify me when an external link is acceptable and when an external link to a page featuring a product is OK? There are articles that relates to a specific technology, and links to different softwares that use/exemplify the technology. They can contribute a lot to people understanding of the method/technology in question due to the explanations on the product page and a free trial that is often offered. Best wishes,

Meesk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xcasejet (talk • contribs) .

Hi, Meesk. The links you added to several general I/T topic pages were simply added to promote your product. They do not in any way add to the content of the article and are not acceptable per the guidelines I provided on your talk page (WP:EL). Please feel free to add neutral content to the article that expands on the topic, but we are not here to promote specific commercial products, even if they have a free trial. Thanks!. Kuru talk 12:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Alan Johnson

I'm inclined to replace that AfD tag with a speedy-delete tag. Would that be a breach of protocol? ForDorothy 05:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I was simply restoring an AFD tag that had already been added. It looked like all prods, speedies, and even AFD tags had been removed by multiple IP address users; making it difficult to get the attention of an admin. Would not hurt to re-add the speedy along side the regular AFD process. Kuru talk 12:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Business

Kuru,

would you please reconsider adding (link deleted) to the external link section in Wikipedia:Business. Until now there are only some links about news, stock quotes and how to start a business. But Business if far more than that, so I think by adding (link deleted) the quality of the external link section would improve. Thanks in advance for your response Kuru, I appreciate your work to maintain a high quality in Wikipedia.

[edit] Anglerfish help

Thanks for the advice on the Anglerfish/Monkfish merge, and the friendly welcome. I'll get to the merge shortly.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/u/r/User%7EKuru_archive-3_d08e.html"