User talk:MKoltnow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there. If our discussion has begun on your talk page, please keep it there. I will watch for it there. If you would like to start a discussion with me, please do so at the bottom of this page.

Contents 1 Metra article 2 WPSPAM invite 3 Nintendude/Interstate 94A, etc. 4 thanks for informing me about the Heim reverter 5 WP:AIV 6 Well done on spam cleaning 7 Removewarn notice 8 your user warning template additions 9 Cartman 10 Clear Plastic Fetishism 11 thanks 12 Messages not put on my page to annoy me? 13 AIV 14 New Orleans: Save The Projects 15 I seem to have a bug in my account... 16 Thanks from California Gold Rush 16.1 meh 17 Eritrean-Ethiopian_War article 18 How long have you been on Wikipedia? 19 Good Work MKoltnow 20 Todd Newton 21 Thank you 22 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skapsis

[edit] Metra article

Hey, thanks! Keep up the good work yourself! Gws57 14:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPSPAM invite

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendude/Interstate 94A, etc.

Interstate 94A could be a speedy delete because I am 99.9% sure I PROD'd this article about 2 weeks ago. Thanks for tagging more Nintendude socks. There are at least another dozen I've noticed that he doesn't use, so I've never gotten around to tagging them. I'm hoping that at some point I can convince an admin to block his IP from user creation and editing because the sockpuppeting is getting rather ridiculous, even though they are easy to spot.--Isotope23 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for informing me about the Heim reverter

Don't revert it again yourself or you'll be in danger of 3RR as well. I'll take it from here. — coelacan talk — 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's reported. You can use WP:AN3 in the future. The reports are a pain to fill out manually though! That's why it took so long. And there is a backlog there, so it might take a while before the block. Again, thanks for the heads-up. — coelacan talk — 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Regarding this comment, blocks are preventive, not punitive. In other words, we don't block for what they have done, but for the "danger" they may bring to Wikipedia. In this user's case, the user hasn't been around for months, and while today returned and did three edits in a short period of time, he has stopped since. Unless he continues vandalizing and represents a real threat for the stability of our articles, we are not likely to block him. I hope you understand. -- ReyBrujo 01:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well done on spam cleaning

I see you reverted the 'Waterford' article within a minute of spam hitting it. Well done. :) Just wanted to thank you for doing a thankless job. :) Merlante 10:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removewarn notice

Hey there. I've never seen that particular error message before - on User talk:L46kok under my final warning. Is it a standard wikipedia warning or did you make it yourself? :)

Chrisch 02:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make it up but I like it. :) MKoltnow 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And now it appears to be gone, so I write out a warning by hand. MKoltnow 01:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your user warning template additions

you should use level 3 headers for the warnings, like === January 2007 ===. I'm sure you can change your script to do that. _→AzaToth 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just reread the project page. Will do. I type my headers by hand, so I'll have no problem typing = three times instead of two. :) MKoltnow 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cartman

Heh .... you just made me chuckle. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And now, since it got superseded by a redirect rather than a speedy delete, it will remain in the edit history for, er, posterity. :) MKoltnow 18:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Plastic Fetishism

I am in the process of creating this article. Perhaps I should have created it under my own user page as a sub page instead of in the main space. How do I move it? --Allyn 07:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Put a {{hangon}} tag at the top, then add your rationale for keeping it--mention that it's a work in progress--on the talk page. If it gets deleted, then I think it's better to follow your suggestion of creating it as a user subpage and moving it over when you're ready. Good luck with your article. MKoltnow 07:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I evidently was too late, but that's no problem. I've got two sub pages in my user account called sandbox1 and 2, where I will be creating the article and its initial talk page.

I do have a question; if I do use my sub pages to create the article, how long to I have before they would be marked for deletion if there is inactivity. I have to do some research on the topic and there may be periods of days when there is no activity or that the article may appear to be smaller than a 'stub'. Thanks. --Allyn 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your user subpages are subject to deletion unless they are offensive. Unlike the main namespace people won't go hunting around your user subpages for information (unless you want them to!). MKoltnow 20:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --Allyn 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Just wanted to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my main page and talk page. Always nice to meet another person on revert patrol. Galactor213 02:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messages not put on my page to annoy me?

Those messages were put on my page by an anonymous user who engaged in a revert war with me and lectured me about breaking 3RR. After the administrator properly blocked both of us for 12 hours, he ignored the block (see [1] and [2]). When I posted to the talk page:

What's the difference between a bug and a feature to the player? Jet_Set_Willy#The_Attic_Bug was originally called a feature by the programmers. I don't see a reason to differentiate among games that let you lose a crucial item based on whether we think they meant to let you do that. Nor do I see it useful to separate out the concept of unwinnable by accident into its own article.--Prosfilaes 13:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

he replied.

consensus is quite clear. the page is not for bugs. you are welcome to make your comments here but as you appear to be the sole figure arguing against consensus, its unlikely it will make a difference. your disruptive editing has already had you blocked once, so please keep it to the talkpage this time! moral: dont revert against consensus. revert-warring will just get you blocked.

I'm not going to let him fill up my talk page while he harasses me from a series of IPs that can't even be blocked. If they were messages from an editor who wasn't harassing me, or even one that had a talk page I could respond to, it would be different.--Prosfilaes 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I patrol recent changes. One of the red flags which attracts my attention is a deletion from one's own talk page. I always check the edit summary--frequently the editor is archiving old messages. In your case, the edit summary was (frown all you want, just leave me alone). It seemed as if I should restore the removed edit warnings. When I do that, I usually subst removewarn onto the talkpage as well. I try to leave a "paper trail" of my activity so other editors and admins can follow the history. I'm sorry that you don't like them there. I hope you are able to work out your disputes. MKoltnow 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Hi thanks for the advice but when you report to AIV using the vandal proof link it just does it for you after you type a reason in the box, is this a major problem or can I continue or would you prefer me to use the {{IPVandal}}

Hmm. I can't speak for the admins, but IMHO seems as if it would be helpful to have the stuff listed in IPVandal. I will follow-up and reply here. MKoltnow 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion came from the talk page of AIV:

Right now, the main thing it affects is the AIV bot that incorrectly reports remaining items in the list, divided by IPs and users, because it uses the IPVandal and vandal templates to identify the users in the list. In addition, IPVandal has useful links (such as WHOIS). Therefore, I think it would be much better if you could incorporate both templates in the reporting. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable idea would be to visit AIV after you autoreport and minor edit the entry from vandal to IPvandal. Keep up your great work against vandalism. MKoltnow 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Orleans: Save The Projects

Just wanted to let you know: I changed the SD tag on New Orleans: Save The Projects to read {{db|[[WP:WWIN|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]}}, as this seemed more appropriate to me. Thanks! MacGuy^{(contact me)} 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I like yours better. I'm much quicker on the trigger with canned ones like attack, bio, nn. It's already gone, of course. Good job patrolling. MKoltnow 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion page discourages those kind of reasons, but I agree, sometimes stuff deserves to go and there's no real good criterion for it. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I am embarrassed to say I am not sure I ever read to the bottom of WP:CSD before. The problem with not speedily deleting such rubbish is that even prod takes five days, and it can be derailed instantly. I can only begin to imagine how crowded the halls of AfD would be if everyone who claims notability or that their article is not original research got to have a full debate on it. I guess I should put on my userpage that I'm a deletionist. I get so tired of the endless spam and self-promotion articles--the first thing I do when I scan recent changes is look for the capital N to find articles ready for the bin. MKoltnow 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I seem to have a bug in my account...

I can not find the Move TAB, it's just not there. Sorry to bother you again. --Walid HADDAD 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

At the top of all pages is a set of tabs. From the right side, there are "watch" and "move". Watch is helpful--it puts that page into your watchlist, and you can be notified in one click of all recent changes to pages in your watchlist. The next tab to the left of "watch" (which incidentally changes to "unwatch" once you've watched a page) is "move", which lets you move a page to a new place, thereby giving it a new name. MKoltnow 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from California Gold Rush

Thanks for helping to protect this article from vandals! NorCalHistory 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thanks from me as well. That was some speedy reaction to vandalism! User:Cepheids 13:36 (GMT +8), 14 February 2007

All in a day's (avoiding doing any) work. :) MKoltnow 12:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] meh

Webrats 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC) how is a link to youtube not spam if mine is

Just because one link is not removed does not make the other one okay. (and that of Rsxlogan. I confess that I patrol recent changes a lot more than I remove linkspam, so I may not have pruned everything I thought inappropriate. That being said, your contributions clearly violate WP:EL as you link to files which are held by copyright.

My rationale for removing your links is as follows: It looks as if you are involved in webrats, therefore they violate WP:COI, they violate links normally to be avoided #3 (links to promote a website), #5 (objectionable amounts of advertising--the flashing ads are pretty unpleasant), #13 (sites only indirectly related to the article's subject). It is clear that you violate #3, because your edit history makes it clear that you are inserting links to promote your website, useful as it may be. MKoltnow 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Webrats i have made more articles in the last week then you have all month so who here is spamming. i have nothing to do with music. i am a fan and i have had this discussion before. flashing ads!! that site has less banners then any other in that catagory. go ot the other sites they have popups all over webratsmusic doesnt have one. they dont ask for money, so tell me why cant i go remove all youtube links?

It is not really about what I do. I am a recent changes patroller and counter vandalism guy. It is what you have been doing. I think your links are spam, so I reverted them. If you think youtube links are spam, then you can be bold and remove them as well. Happy editing. MKoltnow 03:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eritrean-Ethiopian_War article

MKoltnow, You left me a message regarding violating editing rules and told me to go to the discussion pages. What is the next step after that? After I initially edited the page, someone selectively erased some of my contribution, some were doctored with wrong information while few were left intact. After correcting them back for second time, the same think happened, except this time there was a message from you and another individual whom I believe is committing these deeds.

My question to you is what is the step for me to change some of the factual errors in the write-up. I provided some corrections with citations but don't know what the next step is.

PLEASE ADVISE.

DHM1 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits appeared to me to be adding text which espoused a particular point of view, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. When you make an edit which is not minor, you have to discuss the potential change on the article's talk page. Otherwise, your edits may be considered vandalism. Even when you are correct, it is important not to have just an edit war where you and another editor just revert each others' edits. You can wind up blocked for violating the three revert rule if you do that. Although I love both Eritrean and Ethiopian food, I have no specific knowledge of any facts related to this article. I just know that you have to discuss contentious changes before making them. Welcome aboard, happy editing. I hope that this and other articles will improve with your edits. MKoltnow 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I want to make very clear NONE of my comments espoused any particular Point of view. They were strictly limited to FACTS. If adding a POV is forbidden by Wikipedia policy, that violation has been made numerous times in article talk page. For examples, i

The Ethiopia-Eritrean claim committee ruled that: The Respondent Eritrea violated Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations by resorting to armed force on May 12, 1998 and the immediately following days to attack and occupy the town of Badme, then under peaceful administration by the Claimant Ethiopia, as well as other territory in the Claimant's Tahtay Adiabo and Laelay Adiabo Weredas. Eritrea objected the legality of the claim committee does not have the mandate to determine as to who violated first, that section of investigation should be determined by an independent commission created by UNSG in colaboration with AU. However, the same commission soley blames Ethiopia for escalating of the conflict and declaring war against Eritrea.

The source for the above quote is listed as follows: [3]

Notwithstanding, the mention of only Eritrea's reservation in the above post, the last sentence has to be a clear violation of wikipedia of prohibition against misrepresentation of facts.

1. Nowhere in the document is there the commission blames Ethiopia "for escalating of the conflict".

2. "...and declaring war against Eritrea". As clearly noted in the document on page 6, the committee rejected Eritrea's allegation that Ethiopia had declared war on it. Here is how the commission explicitly addressed it.

This leaves Eritrea’s third line of argument, based on Ethiopia’s alleged declaration of war. On May 13, 1998, the Ethiopian Council of Ministers and Parliament passed a resolution that condemned the May 12 invasion and demanded the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Eritrean forces from Ethiopian territory. This resolution was not, as Eritrea has asserted, a declaration of war.

This has to be the worst violation of even the most elementary principle of writing which I am sure is violation of Wikipedia rules. In a nutshell, the article is riddled with biases and distortions and someone is working very very hard to suppress the truth.

All, I am trying to do is correct the factual "errors" with concrete facts. I have posted them on the discussion page but no one has made a comment.

Does that mean I can now go ahead and make the changes for which I have at least shown supporting evidence?

DHM1 06:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the facts of this article. I can suggest that you comment on content, rather than contributors. So try to avoid a personal attack by describing someone else's contribution as a lie. I suggest that you give your comments one more day to see if anyone comments on them. If not, then carefully make the edits to the article, using clear edit summaries to explain each change so they will not appear to be vandalism. Best wishes, and have fun editing. MKoltnow 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Mkoltnow,

Attacking other people is not my style and it won't happen. My intention is only to correct the factual errors which will only add to the credibility of the article. DHM1 03:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How long have you been on Wikipedia?

Hello, you tried to help me last week. I will put your talkpage and (hopefully) see your reply here after I put your talkpage on my Watchlist. Ronbo76 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been editing for just over three months. The majority of my efforts are limited to fighting spam and vandalism. I spend a little time copyediting. Sadly, I spend even less working on edits to subjects I love like trains and transport. I took your talk page out of my watchlist, since you appeared to be very busy vandal fighting and I thought I was becoming a nuisance. MKoltnow 08:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Work MKoltnow

So I'm a pretty loyal Wikipedian, someone who values and believes in th porject. I wrote some stupid, drunken shit about Baltimore, and witin a few minutes, the stupid shit was deleted. Godo job, for real. Way to keep Wikipedia real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtd2101 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Todd Newton

Hi, I saw this on the talk page for Todd Newton. I guess this is a reminder for you. -- Kevs 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your reminders, I should know better than to forget to sign! I will make sure to do so with my further warnings and messages and such. Have a good day! Mattb112885 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skapsis

Hi. You commented that you thought this article was salvageable -- so can you help salvage it? I'm having a hard time finding anything that meets WP:OR and WP:V but maybe you can come up with something I couldn't find. I have added additional comments on the AfD page about looking for reliable sources.

If you can spare the time, I'd appreciate any help you can give us with this. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I simply read the AfD, and I read the article. It appeared to me to be barely salvageable, although I do not like the spam-like content. I have no knowledge of the subject, so I'm not the right person to fix it. I voted weak keep, since the article does not appear to be complete garbage, as most of the things I nominate for speedy deletion are. MKoltnow 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)