User:Kuru/archive-5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 My apology 2 Thanks for reverting that vandalism... 3 You. 4 Thank You 5 Audio Books 6 Thanks 7 Thanks for the spam cleanup. 8 XO 9 your message 10 Dallas Cowboys edits 11 USA events 12 152.117.207.37 13 My links being deleted 14 thanks 15 VBA Tutor 16 Thank you again 17 low content 18 Tim Duncan's wife 19 Invite to WikiProject Spam 20 Tim Duncan's wife 21 Might as well post a permanent "thank you" on this page 22 suspiciously? 23 Your edit to AIAV 24 The old quickest gun in the west? 25 you beat me too! here's a barnstar 26 What exactly do yo think you know about search engine submission? 27 Congratulations 28 in case you have the time..... Talk to Bowen Sanders 29 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention 30 RE: Kuru RFA 31 Mistake creating an article? 32 Hey 33 Thanks for the reverts 34 Student loan spammer 35 livesimply 36 you got the wrong guy 37 Thank you! 38 Rocky Marciano and Civil Edits 39 Your welcome and . . . 40 ~ 41 ! 42 Rocky unprotected 43 Greatest problem, not resolved, people who participated in the poll do not know boxing 44 SA Player Hater 45 Talk:The Real World: San Francisco 46 Other things 47 Protection request 48 My Barnstar 49 You're welcome 50 BoxingWear Situation 51 You just welcomed a sockpuppet of MascotGuy 52 Thank you for blocking User:SoftenPie 53 indef block template 54 IP Block 55 User talk:151.203.203.30 56 Stephen King Deletion 57 Regarding Washington College 58 Washington College - Fraternity Issue 59 Data Recovery Book 60 Text of a deleted article 61 My Apologies 62 Question from a beginer 63 Protect an IP Talk Page 64 User Block 65 Yes, another RickK anti-vandalism barnstar... 66 Thanks for having my back 67 Thanks for the point 68 Spamstar of Glory 69 input sought 70 Spam bot reversions 71 Thanks.... 72 Apologies 73 Thanks 74 Thanks 75 Vandalism 76 203.102.177.164 77 Thanks 78 Block 79 My bad 80 Block IP 81 Hi 82 Eric Pacifici 83 Thanks 84 Hello 85 Hello 86 A little question 87 Imitation 88 No problem and thanks 89 Re: 172.165.250.143 90 AIV 91 Can I get a month ban? 92 Re: External Link Warning 93 Thank you 94 Warning vandals 95 One month block on 13.8.137.11 96 In my defence 97 Thanks 98 User:Qwertyuoplhgfd 99 Thanks. 100 Cheers! 101 Thanks very much!!! 102 Defending My Page 103 User:Kzrulzuall69 104 Thanks 105 G1 106 Please help mediate Washington College article (again) 107 Why did you block Me on my other computer 108 why you removed the link to www.pmis.co.uk/project_risk_management.htm? 109 Sock puppet question 110 BossTalks.com 111 Nasty character 112 "Stockhouse" 113 Escalated war at Talk:South Tyrol 114 IP Block 115 Thank you again... 116 Recreation of deleted text 117 Thanks 118 Apologies and Thank You 119 My attempted unblock of Otto 120 Request for Warnings 121 Blocked user circumventing ban? 122 Big Boss 0 123 Anti-Vandalism 124 (Post Scriptum) because of drunkenness 125 Re: AIV report (take 2) 126 Hello 127 JJonathan 128 Need admin help with IP vandal 129 Thanks 130 Bot 131 Risk management 132 Question... 133 He's baaack.... 134 My bad. Thanks for your correction 135 Billnye123456 136 Thanks again 137 Deletion of The Independent School, Inc. 138 hey, thanks... 139 Easiest way to get a user banned? 140 User:Qxz 141 Shared Concerns 142 When you 143 My contribution was erased 144 User: 68.39.163.15

[edit] My apology

I’ve had email discussions with Mr Dawkins and I find that this man is not open to any agreement, for instance he wrote a book review on a book which didn’t dismiss the theory of evolution, it just discussed the problems with the theory. The review he wrote was appalling he didn’t use real science and he poked fun at the author. When I wrote to Mr Dawkins just to ask him why he didn’t dismiss the author scientifically . He wrote a very rude message to me without actually using science. I think there should be a critics section on Mr Dawkins page, this is due to the fact he does not defend his believe he just attacks others.

For the record I am not even a creationist. 83.245.18.248 22:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry for any upset. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.245.18.248 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, none of us get to use Wikipedia articles to push our personal grievances against Richard Dawkins or anyone else. What you did is not acceptable in these parts, and could easily have gotten you banned from the site. Fortunately, we tend to be forgiving of one-off acts such as this, but you won't get many more chances if I have any say in it. I don't know whether Kuru is an admin, but I am ... and you can see that I followed up on your action when I saw it, tracked what else you'd done, and found your messages here. Your apology is noted, but you're off to a bad start. I suggest you get a user account and start to make some constructive edits, then we can forget about the whole thing. Metamagician3000 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for reverting that vandalism...

...on the Gaia page. I appreciate it. (Also, you may want to archive your Talk Page; it's a bit lengthy.)DroEsperanto 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I usually only archive once a quarter - so today just happens to be the big cleanup day.  :) Kuru ^talk 01:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You.

Please do not target one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking, as you did with User:Tlim7882. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kuru talk 04:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Just letting him know that he was wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.249.148 (talk • contribs).

That's a poor way to do it. Please use his talk page and start a discussion. Blanking people's user page is not acceptable. Kuru ^talk 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. He insists I was wrong, yet I researched the issue and found no record of the names he added, and the ones he took out were genuine Long islanders. Thanks again, Tlim7882 07:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - considering you beat me to about ten reverts last night, I was surprised you didn't beat me to that one.  :) Kuru ^talk 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Books

The links I placed are all relevant and well known companies within the audio book industry. Just because a audio book site has commercial value does not mean it is spam. How you classify these links as spam baffles me. Perhaps this should go into some sort of arbitration rather than you threatening me with being blocked. freeb26 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else there is to explain. Zzuuzz has patiently and repeatedly pointed out Wikipedia's guidelines on external links and the policy on what Wikipedia is not. The links you are adding is simply a list of audio book vendors and providers, of which one is your own. The links add absolutely no content or context not already covered in the article. Additionally, there is already an external link to a very specific category in the open directory project, in which you may submit your own links. Feel absolutely free to use any of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, or to seek the opinions of other editors - I would welcome any additional input.

Unfortunately, you seem to be adding these links over and over again and they would appear to be simple self-promotional and commercial links. I would encourage you to add to the existing discussion on the article's talk page before any other edits to the article, and warn you that any other violations of our three revert rule will lead to a temporary block, as will continued re-insertion of inappropriate external links. Kuru ^talk 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for reverting the article Book to an older edit for me.

Masky 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - I think that's one of the few times I've actually walked into an article blindly to read it (as opposed to watching the recent changes log) and found it completely vandalized. Kuru ^talk 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the spam cleanup.

I noticed your cleanup on the mortgage page. I am new at this, so I had to ask the village pump what should be done. I have given the user a welcome message, and was about to remove the link, when I saw that you had already taken care of it. Have a great day, CodeCarpenter 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not see your post at the pump; mortgage is just one of the articles I have on my watchlist as it is often a target for spam. Thank you for your actual additions and content cleanup of the article - that's ten times more valuable than my spam mopping! Kuru ^talk 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XO

I'm wondering where the user might be, as the page hasn't been vandalised now in a week :o But it's nice to get something else done on wikipedia besides checking that page :DD Thanks and Happy New Year! -Yupik 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your message

Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia and I thought thats what you do. I picked a few articles and thought thats what I was supposed to do. thanks for letting me know Ldonna 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dallas Cowboys edits

A note on my edit of the Dallas Cowboys page. The very first sentence on the page read "The Dallas Cowboys are a bunch of faggots based in..." I went into the edit this page tab to delete this comment, but could not find the infringing word. Rather than spend all day trying to find it, I deleted the first few sentences. I apologize for the confusion. And on that note, could you teach me how to find these 'hidden' comments which seem to be embedded in several wiki entries? -- 70.113.97.222 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That particular article has received quite a bit a of vandalism of the last few days. That particular line was removed very quickly, but it looks like it was stuck in your browser's cache. You can play around with the "history" tab and see a list of all the edits; that helps to determine who made what edits and when. There's really not a way to "hide" text and have it display on the page (unless someone vandalizes a template being used on the page). Thanks for looking it to it, please leave me a message here or on the article's discussion page if you need any other help. Kuru ^talk 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA events

That Wikipedia is full of events only Americans care about? 201.50.175.80 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to "1863 - Yorkshire County Cricket Club is founded at the Adelphi Hotel in Sheffield, England"? Please do not remove content from the list without a valid reason. Kuru ^talk 05:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about cricket. That could be a very important institution in the history of this sport as far as I know. If you know it isn't, please remove it. That's as valid a reason as any. 201.50.175.80 05:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Of interest only to a specific country" is an unquantifiable and subjective reason for deleting content. If you'd like to propose some sort of guideline for culling articles based on world wide "interest", then feel free to debate on the article's talk page or at the village pump. Random deletions are a pointless waste of time. Kuru ^talk 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not. Wikipedia policy encourages people to edit without asking for permission and without discussing it before. If someone disagrees, then we discuss the issue. That's what I'm doing. 201.50.175.80 05:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've directed you to the appropriate places for discussion; you can also try the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year if your point is limited to the day of the year articles. I'm afraid that you've provided no other content to your edits that I can discern from your one line responses - if you'd like to draw up something more substantial, or respond to my assertion that your guideline is unquantifiable and subjective, I'd be delighted to hear it. Kuru ^talk 13:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 152.117.207.37

152.117.207.37 has vandalised Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. Andyroost 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My links being deleted

I'd like to say that I've only added links to pages I have added meaningful content to. I added a useful link to "how to read a credit report" alongside a Canadian publication, and just because it's not from the government it carries no weight. Seems a little shortsighted.

I also added a new section on the refinance page, then added a link in the reference section which simply acts as documentation as to where that information came from. I think that's more than fair if you add quality content to pages within Wikipedia.

How can I add links to site that provide useful information to pages on Wikipedia in the future?

I don't want to be a spammer. I want to contribute, but I also want to get recognition for doing so.

I also pulled this from your help pages: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

I know it also says generally you shouldn't link to blogs or websites without recognized authors, but if they are willing to keep my content, and not provide a link, I feel this system is lacking. Please let me know what we can do to resolve this. Should I use a citation right next to my additions so admin knows my additions are associated with my links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scot184 (talk • contribs).

I can't speak for the other editors that have reverted your links, but I'll outline my problem. You are linking to what is essentially your own blog, which is simply your personal, mostly uncited and unreferenced take on various topics related to the financial industry. It is completely unsuitable to use as an actual cite or reference. You may read about acceptable sources at WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V.

We really, really value people who add content to Wikipedia. It must, however, meet the policies and guidelines I linked to above; or it should be removed. People who remove the link to your blog without removing the content you added should probably put in a "cite needed" tag. Please understand that any content you add is contributing to a free product that is the work of millions of editors - there is no requirement to "recognize" individual contributions other than the edit log associated with each article. I'm sorry if you feel this is lacking.

The above deals with your usage of your blog as an official reference - adding it simply as an 'external link' in the appropriate section at the bottom of the article, is a different matter. My problem with this is that it is a unverifiable personal site with google ads all over it that has been added many times to several articles by the author of the site. You have re-added the site several times even after being warned on your talk page by another editor. This starts to cross into the spamming area, and I'm delighted that was not your intention.

If I could give you advice, please continue to add content with suitable references and to continue to contribute to this project! But if your site is as valuable as you say, let someone else add it as a resource and avoid the inherent conflict of interest. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 02:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I did not add any links since I was warned. I responded to you directly with my concerns. Secondly, my blog is not filled with google ads. It has less ads than most sites on the web. We all need to make money, and not everyone has huge donations coming at them.

I added my site as a reference. I did so because the article addition referred to my site. Makes perfect sense to me. And as I said before, if someone kept my added information, but deleted the reference, it wouldn't make too much sense.

Here's an example:

I added this entire section to the "refinance" page:

Types of Refinance

Rate and Term Refinance

This type of refinance refers to a change in the rate and term of an existing loan. A refinance is considered rate and term if the borrower secures a lower interest rate, or changes the terms of a loan to ensure a longer fixed period or a lower payment plan, without paying off any additional debts or taking any cash in hand.

Cash-Out Refinance

A refinance is considered cash-out when a borrower pays off other debts or advances money on top of their existing loan amount, while also changing the rate and term of the existing loan. It differs from a rate and term loan because the new loan amount is larger than the existing loan amount due to the additional cash taken with the new loan. If a borrower pays off credit cards or unrelated loans, or opens an equity line behind an existing mortgage, the new loan will be considered cash-out.

This is a fairly substantial part of the page. And this section has stuck around while my reference/external link have been removed. I added my reference back because I thought a competitor was removing it maliciously.

At this point I'd rather my information not be shared with Wikipedia if I'm deemed a spammer with a Google ads ridden site on "some unverifiable blog". Why would I want to contribute to a group that has little respect for me or my blog, despite the fact that I've provided clearly helpful and informative material? And who do I have to be for this information to be "cite-worthy"? A big corporation or the government? I really don't like this policy, because it relies on government publications to be the end-all in what is deemed legitimate.

Finally you mention I should find someone to recommend my blog as a useful reference. Obviously someone(editor of the refinance page) likes the information since it has survived this long. Why don't they recognize that and cite the source? I think that's fair. I'd rather someone recognize it's value instead of myself. Thanks for your time on this matter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scot184 (talk • contribs).

You added your link again[1] six minutes after you were explicitly asked not to on your talk page.[2] This was the sixth time the link had been removed from four different articles. This is your first time responding to any of these removals, and I appreciate the dialog.

Your site is indeed ad-heavy, let's not mince words here. At the time of this writing, and at the time of the link's removal, there was a bottom border with four ads, a side bar with five ads, and a ad link menu at the top with five more links. On several sub pages, there is more real estate devoted to ads than to content. I appreciate your "need to make money", but Wikipedia is not here to promote your business or to drive traffic to your site - if you feel you are owed a promotional link due to some contributions, then I'm afraid that is not the case. If you are claiming that your contributions are some sort of copyrighted material from your blog, then I would ask that you remove them immediately and allow others to add free content. I can assist you with this removal if you need it. Kuru ^talk 00:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me start by saying your condescending tone is simply uncalled for. My blog has less ads than 90% of websites online, and more quality content than 99%. My blog is filled with unique, helpful content intended to save homeowners money, and with the lack of a marketable product, I felt it was fair to get paid for my time and contributions through the use of contextual advertising. I hand-wrote over 125 page of content on my own, and don't appreciate my site being labeled an ad-engine. It's a very useful resource.

I understand the rules here at Wikipedia now, and don't plan on placing any external links on the site. And I didn't maliciously add my link back. I didn't see the "talk" section prior to placing the link again, so it was accidental. And this should be clear since I didn't place a new link since we opened our dialogue on this subject.

I do want to remove the refi types from that page since it is direct copy from my blog and I don't want any duplicate content issues. Thanks for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scot184 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I went ahead and removed the refinance types since it's my own original content, and I do not want to share it with Wikipedia nor break any guidelines using non-cited material. After all, it is just unsubstantiated information from a personal weblog. It hasn't been endorsed by the government or a large corporation. Please see that this information stays off Wikipedia. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scot184 (talk • contribs).

Done. I've moved material related to cash-out refi's to another section and left out the rate/term mention as there was very little material to cite. Kuru ^talk 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

On the extra rv on Emo music. He was messing with it as fast as I was undoing thanks for catching it.--Xiahou 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VBA Tutor

Hi I am the author of 'VBA Tutor'. I have provided my VBA Tutorial on the internet for the last 8 years. Any Google search for "VBA Tutor" will list my page first. I added a link to my Tutorial in the VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) reference page, which was deleted because you deemed it to be inappropriate. Nice to play God! However, I am unsure of why you consider it to be inappriopriate addition. Have you had a look at what I provide at my website? I provide five free lesson that provide a good introduction to VBA for anyone wanting to know how to use VBA, or as a general introduction to computer programming. If people wish to continue on to learn more advanced skills, then I offer 35 additional lessors for the large sum of US$11.00. Being retired, this small amount pays for my expenses to provide this service, by providing several web sites where VBA Tutor can be located. I offer considerable help via email to ANYONE who contacts me regarding a VBA issue. I do not charge for this personal help or make it conditional on being a purchaser of my VBA Tutor. I provide 'VBA Tutor' largely as a service to everyone. I added my link so people could find help if they needed it about VBA. If you do not want people to access help on how to use VBA from Wikipedia, then that is fine by me. Bye Gary Radley Warrnambool Australia gradley@bigpond.net.au —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.60.144 (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

You are simply adding a low content commercial link to promote your business. I don't see any possible way you could consider this not to be in violation of Wikipedia's external link guidelines. Please stop. Kuru ^talk 13:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, what means "low content blog"? –AlexDybenko 21:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you again

Thanks again, my friend, for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I do appreciate it. --JFreeman ^(talk) 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I know how frustrating it is to have someone go on a spree during one of those rare backlogs on AIV. :) Kuru ^talk 00:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] low content

Hi, what means "low content blog"? Looks like my blog is certainly on a subject thanks AlexDybenko 18:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I think your blog is certainly neat, but I have several problems with including it in the list; all of which were outlined on the article's talk page before the link was removed. I would encourage you to participate in that discussion there. Please, please read the guidelines on external links beforehand; specifically the section on promoting your own personal blog. Kuru ^talk 19:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Duncan's wife

Could you explain your objections to including the fact that Duncan's wife is white? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lazio gio (talk • contribs) 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

It's utterly irrelevant to the article, and was added suspiciously in conjunction with an IP address that is trying to insert racist statements into a variety of articles. Kuru ^talk 04:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to WikiProject Spam

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 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had the talk page there bookmarked/watchlisted for quite some time and participate in the discussions occasionally; or jump in on the cleanups. I stand in awe of the amount of work users like you, A.B. and Eagle put into that project. Kuru ^talk 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Duncan's wife

Another user deleted it because he said it was unsubstantiated. Would you accept a photo of Tim Duncan with his family on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.129.64 (talk • contribs).

It's utterly irrelevant to the article, and was added suspiciously in conjunction with an IP address that is trying to insert racist statements into a variety of articles. Kuru ^talk 21:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Might as well post a permanent "thank you" on this page

Many thanks for once again reverting the vandalism to my user page. I really appreciate it. --JFreeman ^(talk) 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suspiciously?

Look at the lazio gio history of edits and compare that to the other IP address, there is no connection. I have been on wikipedia for much longer than that. I just genuinely think it is relevant to mention that Tim Duncan's wife is white, but I mean if you want to hide something I understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.129.64 (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, that must be it. Kuru ^talk 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to AIAV

Hi, your recent edit to AIAV confused me. My first reaction was, "why not just block them?", until I realised that you are not an admin! A bit of a cliché perhaps, but I am genuinely surprised that you aren't one. I just wondered whether you have decided against taking up the role or, if not, whether you would accept a nomination from me. Cheers TigerShark 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that's a great idea. I've seen enough of your work, and of the way you deal with others, to know you'd be a great addition to Wikipedia's team of administrators. --JFreeman ^(talk) 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I had been honestly waiting until I had a year under my belt, and I did not realize that anniversary had passed until I read your message. I would be flattered to accept if you get the time - thank you both for your kind words. Kuru ^talk 23:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, there you go. Good luck! Cheers TigerShark 13:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The old quickest gun in the west?

You keep beating me to vandals. Good job, but can't I get some scraps?! feb^talk 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Blame AzaToth (talk · contribs) tonight. I'm testing a new pseudo-rollback script of his creation that really seems to refresh a little faster than the modified Popups code I had been using. Promise I will be drifting off to sleep soon... :) Thanks for the compliment. Kuru ^talk 05:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you beat me too! here's a barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		for beating me to the punch on every single revert on jan 21, 2007. you're the fastest! frymaster 05:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw that you ferreted out AzaToth's script already - I'm curious to see how the rest of his testing goes with it. Seems like a nice tool, and should help considerably. Kuru ^talk 06:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly do yo think you know about search engine submission?

You do realise that people are so uneducated on the subject that they pay companies to make submissions that never get made and are useless anyway? I put up a page to make this clear and you take it down? Why would you do this?

BB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.112.243 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Howdy, BB. Thanks for taking a shot at improving that article, but I'm afraid there were many problems with your changes. It was completely uncited, unreferenced, and contained many phrases that made it clear it was your own opinion. It read more like a personal blog entry than an actual encyclopedia article, so I was forced to revert it to it's original, albeit poor, state. I would be happy to answer any specific questions you have about Wikipedia, or you can start at "Contributing to Wikipedia" to get links to our policies and guidelines. Don't get too hung up on style issues, I'd be happy to correct any formatting or other problems. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

You're now an admin. Use the shiny new tools as wisely as you can, and be conservative with them. Re-read the policies as needed and don't hesitate to ask questions. Have fun, and keep up the good work. Nearly unanimous support. - Taxman ^Talk 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me be the second to say... Congrats! Viridae^Talk 03:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And I want to offer my congratulations as well. You'll be a good one. --JFreeman ^(talk) 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm fourth in line for the congrats this time! If you need any assistance in using the tools then please feel free to answer, I'll do my best to support you! Regards and happy mopping! (aeropagitica) 05:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] in case you have the time..... Talk to Bowen Sanders

First off, Lazarus Long. Yes. 2+ Kudos. We're both avid readers. Which book is that from? (I guessed The Number of The Beast (novel) but perhaps I am wrong...)
My wife immediately assumes that you are Male. Using my wife as reference I reserve judgment (too much yang with that one...)
Secondly, I received a nice bonus from you earlier. Hoping that I could get a quick reply - just wondering.
Lastly - I promise not to ask questions to be found in FAQs. I've been on the net since 93 and I think I should know better by now (regardless of lack of impetus...)...
Once more, Thanks from a new contributor, who thinks (ha Ha HA! - Phil Ken Sebben) that he'll write unbiased and well documented material. --bowensanders 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OECD Anti-Bribery Convention

The link-spam was already reverted.Beagel 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Could happen to everyone. regards.Beagel 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Kuru RFA

First of all, congratulations! It's great to see you promoted, as I am sure that you will be a fantastic admin. As for the nomination, you are more than welcome. I can't claim a lot of credit, because I didn't need to think too hard or look too far to find good things to say about you.

BTW you are the first RFA candidate that I have nominated, so I am especially pleased to see you pass! I might quit now while I am ahead. :)

Anyway, I hope that you enjoy playing with the new tools and I know that you will use them to add great value to this project. Congratulations again, and I hope that I will see you around soon. Cheers TigerShark 18:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake creating an article?

On 1-5-07, I created an article for submission.

I never heard anything back on it. Does that mean I did something wrong?

Profjibboo 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Actually, you did a good job creating the article. The problem is simply that it is of borderline notability. Local (i.e. not state or nationwide) politicians and business leaders are often in a gray area as far as the guidelines for biographical articles goes. Because of this, the editors who watch the articles for creation process will often leave it alone until another editor with more knowledge of the subject comes along - it will not be declined, nor will it be created. Since you have registered an account, I would suggest simply creating it youself, but be aware that another user may come along and challenge the article - be prepared to provide additional sources if requested. You can find instructions on how to create an article yourself here. Please let me know if I can help you more. Kuru ^talk 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I fully protected the article Rocky Marciano for 3 days because of a major edit war. However i think I am going to be away when the protection runs out, so I would appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlist and keep track of it. I was planning to either reinstate the protection for another short period, or, more likely habd out a few short blocks ofr edit warring if the dipute spills over into the article again, however I will leave it up to your discretion as to how you deal with it. Good luck, and thanks. Viridae^Talk 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do - that looks like a fun one. I'll watchlist it and read through the associated talk pages for now. Kuru ^talk 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the reverts

FWIW, here is some of the background. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student loan spammer

Hi Kuru, thanks for your message! It's nice to get some positive feedback from time to time. No worries about the 'late' protection - I'm just impatient :-)

Cheers for your support, keep up the good work... I'm off to bed now (finally)! All the best, --YFB ¿ 06:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] livesimply

delete livesimply

just because you are not english doesnt mean the information is not interesting and useful for english people.

if they DONT WANT TO READ IT THEY WONT SEARCH FOR IT!

so why does it matter

I am not editing other peoples work

im creating information and adding it, I made it clear it was not comprehensive and needed details

I dont understand your problem.

New ventures and idea are interesting to a lot of people, and as we grow more people will want to learn aboutus. having this article gives people this info.

it is very popular in the uk to look at new up and coming businesses and people want to support not hinder them.

The article was

• useful
• non-offensive
• non-biased
• accurate
• was not advertising

Now given this I dont understand why you decided it was suitable for people to read. Surely an ecncyclopedia is a compilation of everything not just those chosen by people of a certain interest type.

Could you have put up a vote or some discussion and allowed it to be discussed openly and fairly by the majority?

Would that be more fair? --Jamesr1ley 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

would you consider this a discussion?

let alone a fair free and open discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live simply

I feel you are abusing your powers, I feel there is not enough justification for you actions. Each case should be considered individually and should be taken in to careful consideration.--Jamesr1ley 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We have been nominated for young entrepreneur of the year in north london —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesr1ley (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi, James. You have continually inserted promotional material about your company for the last several months, including creating an article about a company that you have a significant conflict of interest in several times. The article has been deleted by several administrators, and has gone through the "editor at large" review you asked for. The discussion questioned the notability of the website (re: our guidelines at WP:WEB), and I saw nothing that has changed on that front. This is not a free webhost for information about your product, and it is not a soapbox for your commentary on the other vendors in your area. Again, I am asking you respectfully and politely to stop. Kuru ^talk 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you got the wrong guy

You accused me of vandalizing the clear channel communications entry. That was not me. I share a wireless network with a large college. Sorry, that wasn't me! -- 24.11.208.161 00:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for the revert of the USF vandal on my talk page. Appreciate it :) - Alison^✍ 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• And again! Ugh! Thanks for blocking that idiot. They've been harrassing me for a week now. Thanks! :) - Alison^✍ 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. At least they're being blatant about it so it's easy to spot and fix.  :) Kuru ^talk 02:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky Marciano and Civil Edits

I agree with the need to keep the edits simple. If we should find ourselves in a similar situation to the past, what do you recommend? Is mediation the best step? Thanks. MKil 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

There are several viable mediation paths you can use, but the best one is simply to continue to work with the other editors on the article's talk page. There are apparently several knowledgeable editors making rounds on the boxing related pages, and I would hope everyone can come to agreement on what is and is not relevant and verifiable in the article. Since I'm not schooled in the subject, I'm primarily concerned about the personal attacks and revert warring - hopefully that can be avoided; and some rough consensus can be formed. I'd be delighted to help y'all work through mediation if it does not work out, however. Kuru ^talk 02:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your welcome and . . .

I just reported the IP who vandalized your page to the admins. Cynrin 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ~

Thank you so much for deleting vandalism in the ABBA page. Regards,

Detlef ^♪♫∆ 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  !

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Kuru, for your incredible vandal fighting, I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Keep it up! Kamope · talk · contributions 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky unprotected

Hello, can you check ip 58.8 if it belongs to mkil, he may be using those, or may try to get others in trouble. If you go on rocky talk page, i explained in detail, also on my talk page, I am requesting more protection over rocky page, since mkil has his mind set on destroying it and adding his own wit to it, I believe current version is good, he will revert it claiming info is missing, it needs cleaning up, etc, etc, etc, all explained. I just do not want that guy to touch that site, because of him we had all this problems. By the way, only administrators can look into whose ip is it? By the way, how to archive things, put music, photos and rectangular square in color on talk page?User_talk: BoxingWear

I am not using any other IP to make edits. BoxingWear has in the past [3] claimed this, “the above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here, do you understand me?” and now seems to be going around to a variety of other users’ pages and spreading the lie that I am using another IP to make edits. I know this is not the place for such discussion, but I thought I’d try to defend myself. MKil 00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Thanks for your intervention on the Marciano matter. Hopefully we can get everything sorted out and come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to everyone. MKil 14:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Yea, good to know you protect it. I am suspectig mkil of being user 58.8 and possibly 64. I did what I could and according to best boxing knowledge. I will be glad to resolve problem, but mkil is the problem, i am not blaming anybody else, i mean, well, look on my talk page...

Like I thought, 64 is not mkil but other ip may be, PTO was engaged by Mkil from the beginning, it's possible they are in collusion and may very well be good friends for a long long time. No, again, it has been explained and I reject the statemetn above, Mr. Mkil did not just fix bad language or clean up things, again and again and AGAIN, he has been killing tons and tons of info, for example the 8000 people who attended baker-valdez fight, he kept on killing that, when i provided sources (he always needs sources even to prove i am breathing), then he himself inserted that, EVEN, added additional info on that- As far as the greatest link, we all came to an agreement on that, whatever link mkil put there few days ago, it's cool with me. When I accuse of vandalism, i never, ever do that after few edits, i did this after 10 days, after mkil kept on pushing his own way, i tried to make this article correct and i cleaned up lots of bad things the other day. If I reverted the link to the greatest that we all agreed, i did not mean to, if I did I probably took the wrong site from reverted history. Also, i respect other people's work, whatever good mkil wrote (again, he is putting words into my mouth) I reverted my edit and put his, whatever is reliable and I can prove his statements, I did it what was right, now mkil is vandalizing this... For example this is important...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=104202122&oldid=104201378 Here's the evidence i reverted what i reverted and corrected his code. And here's evidence of vandalism or near vandalism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=104209909&oldid=104206647 Mkil killed info on possible baker and valdez vs rocky fight, above, he killed important dates, locations and so on, but if he did not kill it all, he made some changes. Then he killed Ingemar comeback details, there were other reasons why Rocky did not get a chance to fight Ingemar...

He removed:

Marciano considered a comeback in 1959 when Ingemar Johansson won the heavyweight championship from Patterson in June 1959. However, since Patterson's contract required to a rematch, Rocky had to hope Patterson would loose again. Rocky was hoping of becoming the first heavy-weight chamption to win the title two time. After a month of training, however, Marciano decided against it and never considered a comeback again.

All these things are of huge importance, this article needs to be reverted to my version, this guy is simply KILLING DATES, DETAILS AND SO ON, AGAIN AND AGAIN, HE NEEDS LINKS AND PROOF TO EVERYTHING THAT WALKS AND BREATHS. I am not saying mkil is totally bad, i am sure he is doing a fine job with other edits, i barely tough his other work but Mkil should simply not be allowed to ever touch marciano page. I hate to sound like a jerk, but from day one mkil has been killing anything that has to do with the greatest, then we agreed he was one of the greatest, so he stopped, i mean, if he did not do this, i would not be arguing with him today over little things. I mean, this costs my time, but I can not allow certain people to have things their own way. Especially those who have time on their hands and use power of persuasion, power of well connected words. I do not have problem with mkil's other edits, but I will not allow him to destroy marciano site. But there are times when he simply follows up my contributions and changes something here and there on purpose just to get me going... I was approached by other users in november and december to watch over marciano site, i wanted some evidence why, i waited for a month, then i decided, page should remain under my supervision. Meaning, investigating edits from people like mkil, people who simply are pusing the limits. Can you track ips if a user logs on with normal handle? It's most probable, It's obvious 58.8 is Mkil... Now, that his back is turned to the wall, he is coming up with other things, for example..

The following has been taken from mkil talk...

Re:User talk:58.64.103.227

You do some fine work. Good find on the Duva cite. Also, thanks for cleaning up my Marciano book reference.

Why not register with a Wikipedia account so you can establish a history here? You seem like you'd be a good addition. MKil 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Thank you. My English skill is very poor.i am just a boxing fan in a faraway country. all i can do for Wikipedia is just finding some source, remove or add a short sentence. :) actually i am the editor who added IBRO citation for the Louis page. that meant we have talk talked once at Louis' talk page :) btw, i saw you editing boxer page in Wikipedia for times. i like your works. Keep working :)

Why, all of a suddent, 2 minutes after my war with mkil started, why did this guy say his english skill is very poor, that was exactly, when mkil accused me of screwing up articles with bad english, when in fact i have not written them, i simply added few things or corrected them, like I explained 100 times, i have to type fast and waste time on time wasters like mkil. The above statement clearly illustrates that some things are not right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#Re:User_talk:58.64.103.227 May i remind you all again, that i had people write me many times in the past to watch over marciano and mkil page! I do not leave messages on my talk page, saying thank you boxingwear for cleaning up things, you did good job and the above statement... IBRO guy, he belongs to whom, what, IBRO< if you are a member of that organization, you better write good english, the above reply is written in very good english!

[edit] Greatest problem, not resolved, people who participated in the poll do not know boxing

AND AGAIN, WE DID NOT AGREE ON THE GREATEST. He is simply killing that info, we agreed we should not include what some fake computer said about Marciano being the greatest. Why, why should I look for links that he is greatest, THAT IS A GIVEN, it's in the world THAT SOME, SOME CONSIDER HIM GREATEST, IT'S ALREADY IN THE WORLD. Tell them he is not, Just go and tell that to majoity of italian-american communities, see what happens. That link has to be removed, FIND ME MORE THAN 5 UNDEFEATED CHAMPIONS. And no, there are not too many.

[edit] SA Player Hater

Yep. Never heard of the team, the league, or the venue. I wonder what the story behind the name was. I was even suspicious of the "official" websites, attributing their existence to somebody's fantasy league. I was only convinced after viewing a satellite image of the venue's address. Clipper471 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:The Real World: San Francisco

Hi. It seems we have a possible edit war on the The Real World: San Francisco article. If you could respond to the post I made on its talk page, it would be appreciated. Nightscream 05:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other things

It's not easy just talking about this problem, but I have other things I need to fix, first... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Lineal_Heavyweight_boxing_champions

Then, how to create music on my page, move to archives, add a rectanle so my conversation appears in it, how to create archives, i asked this quries other users and of course, nothing. Reply on my talk page, i will be busy these days, but do what i suggest on rocky. I may not (fully)reply for few days. Also, greatest ever, still not resolved, computer fight means nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rocky_Marciano#Greatest_problem.2C_not_resolved.2C_people_who_participated_in_the_poll_do_not_know_boxing

Arguments will not stop with mkil, i will no longer reply there (except now and then), I will leave you some messages instead, mkil is using every single word i say to my advantage, here, american biographers wrote on rocky, as the greatest, if not, greatest puncher ever... http://www.myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=rockymarciano so yea, SOME PEOPLE CONSIDER HIM AS THE GREATEST, must be there. I am not going to search for more links, agian, i explained, it's a given. It belongs, it's part of reality. So, there you go, correct the article the way I requested and tell mkil never to touch rocky site again. We will resolve 99% problems. Only people like mkil need evidence for something that is already given and proven thru time. As Barnum said, there are fools born every second... Reply here and on my site, have a nice day.Obviously, now we know why courts give statutes of limitations... Boxingwear

And you are not reading, I also asked you, (other things) how to resolve those things, I asked you for few codes, how to do few things and nothing...

On my talk page you left a message...

I fully reject this statement, I asked you to look over many other things, since mkil accused me of vandalism, read what I say,i am not saying pto is doing that,only mkil, i gave my answer, i replied, i almost wrote a book with all these replies, i told you what mkil did wrong,what I did right, i am only replying to mkil since he is calling it vandalism, ok, i may agree on a language, needs changing, but why are you not replying to my proposals, i gave you the website to call rocky greatest, you can not call a computer greatest, something must be done about this, i will no longer talk on marciano page, only to you and also I replied and fully explained why. Keep in mind, how long can somebody stay cool after people like mkil WHO HAVE TONS AND TONS AND TONS OF TIME ON THEIR HAND TO reply and analyze every word, statute of limitation is gone now, no matter what he says from now on should not count! I believe my suspicious should be investigated and you should do that!\Boxingwear

[edit] Protection request

Mkil must go away, or i will get into trouble, this guy simply kills too many things and reverts my edits, you must tell him not to follow me! I will do what is appropriate and not go into edit wars, but I think I am not doing that, I am being provoked, whatever you can do will be fine, but you need to understand few things... I just do not want him to touch my edits, there are a couple or so, if that's the agreement we get, 99% of problems resolved. Boxingwear

[edit] My Barnstar

Thank you for giving me another barnstar! It's always great to know that my work is appreciated. Thanks for your role in dealing with BoxingWear, and happy belated adminship! PTO 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

...and I'm happy to have you join us in our always-so-fun adminning. You've got mail. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BoxingWear Situation

Thanks for your help with that situation. Your efforts are certainly appreciated. MKil 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)MKil

[edit] You just welcomed a sockpuppet of MascotGuy

You welcomed a sockpuppet of MascotGuy by welcoming Home Alone Guy. See WP:LTA/MG for more information on MascotGuy's sockpuppets. Squirepants101 04:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, seemed like constructive edits. See, this is why I never welcome people anymore. :) Kuru ^talk 04:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is blocked now - that's some interesting reading, thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for blocking User:SoftenPie

Thank you for reacting so quickly to the message that I left at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and blocking User:SoftenPie. I appreciate it. --Eastmain 06:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] indef block template

What is the indef block tempalate that you use. The one I have been using is {{indefblock}} but i lik ethe one you use better. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP Block

See [4]. You might want to consider extending that 8-hour block per WP:NLT. I'd do an indefblock, but you said it was a shared IP address. Nishkid64 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Seemed more like a nonsensical "ACLU" claim coming from what looks like an Korean gateway. I have no problems if someone wants to re-set the block for a longer duration. Kuru ^talk 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Ryulong did an indef on that user. Nishkid64 02:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup. He's turned me on the an open proxy detection tool as well. Tinkering with it now. Thanks for the feedback! Kuru ^talk 02:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:151.203.203.30

Sigh. He promised me he'd be a good boy and stop vandalizing and trolling. Looks like that didn't last long. FWIW, I listed more of his work here. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just not right. Prussian Blue is a 'salacious little vixen' and I'm just a 'wikiho'? Glad to know there's a history there, and thanks for the backfill. Kuru ^talk 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, salacious vixens, plural. He has a very unhealthy fixation on a pair of 14-year-old girls. (BTW, there's an unblock template on his talkpage, more nonsense.) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen King Deletion

Thanks for reverting the article back to its original status (I didn't quite know how to do it), and thanks for warning the culprit. Fdssdf 22:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! In the future, you can look here to find help on how to revert a bad change like that yourself - it's pretty easy after you figure it out the first time... :) Kuru ^talk 19:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Washington College

Hello Kuru, thanks for the quick reply to my vandalism claim. For the most part I have always followed and used wikipedia. I believe its an excellent resource for not only students, but the public as a whole. My problem however lies with individuals who are vandalizing the Washington College page. (By the way: I apologize now, I'm new to wiki editing, so my format may be horrible).

Beginning on Christmas day 2006, a person edited in a rather harsh and unfounded claim against organizations at Washington College. Claiming that two fraternities on campus were kicked from their residencies due to hazing. No source was cited.

A battle ensued over what was to be placed there. It has now come down to User:D-Hell-pers continually editing in unfounded information. He has provided a source, which is a college newspaper article. Yet the source, says absolutely nothing about why the organizations were removed from their housing, just that it happened and they have now returned.

D-Hell-pers continues to make the claim of hazing, without proper sources. He is spreading hearsay, and says that the only way for a group to be removed from housing is his claim of hazing. This, is not true, and rather unfounded. Throughout the Discussion page for Washington College, he has used derogatory terms for people such as a**holes. And now I believe he understands that he cannot make such claims without sources. This is why he is talking in a negative manner to anyone who opposes him, telling them to use their insight. Unfortunately, wikipedia is not founded on insight. Message boards and forums are, but not wikipedia. To me, wikipedia is founded on fact. Facts that these vandals are not provided, perhaps because they do not exist.

I hope this explanation helps. Thanks for your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natural22 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the clarification. This does seem much more like a content dispute - I've protected the page for now and re-started a conversation on the article's talk page and will try to assist y'all in coming to a consensus version of the statement. One that is verifiable and documented by reliable sources at that. Kuru ^talk 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Natrual's claims are exaggerated. I did not call the group assholes, nor have I ever said they were. The discussion page clearly shows this.D-Hell-pers 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's move on. Kuru ^talk 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Washington College - Fraternity Issue

Currently I have come up with an article in the school newspaper http://elm.washcoll.edu/past/076/17/76_17_2005.pdf, pg. 6 in reference to article notin Phi Delta Theta hazing. i am currently in request to try and have the school place the missing ELM articles online, and waiting request. Could you please protect the article for (1) more day until further material is available online? D-Hell-pers 19:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My intent is to keep it protected until the dispute is resolved, although it will auto-expire in three days. I'm happy to open it up as soon as y'all can come to an arrangement that meets our policies. Thanks for your patience! Kuru ^talk 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

http://elm.washcoll.edu/past/076/23/76_23_2005.pdf 2nd page. Fraternal Hazing, however, which fraternity not clarified. I am still trying to retrive the lost artcilesD-Hell-pers 00:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kuru - After research of all college articles online, as well as direct contact with the editor of the college newspaper, there are no articles regarding Kappa Alpha Order and hazing.

I understand this issue is turning into a he said/she said. If you would like to contact the editor yourself, her information is listed here Elm Staff.

Now that we have come to the conclusion that there is/was never source, how can I go about preventing persons that are persistent in spreading hearsay, rumors, and biases concerning this matter?

Thanks for your time in all of this. Natural22 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply just ask for article 16 & 18. As shown above, article 17 refers to an article about the Phi Delta Theta hazing, and how a person's response may have been 'altered' for the articles use. Page 6 of issue 17, 2004-2005, mentions a letter to the editor "Writers response to reporting of alleged phi delta theta hazing incident." The article was called “Did the Phi Delts Revamp Their Pledge Process?" Further reading of this article, about the 5th paragraph, writer notes that her original title for the article was called "Brothers With a Conscience: Phi Delta Revamp Pledge Process." Editor's Note on 17's article even states (at the end) Please check out the NEXT issue (missing 18) for the follow-up artcile on the hazing incident.

Now natural, please use some common sense in reading this- issue 16 has not been placed on the online database + article 17 making mention of issue 16's article (noted above) = article exists. Issue 17 mentions a third follow-up article in Issue 18 + Missing 18 = another article exists, just not posted on database. We are just having trouble retrieving both.

The issue posted, however, should be enough to prove, at least, that Phi Delta Theta was in trouble for hazing, coincidentally at the same time they lost their housing. Point proven. When these 2 articles can be retrieved, I am sure I'll prove the Kappa Alpha incident as well.D-Hell-pers 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Until you have proper sources however, I hope you will abide by the rules and discontinue editing in uncited information. Natural22 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have abided by the rules, found articles of the matter, and displayed the information. If you are so connected to the editor, please obtain the missing articles for display. Until then, please dis-continue hiding the facts by editing the article (as you say, ABIDE BY THE RULES).D-Hell-pers 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. Again, let's stop the personal comments and focus on the material you've both revealed. Kuru ^talk 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We have (1) of the (2) missing issues. Details have been listed on the WaC discussion page.D-Hell-pers 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data Recovery Book

Dear Sir/Madam I added the external Link (redact) of my Online Data Recovery Book on following artical page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_recovery

This link was deleted by you considering it the commercial link.

The entire Book is online and Freely available to everyone in 11 different languages.

This is the only Biggest Free source (about 4368 pages) of Study of Data Recovery Online.

Please reconsider the link or please let me know your review.

Sincerely,

Tarun Tyagi

Taruntyagiji 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's simply a link to promote your book with 'sample chapters', as best I could tell, right along with a big giant 'buy this book' ad. Please don't re-add this link, it is quite self-promotional. Kuru ^talk 19:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response... The Formal Term 'Sample Chapters' was used because original Book was published in the form of Paper-back. If you see the Table of Contents on http://www.datadoctor.biz/author.htm , you'll find that every topic is hyperlined to its description and you can not find even a single topic that is not available on website for Free.

Will it be fine if I remove the 'Buy Now' link? Regards

Tarun Tyagi 59.144.176.164 10:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text of a deleted article

I realize this is an unusual request coming from a stranger, but I'm interested in finding the text in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Belikov

which was deleted a year ago. Apparently only admins can see this deleted content. I would really appreciate someone just copying and pasting this text somewhere.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Houston euler (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Houston - I'd have no problem doing that, but let me check with another admin to see what the restriction are on that. Kuru ^talk 13:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Apologies

Kuru,

I apologize for commenting on another 'editor'. This persons comments are somewhat antagonistic, and it rattles me up how he says one thing, but acts in a total opposite manner. I believe that all comments have been established with my last edit, and I will try to avoid saying anything else directly towards the other 'editor'.

Just for my knowledge, you are only mentioning the part where I refer to him as three things, not my argument? If I had omitted that small sentence (calling this person bias, etc) the rest of that paragraph stands logical, or no?

I have, however, made another comment to what he has said. I did not call him names, etc, but I did point out a disagreement to his comment. I believe this is acceptable, but I am open to your commenting.

As for my own personal discussion page, I have made warning to anyone wishing to leave a comment that it will be scrutinized for the reasons listed; I have also mentioned that any negative comments/name-calling will be 'modified' to my discretion. D-Hell-pers 02:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question from a beginer

Hi I've added an article about HotMug on Example of Project Management Software and got deleted. Now I really do not understand why they got deleted as it was no praise for it. Based on what an article got deleted? There should be more than one person to propose that article? What if I'm the first that make that article? Who decide that a thing is worth or not? What algorithm do they use? (First on Google or similar)?

Thanks, Alex -- Gheorghiu alex 07:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gheorghiu alex (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Alex. Briefly looking at the logs, it would appear that the article was deleted twice, once because it was a blatant ad for your product, and the second time because there was no claim made to the notability of the product. You can find the guidelines for software notability here. You may look at the logs linked above and contact the admin who deleted the article directly for more specific information on his decision. Kuru ^talk 13:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protect an IP Talk Page

Hello Kuru. I would suggest you protect this IP talk page with a semi. Check the history. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like RadioKirk got to it first!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

He beat me by seconds. Bah.  :) Kuru ^talk 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Block

This user has done nothing except for uploading images without any copyright tags, talk to another user, and create non-notable pages, which were later SDed. I think he should be blocked for a while until he knows Wikipedian policies. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 10:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the account and will keep an eye on it. He seems to be attempting to communicate, and I don't usually act unless there is active vandalism occurring. Let's just see what he does next now that he seems to be aware of the warnings. Kuru ^talk 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, another RickK anti-vandalism barnstar...

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your constant monitoring and reverting of articles. Yadaman 16:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you've gotten this thing a bunch of times already, but I was going to give this to you before I found out that you already were given this thing twice, and I'm a man of my word. At least, I hope I am. Yadaman 16:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, it is most appreciated.  :) Kuru ^talk 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for having my back

Thanks for having my back on those two vandals this morning - I think that's the first time I've had two right in a row like that who both decided to vandalize user pages in retaliation. Makes me wonder if they were the same person, though the other contributions didn't seem to quite match. Anyway, thanks for the reverts and blocks! —Krellis 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I thought the same thing, but it looks like you just hit the page vandal lottery; both were recent unrealted warns. Not a problem on the reverts - userpage changes stick out on the RC log like a sore thumb. Kuru ^talk 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the point

Thanks for clearing up the point about the IP block - I wasn't really too bothered about it, but I didn't know how it worked, and now I do, so thanks for that. I doubt it'll happen too much more, I've been editing for a little while now and that's the first time. Stay cool --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 01:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To Kuru for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

High praise coming from you. Many thanks - and I wish you the best on the RFA!  :) Kuru ^talk 23:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] input sought

In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton.

--GordonWatts 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh. I can't imagine I stuck my finger in that beehive - it was probably just a vandalism revert. Kuru ^talk 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... but WHICH editor was guilty of vandalism? (Me or the other editor?) In theory, BOTH editors might have had good motives, which would mean that no one vandalized... "Thangs that make ya go ... 'Hmm...'."--GordonWatts 11:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam bot reversions

Hi Kuru, thanks for the full reverts on the articles hit by the hometown.aol.com spam bots. I somehow completely missed that they were overwriting parts of the article instead of just inserting the links, so I didn't do correct reverts. Sorry you had to do the double work, but I appreciate your fixing it up. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not a problem - you did all the heavy lifting this morning, the last thing I figured you needed was to do more mopping. I would have never noticed the deletions that went along with the spam, but he wiped out a part of an article that I was familiar with, so it was fairly obvious. Thanks for all your great work on this - and your other recent work on RC patrol! Kuru ^talk 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks....

I appreciate your insight and leadership concerning this matter... I will modify the list to "Suggested..." instead of "see also". I agree this seems more appropriate. Your motives and their seatings are just fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BuildingaBetterWiki (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Apologies

Don't worry about it; I assumed you had the article's best interests in mind.--Daveswagon 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks the the info on my talk page (a feature I never knew about). Lots of helpful pointer there. I hope it wasn't provoked by my doing anything wrong. Regards. Nexus501 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not - I had just noticed your good edit at Data recovery and wanted to welcome you to the project; I hope you stick around! Kuru ^talk 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I'm also an IT professional in the San Antonio (USAA employee) area.

Hillcountrygrump 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Here's just a couple of trios of almost identical

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

Dude has a fetish about Brandon Routh. Changes his middle name & birthdate; likes to edit the Without Remorse page to put Routh's name in instead of Joaquin Phoenix for having a part in the movie. Likes to edit various other people and change their religion from Jewish, Mormon, or Episcopalian to Catholic; various ethnic origins to Irish.

You'll note that each new account was created after the previous was blocked.

• 23:01, 31 December 2006 Clancy60 (Talk | contribs) New user account[11]
  • Blocked 28 January 2007[12]

• 23:20, 29 January 2007 Fleming60 (Talk | contribs) New user account[13]
  • Blocked 8 February 2007[14]

• 09:51, 10 February 2007 Ellroy20 (Talk | contribs) New user account[15]

You'll also note (circumstantially) that each username is an author (Clancy60, Fleming60, Ellroy20), at least the first two of whom had articles vandalized.

The vandalism is repetitive, almost routine. Mixed in are the odd non-vandalizing edit; rather banal and pointless. Problem, of course, is that wiki-hours are spent policing his edits which could be better spent on constructive editing; it takes no less time to view a constructive edit than to reverse a bad one, and more time to try and track down whether a plausible edit is valid. I have been reverting as a matter of course given that none of the edits are sourced or even commented upon.

It would be nice if he could be blocked permanently (wish wish wish). It's risible to see the "happy happy joy joy" 4-stage wikiwarnings when you know blinking well that this is a disruptive vandal sockpuppet (in a real-life sense, if not electronically provable); he doesn't even really try to disguise himself. I hope you can find a common IP.

If he should surface again (I don't know, say as "Routh20" with the same edits) can he just be blocked as a matter of course, or do we have to go through the 4-stage "naughty naughty" each time?

Sorry for the long missive here, but I'm venting. Thanks for bending an "eye". :) --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's about as clear as it can get; passes the duck test for me. I've indefinitely blocked the two socks and upped the block on the original account to a month. I'll add those articles to my watch list and block on sight if I see him cross them. If you see the pattern again, simply use AIV like you did today, mention block evasion, and maybe point to this discussion. If he keeps it up, we can add an entry at WP:LTA to refer to. No fluffy warnings should be necessary. I'm actually curious if this is some other long term vandal that you've just seen the tail end of. Thanks for doing the footwork on this! Kuru ^talk 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for responding to my concerns so quickly. As G'Kar would say, "I'll keep an eye out." --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 07:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New sock; reported to ANI here. They dismissed it (AGAIN!!) from AIV. I tell you, I do not look forward to having to do all this every single time this yumyum pops up. There should be a way to expedite this. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't take a look at the moment - will have to look at the histories after work, assuming someone else does not. Kuru ^talk 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's pretty clear again that it is the same editor. I'm more than a little surprised that no other admin came to the same conclusions or at least commented. I'll make a post of my own to review my blocks as soon as I can - it's entirely possible that I'm misreading the fairly clear policy on this. I'm thinking that the fact he's making a few good edits mixed in the volumes of nonsense ones are turning people off to blocking the account. I would never indefinitely block the original account, since it is not a "vandal only" account, but the other ones are simply being used to dodge a block - seems clearly bad WP:SOCK practice. Yeesh. Kuru ^talk 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 203.102.177.164

The IP you blocked is part of TAFE NSW's network. Not sure what to put on the page, but there is usually some form of template for IPs belonging to educational institutes. –Xoid 04:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the one you're talking about - I see it often. Naturally, I can't find it at the moment. Next time I run across it, I'll add it to said page. The block I applied to the range was a "soft" one, so affected parties can simply create accounts and it should not affect established users. Thanks for the heads up! Kuru ^talk 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it doesn't affect 'em. I'm actually logged in from that IP at the moment. I was going to add this comment to the talk page without logging in (I'd rather not have an IP that's been used for vandalism showing up in my edits), but couldn't figure out how to. –Xoid 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the reverts on my user & talk pages... Katalaveno^T_C 16:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

No worries, I was going to block him myself indefinitely as well, as a throwaway vandal account. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My bad

Unaware —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ImperviousJackson (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Not a problem... Good luck with your site... Kuru ^talk 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block IP

Can you block User:66.156.23.154 please? Nothing but bad edits, usually featuring a image of a penis. --[|K.Z|] ^{T • V • C} 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Yeeesh. Kuru ^talk 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

possibly same person User:72.145.133.74. Penis vandalism again Done.--K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Saw that - JeremyA has great reflexes.  :) Kuru ^talk 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Good job on blocking XGC for vandalism. I wanted to let you know that I suspect that I'm Michael and HaloFreak2116 could be sockpuppets of the same user, particularly because each of them repeatedly make vandals to the Dane, Wisconsin article. In addition, XGC removed valid warning templates from I'm Michael's account. --Nevhood 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably. They're both blocked as it is - I'll watch them as they come off and see if they resume vandalizing. More than likely he'll just get bored and move on. Kuru ^talk 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Pacifici

Hi - Eric Pacifici, which you deleted (and two other people before you) has been recreated. I wonder if you'd hit it again? Thanks. Philippe Beaudette 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still complete nonsense. I've left him a final warning on the page and removed the article again. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user subpages. — ERcheck (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my userpage too :-) Will 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

and mine. --Concrete Cowboy 13:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of that IP, it is a reasonable guess that he had a blocked named account, User:Mjenkins (see edit history User talk:Mjenkins) --Concrete Cowboy 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

How is wikipedia treating you, haven't signed on in a long time. Suggest any projects? Axiomm 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Creation (WP:AFC) is interesting, if you have some free time - I've also enjoyed watching the minds at work over at WP:SPAM. Welcome back! Kuru ^talk 04:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I just warned 71.59.130.223 for making a personal attack on you at Western Larch and on his talk page, just giving you a heads up. --Nevhood 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, now he's attacking me. See his talk page. --Nevhood 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's quite unhinged. On the bright side, I've learned a lot about the Western Larch. Kuru ^talk 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little question

If a vandal I reported cools down (or goes to bed), would it be okay to remove them from WP:AIAV or should they stay listed just to be sure they don't come back? -Myanw 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If they stop actively vandalizing pages, it's usually best to remove them from AIV. It is typically for recent vandals that need quick attention. Kuru ^talk 13:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, will do :) - Myanw 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imitation

There's a user,User:Kzrulzuall36, imitating me. Can u deal with him? --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems clear - he's also done nothing but vandal edits. I've blocked the account. Kuru ^talk 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

also User:Kzrulzuall11. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently you've made a special friend. Done. Kuru ^talk 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also found User:K2rulzuaIl and filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kzrulzuall36 bradkittenbrink 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note of warning, but the people imitating me might try to vandalize your userspace, possibly with the help of sp3000, who helped them last time. And thanks for the blocks of the sockpuppet. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The vandal is now imitating you on Arjun01's talk page [16]--K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 07:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No problem and thanks

He's a persistent problem anyway, see his long term abuse report. I did file a request on RFPP as well, but they seem to take ages. That's the fifth IP he's used today, at least he's helping to trace open proxies. One Night In Hackney 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 172.165.250.143

No problem. I kinda have a question

How do people in Wikipedia get so well known? Barely anyone reads my userpage, and I don't get much notice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nol888 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Oops, forgot to sign. Also, how do I get hagermanBot to auto sign my talk page? Nol888_(Talk) 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are totally asking the wrong gnome. If you want to become well known, jump into the policy discussions at the village pump or start building great articles, or get involved in one of the great projects. Look though Newyorkbrad's contributions for an example of how to become a solid and respected wikipedian the right way - I'm afraid I'm simply here to clean up other people's messes... :) As to HagermanBot, I think he pretty much just shows up everywhere. Kuru ^talk 04:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Thanks for your quick responses on AIV --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - thanks for the accurate description of the problems. The less I have to guess at, the faster I can respond. Kuru ^talk 04:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I get a month ban?

Hey, i'm planning on taking the GEDs in about a month, and I really need to study, but i've got a bit of an addictive personality- basically, i'd appreciate it if you'd block my account and my IP (which i'll post on in a moment) from editing until March 20th, so I focus on studying instead of checking AFDs and CTRL+R spamming my watchlist. -- feb^talk 05:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And this is my IP address. Again, appreciated --69.247.164.232 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in case oyu're worried i'm trying to get another IP user blocked, i'm not- i've had this IP address from comcast for months, it's not changing (even when I try to change it, blah), and there are only 2-3 other users on the network, who don't edit or use wiki at all. -- feb^talk 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I trust you completely that it's your IP and all - I'm just a little hesitant to block an excellent user for no good reason other than to help your impulse control.. :) Let me think about it and I'll probably do it tonight sometime. Kuru ^talk 01:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

well digging a bit I found Wikipedia:Block on demand which never was implemented, it seemed no one really cared either way. Thanks either way, for the compliment ^^ -- feb^talk 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: External Link Warning

Ok I received your warnings.

I need to review the external link policy. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I had posted excternal links to sites that I thought would be of interest to people viewing those pages, but apparently I need to learn more about the posting policies.

Again thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[edit] Thank you

I want to thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page so quickly.--FreeKresge 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning vandals

Hey Kuru, don't forget to warn vandals, like at the Republic of Texas. Thanks --AW 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, yup. I sometimes won't do a warning if it's an IP address that wasn't a 'fresh' vandalism (no activity in he last six hours or so) - doubtful such warnings would actually be received by the actual bad editor. I do, however, make exceptions for Texas related articles because I'm petty like that.  :) I'm a little surprised I didn't place a warning there, but I was in a terrible rush this morning to get to work and just missed it. Rest assured, I've missed precious few in the last 10,000 or so reverts. Thanks for the heads up, and thanks for watching that page!  :) Kuru ^talk 01:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough! The Texas articles sure do get a lot of vandalism, huh? --AW 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One month block on 13.8.137.11

Hello Kuru, I am contacting you about your recent block on User talk:13.8.137.11 for one month. I note that the associated page User talk:13.8.137.10 was only blocked for a week. Since the same issue was occurring with both pages this appears inconsistent and likely a result of the other page being blocked by a different administrator. I feel this warrants further review since the IP address is a Xerox proxy address and thus used by many other users. Perhaps one of the soft blocks should be used instead or a shorted time period? Thanks for your help. WilliamKF 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, William. The duration of the block was consistent with the prior, apparently ineffective previous blocks placed on the account. I'm quite frankly a little surprised to see those types of edits coming from a XPARC address. I almost always do a soft block on obviously shared addresses, and indeed that was the case here - for some reason I even noted such in the block message. As a 'soft block' this should only affect people editing without creating an account. You should still be able to create an account, and of course existing registered editors should not be affected. If you know of someone still affected by this, please let me know and I'll do my best to fix it. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 01:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kuru, that is fine, but then I would suggest that we keep the two addresses consistent, User talk:13.8.137.10 was only given a week by a different administrator. Since the same vandal was using both IP addresses equally, I would suggest blocking both equally and upping that one to a month too. Also, since this is Xeroc PARC, does it make sense to notify Xerox of the network abuse, perhaps this was already done? If not, I can do it if you like, or has too much time elapsed. Thanks again. WilliamKF 16:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In my defence

While that edit was intentionally silly, it did add a useful link not yet present in the article. 128.32.112.233 03:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, so it was only mostly useless.  :) Kuru ^talk 03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the block, have a good day. --Nehrams2020 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Qwertyuoplhgfd

Above is the user who just posted nonsense to your talk page under the name of User:Kzrulzuall. He has his main and talk page redirected to Kzrulzuall's. While it is possible (snowball in hell) that it is Kzrulzuall's second account, dollars to doughnuts this user is trying to impersonate him. I imagine you admins have tools to determine if it is or isn't the same user. I left a note on Kzrulzuall's talk page as well. Thanks. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed that he has redirected his userpage and talkpage to Kzrulzuall's, but just ignored it. I did not see the 'fixing' of his signature to match Kzrulzuall's - that seems pretty blatant, and I've blocked the account. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 04:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page: I've had vandalism done to my user page pretty much every day for the last 5-6 days. Acalamari 22:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I took the counter off my page when it flipped three digits - think of it as a barometer of your effectiveness as a vandal fighter. It means they love you... Thank you for your hard work. Kuru ^talk 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers!

For taking care of that vandal for me. Regards, Dfrg.msc 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert of my user page vandalism! --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If it makes y'all feel better, he claims it was his 'littler sister' that did it. Such precocious youth. Kuru ^talk 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks very much!!!

Kuru,

I really don't know what to say. Ever since the Washington College debate, people have vandalized my talk page. Before I even get a chance to see what they post, you've already cleaned it up. Thanks for everything! Your interventions make my wiki experience that much more enjoyable. Natural22 02:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defending My Page

Thank you for your defense of my user page, it is much appreciated! Adam McCormick 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kzrulzuall69

Can you block this sockpuppet since the SSP is backlogged. Thanks. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 04:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kuru ^talk 13:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For taking care of the vandalism on my page, sorry about the delay, I just noticed then. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G1

With regard to CSD G1 and my RfA, do you mean how would I evaluate a potential G1 article, or what do I think of G1 as a CSD criteria itself? Rklawton 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have addressed both sides in your answer to my intentionally open ended question - thanks. Kuru ^talk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help mediate Washington College article (again)

Kuru,

I just noticed that the Washington College article has been changed back to its previous state, the one that was not agreed upon through your mediation attempts.

Once again there are no sources or credible citations to justify allegations and edits. They are simply citing the same article they did before (which makes no mention at all of said allegations), and quoting a new article that is not linked, and may infact, not even exist.

I was wondering if we could revert the article to the terms agreed with during your intervention. Additionally, I was wondering if you could possibly find out if the people who were vandalizing my wall are the same people fighting so hard to edit this article. I have trace-routed them, and all land on the same Comcast address in Baltimore.

Thanks for your help,

Natural22 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Kuru,

As mentioned in the WaC talkpage, (1) of the missing (2)issues with relevant articles (Issue 18) has been retrieved. I quoted the article - gave several days for any discussion [17]- changed the article AS WELL AS ADDED citation to the references at the bottom of the page [18]. The issue has not been placed online, however, as mentioned by El Kevbo on the WaC discussion page:

I just want to note that referenced articles do not have to be located online. It's certainly convenient when they are online and everyone can very easily access them but that's certainly not a requirement. If you or someone else can find a hard copy of the articles then that should suffice. --ElKevbo 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking these words into consideration, I hold on my computer a PDF file of issue 18 (retrieved by a friend of mine). Unlike the other (2) references previously posted, this article mentions "hazing" word-for-word as being the sole reason the fraternity was punished. i do not see how much more clearer this can be. The fraternities hazed & were punished. D-Hell-pers 06:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states that Phi Delta Theta hazed. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of Kappa Alpha Order in that article. You even admit this in the Washington College discussion page. So how exactly does this justify your edit stating that both fraternities violated the same policy, when you have absolutely no sources to back this up? Please base your edits on facts that may be cited, not personal opinion.Natural22 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Yes. I guess knowing the fact that it happened in addition to the groups being lumped together in following articles of retaining their speciality housing together (for doing the same thing at the same time) constitutes original research. The current revision shows what is verifiable at the moment - it's why I am leaving it as it is. As far as I can remember this is all that is verifiable, however lacking it may be. But don't worry, if something should ever pop up.... D-Hell-pers 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying sooner - long day at work. The last note here seems to indicate that y'all were able to work this out correctly; cited works need not be online since that would probably eliminate 95% of the world's reference grade knowledge. It's nice to have online versions of the documents, since that means I don't have to remove my butt from my chair to verify it, but it is by no means necessary. We assume good faith that the cited material is correctly attributed, and if it turns out that the material is bad then it can be corrected. Since it seems he has a PDF, he might even chuck you a copy if y'all can arrange a hand-off, but that is a courtesy. I'll look over the rest of the posts tonight and see if there is anything I can add, but I still encourage y'all to have a civil discourse and work it out together. Kuru ^talk 02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe working & debating with each other for as long as we have is starting to pay off. Although each of us throw a hook at the other from time to time, the tone has definitely calm'd down and both of us are learning more/less how to become better editors. We may not share the same views on the material, but we are learning together. Thanks for the earlier "counseling" & mediation when we were both being "a$$e$" about the revisions. D-Hell-pers 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kuru

I believe I have finally found the last piece of reference required for the appropriate revision. I have placed it on Natural22's discussion [Here], but I am debating if it should be placed under references in the WaC article. Could you please advise? D-Hell-pers 06:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you block Me on my other computer

All I did was vandilize many articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.108.4.72 (talk • contribs)

[edit] why you removed the link to www.pmis.co.uk/project_risk_management.htm?

simply, the criteria you use are not consistent - the page I added may not have a jazzy title, as in an acedemic paper, but if you read it you would realise it has a good deal of practicle information relating to a lttle understood topic in business and projects.

There are other refences that are simmilar and appear to be even more commercial that the reference I added and they are still there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ktlonergan (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry. First, we can't call it a 'reference' since there is nothing in the article that is using the page as a cite; it is merely an 'external link' subject to our external link policy. Second, the page is simply a very cursory set of information that adds very little to the material on the page and seems to have the primary purpose of promoting training classes and consultancy. I don't think it is appropriate for the page. I would be happy to review the other links on that page for you. Kuru ^talk 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet question

You just blocked Joemama55 (thanks) the thing is right after I gave him his final warning I get weird messages on my talk page (rather uncivil so I deleted them) asking about final warning from Joewell Then he would do this over and over a few minutes. Then quit. The thing is when he quit was when Joemama55 started being a vandal again. I haven't run into sockpuppetry before but does this sound worth reporting. Its backlogged and if this is weak I don't want to bother them. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 04:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems a pretty obvious sock - I have blocked that account as well. Thanks for your RC work! Kuru ^talk 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, ok I didn't want to sound to 'anxious' but it did seem obvious. Now I really know what to look for. RC work is a blast, wouldn't even call it work. Thanks again. --Xiahou 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BossTalks.com

BossTalks.com is not a commercial project and does not have any advertisement on it at all. It keeps the simple style, easy to use information, RSS feeds, you can subscribe to it through any blog reader software. It have a very easy profile, with the email and password only necessary fields, it's very easy to sign in and post, or you free to read without any registering. It's a new site, but it will fill the niche of free and easy to use project management sites, either software / IT or just PM in a common sense. The most of pm forums are hard to register, lacks of content, having questions without answers for the most of the content, the most of sites are not free, or very hard on ads. Please review your decision and allow me to add this site to let the community grow. Of course I never expected to get more traffic for BossTalks just because of publishing and promoting it to search engines through Wikipedia. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiefwhite (talk • contribs).

It's an empty forum that adds absolutely nothing to the articles you added it to. I'm sorry, but there is no point in linking to it. You can read our guidelines at WP:EL. Kuru ^talk 04:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nasty character

Please take a look at User talk:70.132.21.139. This person is a pretty nasty character - see the edit I reverted - and s/he apparently has a dynamic IP. I believe it is possible to block an IP range, but I don't know the details or whether it's a good idea. So, as the admin who placed the block, I thought I would seek your input.--Kubigula (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Stockhouse"

Good morning Kuru.

The purpose of this Talk discussion thread is for me to learn more and understand better your/Wikipedia's position regarding the appropriateness of having content on the topic of "Stockhouse".

I perused the various links that you provided to me touching Wikipedia's various editorial rules.

Here was my logic for adding content on "Stockhouse":

1) it is a potentially useful tool that anyone trying to create wealth in stocks may appreciate;

2) I did identify Stockhouse's strengths and weaknesses in an attempt to be neutral and unbiased; and

3) before creating the Stockhouse entry I did explore Wikipedia and found much content on the subject of on-line resources available to the public including, amongst others:

  i) Motley Fool 
  ii) Yahoo
  iii) Google
  iv) YouTube.

Please provide your position regarding my three points above.

If you agree that Stockhouse warrants inclusion in Wikipedia than please advise on how the entry could be better wordsmithed to comply with Wikipedia's editorial rules.

Thank you very much.

uwho

My concern was your attempt to add an internal link to your site to a large number of semi-financial related topics. This is simple spamming. I would not be in favor of even putting an external link to the site, since there are thousands of stock related resources out there and we are not a directory or a link farm.

You might be able to create a neutral article on the site, but be sure to include as many third party reliable sources as possible that support all of the material you provide. You can read our policies on reliable sources here: WP:A. You may want to check in with the admin who deleted the article as well, just to be sure it is not immediately re-deleted. Kuru ^talk 14:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escalated war at Talk:South Tyrol

Hi. I need some Admin advice, if you could spare it.

There's a battle of words over a proposed move at Talk:South Tyrol over the naming of the article. It seems to have devolved into two camps: an Italian POV and a German POV. Apparently one of the German users canvassed over at the German wiki to weigh in over here; in retaliation, another user posted to the Italian wiki here. (An edit with comments sums it up rather succinctly). My reply is here.

This is deplorable. Canvassing on another wiki is bad enough, but to then do the same on another wiki as retaliation seems counter-productive at the very least, if not escalating to the point of disruption. I am wondering what can be done in this case. Rather than a discussion over what this article should be called in English it seems to be a linguo-nationalistic war between Italy and Germany.

Your thoughts and guidance on my next move would be greatly appreciated. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. The canvasses have apparently been withdrawn. As well, I'm taking that page off my watchlist. I have no opinion as to the naming of the article, mainly because I don't know what it is primarily called in English, and I really don't have the focus to wade through all the dreck on the talk page. So it would be counterproductive for me to involve myself in this; besides, I have a lot of homework left to do, reading week is almost over, and I am waaaay behind. Thanks anyway, sorry to bother you. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP Block

Kuru,

Request IP Block of 208.39.164.12. A list of his contributions [Here] shows that this IP address is used for nothing more than vandalism. D-Hell-pers 22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a dynamic IP and it hasn't been warned in four months, I placed a final warning on the talk page. I'll keep checking it for a bit, but if you see another edit, let me know or post it on WP:AIV. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank-You D-Hell-pers 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you again...

Thanks again (and again...) for reverting the vandalism to my pages. BTW, after you blocked 65.95.0.214, they showed up again as 70.49.129.200 (reverted by D-Hell-pers). I gave them a vandalism4im warning, but you might be on the lookout for them. --JFreeman ^(talk) 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See you say "them" again... it takes 5 seconds to change my IP, i cant lose! YAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.130.114 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 March 2007

[edit] Recreation of deleted text

How do you check to see if an article went through a previous deletion? There's an article, created back in January, which I am sure was AfD'ed last year. How does one find out if an article previously existed? Google search will not look through old AfD pages -- or at least I'm not doing it correctly. Thanks. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I missed this question - replying on your talk page in case you're no longer watching here. Kuru ^talk 02:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, btw, late thanks for your reply. Turns out it wasn't a deleted article, but something far more convoluted, but essentially benign. Thanks for the suggestion, tho'. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 05:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For blocking the Encarta copier. I was getting bored of redirecting all his articles for the past half hour! --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - that was pretty odd. Hopefully, he will at least communicate now. Kuru ^talk 05:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies and Thank You

I was unaware of the link policy, thank you for pointing the information out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.250.228.5 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] My attempted unblock of Otto

I just noticed that my attempt to unblock Otto apparently didn't work immediately. It's showing in his block log — do you know what the problem was? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an autoblock there as well - should be cleared now. Kuru ^talk 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. I'll remember to check next time. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Warnings

Kuru,

I know this is a pain, but could you please warn both 129.59.83.209 as well as 129.59.83.159. I have a feeling that these may be shared lines of a school/workplace, however both addresses have (to date) contributed only vandalism (as shown with links). Thanks D-Hell-pers 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. When there's really blatant vandalism like that, you can simply place the warnings yourself using the templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and then you can request to have a preventative block placed if they keep at it. Feel free to drop me a note, or to request a block at WP:AIV. Kuru ^talk 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about doing it myself, however, the page is clearly marked as an University IP. I felt weird about warning it (since I too have shared a University IP address with a vandalist). Kind of like "don't throw rocks while living in glass houses." D-Hell-pers 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user circumventing ban?

Hi, you blocked User_Talk:Mountainsdenver yesterday and it seems as though he is getting around his ban by using a similar username: Special:Contributions/Mountainsdenve. The new account isn't doing anything with the old users pages/edits but I was thinking there was a way for an admin to check into such things further. Anyway, thought you might want to know. JohnCub 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to look into it further - it's fairly clear it's the same guy. And he's still making the same nonsensical edits. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 03:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Boss 0

This is wierd. Now I can edit again. I'll remove the block template. Why was I blocked from editing? Big Boss 0 01:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. But there's some primo quality vandals coming from the IP range you're using, maybe you were dynamically using an address that was hard blocked for a moment. No telling, but rest assured you were not blocked directly. I'm glad it cleared up. Kuru ^talk 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help. Big Boss 0 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Vandalism

The first time I deside to sit down and fix some vandalism... you always beat me to it! Can you give me some pointers?

[edit] (Post Scriptum) because of drunkenness

(Post Scriptum) because of drunkenness is trolling on their own talk page. Would it be wise to protect or delete it? Acalamari 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Si. Is done; thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 02:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to help. I reported both the users that vandalized Natalie Erin's user page to AIV; but you had blocked them just as I reported them. Acalamari 02:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AIV report (take 2)

Hi Kuru. Thanks for your quick response. I'll let you know if anything happens again. For what it's worth, I'd agree that the editor is not your run-of-the-mill vandal, as most of his other edits are relatively harmless. Still, his edit history shows no evidence of any discussion at all (on any subject), which makes him a bit difficult to deal with—this side of the block stick. I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers. --Plek 12:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! It looks like our friend just keeps at it, now from one of his three anonymous accounts 63.215.27.211 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) diff. He has also created another named sock: Jonathan89 (talk · contribs). I have never seen such behaviour before. Any suggestions on what to do? Thanks! --Plek 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss, to be honest. I've worked with dozens of vandals who simply go off with multiple accounts and IPs, but this one is a little different in that he seems to be making large volumes of decent edits - or at least not obviously problematic ones. The only problem is that he just seems to have it out for that one article talk page and will not respond to why he's blanking it. I'd really rather not go ballistic and start blocking every possible sock at this point since there might still be a chance he'll communicate; maybe a soft protection of that page (from IP's and new users)? Has he ever posted a response that you can see? Kuru ^talk 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and he kind of reminds me of MascotGuy - similar pattern of hundreds of minor edits and won't communicate, but I can't imagine it's the same guy - totally different set of articles. I did block that one IP - it was the one that had been blocked before for that exact same edit. Kuru ^talk 23:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yes, the behavioural pattern is quite weird. On one of his user pages, he does say that he's autistic.[19] No way to verify that, of course, but it would explain a lot. In any case, he's created a new account, Jonathan89 (talk · contribs), and is editing along merrily, despite the block on the IP. I don't if an all-out tag-the-socks hunt is worth the effort. On the other hand, the edits-without-consensus keep on coming. Just let me know if I can or should do anything. Cheers. --Plek 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello!

[edit] JJonathan

Hi

Is there anything that can be done about the user JJonathan? He has consistantly poor edits in articles - especially the Spice Girls article, where he keeps changing the info box to suggest the group have reunited (they havent) - and looking at his talk page (which he's blanked), I see you have taken action against him already...

What do you suggest? Rimmers 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need admin help with IP vandal

User:88.113.137.249 probably needs a longer block and page protection on his/her talk page. You can see that IP address's talk history for proof of misconduct. The talk page probably needs to be reverted back to include the warnings the vandal has removed as well. Chicken Wing 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I appreciate your reverting the vandalism on my page. ^_^ V-Man - ^T/_C 03:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! Kuru ^talk 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

Is this some kind of robot account?

Kuru a robot? hmm...that is a possibility given his massive anti-vandal count. But then again, no computer in the world is sophisticated enough to reply to messages properly. In answer, I conclude officially that Kuru is not a bot, but a living, breathing human being. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be better at math, for one thing. Kuru ^talk 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Your "welcome" message looked automatic. Thanks for the welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Berry (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

It does, now that I look at it. It's pretty rare that I welcome people, so I have not paid it much attention - my apologies, and I hope you stick around! Kuru ^talk 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Risk management

Hi. I just ran across Risk management and am proposing that most of the external links be removed. Since you've been doing cleanup work on the article, and do great cleanup work in general, I'd like to hear your perspective. --Ronz 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that one has needed an enema for a while. I've just been looking at the newest additions, but the entire thing has been a link farm for a while. The only one I'd like to see stay is the link to the open directory. I'd like to think that links to DMOZ are useful to act as a spam magnet; but this particular article does not go a long way to bearing out that theory.

I also saw your question on 'further reading' sections; I have operated under the theory that it is for 'seminal works' that really define the subject of an article such as "Gray's Anatomy" for medical topics. I was looking around for some additional guidelines, since, as you noticed, the heading has simple become "book promotion spam with amazon links" for most of the business topics. I'm not really finding anything specific - it's clear they need to be pruned, but not so clear on what the line is... Thoughts? Kuru ^talk 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Further reading" is a pain. I wonder if anyone has an essay on it. My thoughts: like your "Gray's Anatomy" example, it's an area for exemplar references that aren't actually being used as sources. They should hold up WP:SOURCE#Reliable_sources, plus they should be notable works for the topic. Many times I treat them as linkfarms, even though they might be just lists of unused references. --Ronz 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked about "Further reading" in Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#.22Further_reading.22_sections --Ronz 01:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question...

Hi, I'm a somewhat new wikipedia editor, and I was wondering: If we find an article that appears to be a joke or utterly fake, how should we report it? Thanks.--Grendlefuzz 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on how obvious a joke it is. If it is 100% clear nonsense; simply put a {{db-nonsense}} tag on it and an admin will soon be by to delete it. I would be careful, though - there have been several times when things that I thought were complete hogwash just turned out to be poorly written and cited articles which were perfectly good topics. In cases where it is not 100% for sure; you may want to use the {{prod}} process with an explanation of why you think the article is nonsense. You can find a pretty good guide to all of this here: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Good luck, and thanks for helping! Kuru ^talk 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He's baaack....

An anon vandal 68.161.68.171 is doing almost exactly the same crap that User:Clancy60 and his socks have been doing; bad edits to Brandon Routh were the giveaway. Any way to check this out, checkuser to see if it's from the same guy? Hate to pass this to you, but I have no faith in AN/I. He's received a "this is your only warning" but has continued.

As for your statement about blocking the original master-of-socks: is the few "good" edits a vandal makes outweigh the disruption that user causes? Every edit the user makes becomes suspect; at the low end of the labour scale, every edit has to be reversed -- hopefully not reverting any good edits that may have been inserted by another user -- and if there have been edits inserted after the vandalism and the bad edits cannot be "undone", each bad edit must be individually changed. If not done on sight, then each edit which may be plausible may have to be researched before being reverted -- taking up more hours that could be devoted to constructive editing. Seems to me that a user this disruptive should be blocked -- else then all a vandal needs to do to keep from being permanently blocked is to throw in a few "good" edits. Or am I completely misreading what you are saying? (I know I have gotten the wrong end of the stick before -- maybe -- so it's not totally impossible it might happen again, unlikely as that may seem.) Cheers. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My bad. Thanks for your correction

Hi,

I added an external link to Risk Modelling. I thought it would be a useful one but after your kind explanation I see that it may be against Wikipedia's link policies.

Thanks for your editing efforts! BaselII 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billnye123456

I would really consider unblocking billnye123456 because he's a really good guy but someone just snuck on his account and edited pages without him knowing.

thanks,, trigismyfave

No thank you. Kuru ^talk 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again

Thanks for blocking me. I completed the GEDs, just waiting for the results now. I probably won't be on wiki as much now since I don't really agree with some of the things i've been hearing about, not to mention my friends managed to pull me back to my old MMO addiction, but i'll be around. Wish my luck with my results~ --- feb^talk 06:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you did fine. I can only imagine how difficult school would have been for me with all of today's distractions; all I had were Saturday morning cartoons and arcades. Hope you can still jump in every now and then... :) Kuru ^talk 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, did fine. Got my unofficial results yesterday, 96% on three tests, 98% on one, and 99% on one. I think passing is an 80%, lol. -- feb^talk 17:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of The Independent School, Inc.

Why have you deleted "The Independent School, Inc."? Since the usual number of students in a Polish Saturday school is usually 50-70, this school, with about 60 students, is notable. Its students have received many awards, for various inter-scholastic competitions, which were going to be updated soon. Karolpl237 22:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted under a process called 'proposed deletions', which you may read about here: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. It was tagged for deletion by another editor on 18 March 2007, and I deleted it as an uncontested proposal on 24 March 2007. The 'prod' process is designed specifically for uncontroversial and uncontested deletions, and I have absolutely no problem with restoring it. Would you like me to do so? Kuru ^talk 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do.

Thank you very much, Kuru.

Not a problem. You may want to read up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools to find some pointers on how to establish a school related article. The article will probably move into the next step of our deletion process if it is not improved to show some kind of notability and references. Good luck! Kuru ^talk 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. AfD will follow in few days - I don't think a Saturday school can be notable, with few exceptions, and nothing suggest this is it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey, thanks...

for taking care of the autoblock thing. I really appreciate it.

[edit] Easiest way to get a user banned?

What's the easiest way to get a user banned for vandalism that's about a 4 out of 5 on the obvious scale? User:Adonaiii is a friend of mine, (although I have no idea why) who has repeatedly expressed contempt for Wikipedia over AIM and MSN. He actually brags about how he vandalises over proxies and such. However, as far as I can see, this account has only been used for vandalism and creating articles about himself and WP:NFT matters. I'm not sure it's able to be handled by AIV given how long he's been doing it without punishment, but i'm not really sure where to go to get him banned. -- feb^talk 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch the account. I think it's fairly clear from the contributions that it's a vandal only account and will be closed out if there are any more incidents. Kuru ^talk 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you- he's using sockpuppets now. I realize you probably can't speedy close the AFD, but if you would help keep an eye on the situation it would be appreciated -- feb^talk 09:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Qxz

Hey Kuru. Do you know what happened with him? I'm pretty confused why he had such a sudden change of hearts about Wikipedia. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 10:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. A quick glance through recent events doesn't reveal a flash point. It's a shame, he was a great RC patroller, but we all get burned out at some point. Hopefully he will return. Kuru ^talk 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shared Concerns

Thanks for your work on vandalism. It is *much* appreciated. I had no idea of what a problem it was until I got involved.

I also recently got involved with Wikipedia after using it for several years. The original trigger was an unattributed copy of an article. Since then I've gotten quite interested in improving the quality of business related articles.

We could sure use your help editing and reviewing articles. Please consider joining the Wikipedia: WikiProject Business and Economics. Egfrank 06:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When you

When you edit a website page does it make it availible for everyone to see those changes right then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emy12851 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Kuru ^talk 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My contribution was erased

I added a link do download a FREE software for income and expense from the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balance_sheet The reason is that no publicity is permitted in the linking pages. My external link is: http://www.directoriodeempresas.net/balance_en.html

Consider the difference between the google ads in my page from the google ads in those permitted links: Preparing A Balance Sheet (with interactive example) Balance Sheet Explanation with Examples Bean Counter: So, you want to learn Book-Keeping (bookkeeping tutorial in simple terms) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VictorFRodriguez (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

It's a simple promotional link for your software that adds no value to the topic of the article. This is not a link directory; please read the links I left on your talk page. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: 68.39.163.15

• 68.39.163.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) User previously blocked. IP user personally attacking other users on User talk:68.39.163.15. Asking for extended or permanent blocking. What other options are there? Flibirigit 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The talk page for the IP has been protected for a few days by Buchanan-Hermit. The hope is that he'll just move along. Since the IP is obviously static he will be blocked again for a longer period of time if he starts up where he left off, which seems probable, but we still give him the chance to maybe change his ways. I'll try to watch the account, but please let me know if he goes off again. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)