Jump to content

User talk:Kinu/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Gary Catona

Kinu,

You deleted a page I was working on about Gary Catona, the Voice Builder, who is doing important work that I think people should be aware of and it should be available to people. He has helped people who have entirely lost their voice and had no one to turn to.

How can I do it correctly and has it been destroyed or eliminated forever. Can you help me? How do we reach each other?

K W LaQuaK W LaQua 05:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi there... do you remember the exact title of the article I deleted? I checked the deletion log for "Gary Catona", and I wasn't actually the administrator who performed the deletion. If I did in fact delete a version of the article at a different location, I'd love to know, so I can provide you with a good answer as to why I did it, and whether the article should be restored. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

SmartWool

Kinu,

I'm a newbie for creating content here, so I'm still learning the ropes. I'm not quite sure why my SmartWool page was deleted, as there is a page for Levi's jeans. I am a graduate student at the University of Idaho and have no affiliation with SmartWool and am not trying to advertise them. If possible, I would like to recreate the page, as I was specific to make sure that the company claims their products do certain things without proclaiming those abilities myself. As for significance, the products are available at many sporting goods stores, and many hiking enthusiasts love them. I'm not sure what else I really need to post for the sake of notability.

If you could clarify what I've done incorrectly, I'd be happy to listen to your feedback.

Thanks, Rob Bastholm 10:30 PM, 23 April 2007 (PST)

  • The article (Smartwool) was about the company, but it didn't contain an assertion of notability. The appropriate guideline in this case is WP:CORP, which outlines the Wikipedia standards for what makes a company notable. If you can write an article about the company based on those guidelines, and provide reliable sources indicating why the company is notable, then surely the article deserves a place on Wikipedia. I welcome you to try... I've restored the article at User:Rob.bastholm/Smartwool, where you can work on it without fear of deletion. I (and/or a few other editors) would be happy to check out an article that you write on the company, provide feedback, and help you with making it a properly cited, compliant article that's ready to be moved to the main encyclopedia. I know the process of creating your first article can be daunting, but if you have any questions, just let me know! --Kinu t/c 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Kinu,
Thanks; I appreciate your prompt and clear feedback. I'll do my best to make it fit the guidelines, and I'll contact you to let you know when I believe it meets the Wikipedia standards.
Thanks again,
Rob Bastholm 10:48 PM, 23 April 2007 (PST)

Kinu,

Sorry to be a bother, but would online magazine reviews, e.g. this and this count as secondary sources? I don't know of anything that would be peer-reviewed for this particular product. If those don't count, then please delete the page, as I won't be able to find anything else without perhaps ordering a bunch of paper magazines.

Thanks, Rob Bastholm 6:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kinu,

I believe I've fixed the page. If so, could you please put it into the general encyclopedia? And if not, could you please delete it?

Thanks, Rob Bastholm 7:44, 25 April (UTC)

  • Hi Rob, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I can't delete the article myself now; as it's no longer worthy of a speedy deletion, I can't make that call unilaterally. The truth is that I feel that this article, in its present form, is actually quite improved, and the sourcing definitely adds some legitimacy to it. Since I'm no expert on this topic, I'll actually send it over to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback to see what other editors think of it and to see if there are any more improvements that can be made. Thank you again for your hard work! --Kinu t/c 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Kinu,

Thanks!

Rob Bastholm 22:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Kinu,

I've dug much deeper for references and believe that I have met the requirements stated by Imoeng. Would it be possible to move the SmartWool article to the mainspace now? Thanks again, Rob Bastholm 03:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ACE - Alliance for Catholic Education

Hi Kinu- I was wondering exactly why you deleted my page on ACE. It is a service program which has existed for over a dozen years and has produced hundreds of teachers who have educated countless thousands of students. Additionally, its creation led to the formation of more than half a dozen other similar programs which, when combined, have educated nearly 1,000 teachers. Hibernophile 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The article was deleted because it contained no context (as only one sentence long), but more so because it was a direct copy of the ACE website. Copyright violations are speedily deleted on Wikipedia. If the subject is notable (and I'm fairly certain that it is!), you are more than welcome to create an article on the topic in your own words. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 06:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Duke Basketball Report Entry

Hi Kinu,

Long time reader of Wikipedia, not at all a contributor, so fire away if I do not fully understand how threads are tagged for removal. There is a rather notable online community called The Duke Basketball Report that was started more than 10 years ago that has since become one of the definitive sites for Duke University athletics and college basketball in general. Recently some of the more frequent posters there thought that it would be fun start a Wiki entry, and begin to edit it with the idea of tracking the history of the site, and documenting for others info about the site and personalities that have come through over the years. The Wiki wntry was deleted quickly, once by you, with the sited reason that "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity" using NPWatcher)"

My question is this, what specifically was the problem with the entry? Certainley a site that has recieved millions of hits during its existence is notable. Additionally, other fan sites of similar ilk seem to have Wiki entries that are permitted... even our rivals down the road at The University of North Carolina have an entry http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Inside_Carolina. So I guess I am wondering if the users who tried to start this particular entry made mistakes in someway that they might fix? Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.16.207.106 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


Sorry... I missed signing the post.

-Jeff (Durham, NC... but that's probably obvious!)

  • The entire contents of the article as I deleted it consisted of: The Duke Basketball Report is one of the most popular destinations on the Web for fans of the Duke University Blue Devils. Starting in 1997 by Julio, Boswell and James, the Duke Basketball Report (DBR as it is known) has continuously grown and evolved from its initial days at "Juliovison." This information does not contain an assertion of notability, and as such was speedy deleted. You are welcome to recreate the article, provided that objective, sourced information is included to show why the site is notable. The relevant criteria for websites are located at WP:WEB. If you can show that the site meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, then surely it deserves a place within the encyclopedia, and I would support its inclusion. Let me know if you have any more questions! (As an aside, I might have to take a look at that Inside Carolina article and make sure it adheres to guidelines and policies as well... thank you for pointing that out to me as well.) --Kinu t/c 15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. That's pretty helpful. It essentially sounds like you are saying that the entry needs to be more complete rather than putting something up and adding to it over the course of a couple of weeks? I will let the originators know, and see if they's like to resubmit with a more complete entry. Thanks again!

Zach White

I'm still wondering why you conitinue to delete the Zach White page, and then you deleted the talk message I left you without responding. I continue to say he was an influential gay rights figure in northeastern Ohio, please respond this time without deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The909 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

NPWatcher script

The script you're using seems to be screwing up pages by incorrectly Unicodifying them: see [1], for instance. Do you know what might be causing this? --ais523 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing that out... I'd never noticed that, actually, and I don't want it going around replacing ~~~~ with my signature everywhere I go! I'll check out the contributions the script is responsible for and see if it's an isolated problem or if it's a common occurrence with a pattern. Maybe the script's author has information on this; if not, it might warrant a bug report. In the meantime, I'll keep an eye out and keep its posting of text to a minimum! --Kinu t/c 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about Speedy Deletion

You recently contacted me about my creation of a mock article. Unfortunately, I published it by accident, but I thank you any way for warning me. Within ten minutes of realizing my mistake, I attempted to have my article nominated for speedy deletion, but I did not how to. If I do anything stupid like this in the future, would you please inform me on how I might get a page deleted immediately? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherwelthlangley (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

  • If you want a page you created deleted in the future, just tag it with {{db-author}}. An admin will come by and clean it out in due time. Just be careful with that "Save page" button in the future... thank you for your understanding, and for contributing! --Kinu t/c 19:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bdyz

Why did you delete my page "2007 biomass consumtion"? All i was triing to do was make an accurate page on the consumtion of biomass energy. All the information that was on it was mine and was not plagerizing. please tell me what i did wrong and can it be fixed --Bdyz 19:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)==

  • The content of the article was: "Biomass is a renewable source", followed by "USE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" If this is not an inappropriate article, then I don't know what is. Speedy deleted via CSD A1, no context, and I doubt this is the proper way to start a scholary article on this (or any) topic. I hope this helps. --Kinu t/c 19:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MadV

Hi Did you delete the MadV entry again? If so, you might want to check the deletion review log - it's been deemed ok as more references have been added verifying notability.

If you didn't delete it, then someone did without posting a reason, which is rather unfair. Lungsboat 22:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, I didn't... the log says it was User:Irishguy. Probably just a case of not knowing that the deletion review overturned the speedy. Thank you for adding references and making the article no longer be a speedy deletion candidate; have it restored was the proper outcome. Keep in mind, however, that deletion review does not indicate the article will be deemed includable in the future... other processes, such as Articles for deletion, may be an option, per the comments presented by some of the editors making comments. --Kinu t/c 22:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, thank you. I didn't mind amending it - after all we have to make sure everything is accurate and verifiable. I understand that it may go up for AfD in the future, and that's fine, as long as I get told of the reason for the outcome (positive or negative) and whether or not I need to make changes. Lungsboat 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, I noticed yesterday you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Duckworth as it had been taken to AfD whem it qualified for a speedy deletion, well I'm not trying to offend you or bring your actions down but arent you supposed to keep old AfD debates for archives so that they can be seen even if they did qualify for speedy, am I wrong but thats what I thought? Thanks - Tellyaddict 11:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • As I noted in the deletion log, this was an AfD nomination that was never finished, nor was it transcluded in the log for the day. I don't think this is actually considered a valid AfD (i.e., it can't be used to apply CSD G4 in the future), but I've restored it for now, seeing as how it does no harm being around and is evidently not an uncontroversial CSD (the AfD page, not the article itself). If nothing else, deletion might need to go through the WP:MFD process, but it's not worth the hassle. Thanks for your note. --Kinu t/c 12:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

Muchas Gracias, amigo. --Hojimachongtalk 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MDMSA

Why did you delete my article on the band MDMSA and pages related? MDMSA is a very influential band in my area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FenderTele (talk • contribs).

  • That's exactly it: "in your area." Your typical local bands are non-notable and do not belong in this encyclopedia. Can you provide any evidence from reliable sources that the band meets our notability criteria for bands, located at WP:MUSIC? --Kinu t/c 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, thank you for contacting me in a civil manner. It is much appreciated after this. Let's hope you never provide anyone another reason to block your account again. --Kinu t/c 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of Raymond A Serway

My intent here was to start an entry for the author of one of the major physics text books in print. How should I proceed, resurrecting the article and then attaching a stub tag to it? Carl 03:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The article was deleted for having no context... it consisted of the person's name, Physics Text Book Author, a citation for the book, and an external link. You are most welcome to recreate the article, as long as it has context; please see WP:STUB to see what constitutes a valid stub for an article. Also, as the article is about a person, please make sure to include an assertion of notability; if basic information that has context as to why the person is notable is not included, the article will be subject to speedy deletion on that basis. I'm not trying to scare you off, honestly! It can certainly be frustrating to try to create an article, so let me know if you need any more help! --Kinu t/c 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Not a problem. You seem to have been the target of quite a bit of angst lately. I've got your back... meaning it's on the watchlist. ;) --Kinu t/c 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

IM+ for review

Hi, Kinu, it seems like the article I had posted was deleted by mistake. I posted the article after obtaining a permission from the company-developer. All previous posts for IM+ were not written by me. Just in case, here is the ticket number 2007042410014652 I want to expand on the article and offer it as a valuable and trusted source to wikipedia readers. Please advise. Leanalove 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Leanalove

Urgent

Excuse me My friend, Bdyz was banned from editing alittle while ago for something? what was it and why? Please contact me asap --Lolilikepie 19:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of True_Fade

Hey, thanks for getting rid of that. Those trolls take it a little too far. See, they're part of a fad group that pretends to like crappy games, and they take it personally whenever someone disagrees with them. Anyway, sorry for the inconvenience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by True Fade (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

style

Stylistically, spelling out a state is incorrect. Additionally, the state should be surrounded by commas. I'm going to scope out this manual thing, but it is not accurate for writing. --Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 18:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe the spelling out of a state name is rough consensus, which you are feel free to discuss at the talk pages for either of those guides. I do agree with having the comma afterward, since the state name is somewhat of an optional modifier (i.e., non-restrictive appositive). Those should definitely be added. --Kinu t/c 19:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser

I am not sure what checkuser is. I know both IPs are coming out of Verizon in Erie, the three accounts are the same (the User:WTAEchick one made today with only one post on the user page from User:Kdkatpir2, the other two within 3 hours of each other on 09/18/06). If there is another search that can be done, I don't know about it. I am still learning all the bells and whistles and I have been here over a year. - SVRTVDude (VT) 18:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Blueboy96 filed a checkuser request. Sorry I didn't know how to do that. I thought it was an external site, not something through Wiki. Like I said, I am don't know all the bells and whistles just yet. Take Care...SVRTVDude (VT) 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

clean up

I reverted back to your COI version. The user's contributions were initially a copyright violation and a gross advertising blurb. But since I reverted, they appear to be making a good faith effort to write something original and encyclopedic in tone. I endorse your {{coi}} tag, but don't think they should be reverted, per BITE. Hesperian 06:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. I added the {{coi}} tag before I saw the edit history and your revert. I only gave it a quick glance before judging that they were attempting to make the same revisions yet again, but if you feel that the second effort is good faith, then I support this as well. Thanks for letting me know! --Kinu t/c 06:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the latest revert + block

Thank you Kinu. That was becoming highly annoying. D-Hell-pers 07:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure thing... and feel free to let me know if this persists after the block expires. Vandalism aside, s/he may be wandering into WP:NPA territory with some of their comments, so if a longer block, WP:RFC, etc. is necessitated by actions in the future, I'd be happy to assist. --Kinu t/c 07:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well noted. It's not the first time I got into a heated discussion with a vandalizing user, and since I am here to stay for a while, it definitely won't be my last. D-Hell-pers 07:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Business Management 3.0

Hi

I was working on a page named "Business Management 3.0" . But u deleted without even telling me the reason. its really disappointing. Please let me know why did u delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SonyMathew (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Washtenaw Riverhawks

Kinu,

You deleted my page about my team. No its not a little league team. Why would i right about one of those that makes no sense. This team actually went to coopertown tournament (you probably dont know what that is, but its the biggest tournament for good travel teams) Next time think before you talk. PSh little league team. NO WAY . If you have anything you would like me to add i will to make it UP TO YOUR STANDARDS! --Riverhawk21 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Craig Barber

Is it worth requesting a checkuser on these WP:SPA accounts or not - and, can you restore the original to my userspace at User:SunStar Net/Craig Barber so that if people want to see the content, and if the article is discussed at DRV there is something for them.

As it is, I wonder if this is a WP:POINT being made, or is it a form of astroturfing??

Either way, it looks like we'll have to watch out on DRV for single-purpose accounts. I'm not sure if they're trolling or not, but it's worth watching out for.... --SunStar Net talk 20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll go ahead and restore the last version to your userspace. There isn't much to see (per the weigh-in at AfD and the first DRV), but if it ends up on DRV another 500 times, at least there's something to look at before 500 speedy closes. :) As far as the SPAs, it may be worth running a checkuser... it's highly likely that it's one person's sockpuppets (that end up getting throttled because of autoblocks and go back into hiding for a few days), so you have my support if you want to request that. As far as the reason... your guess is as good as mine. It could just be childish trolling, but either way it's ridiculous. I've gone ahead and added the article title to protected titles, but beyond that, it's just a matter of watching DRV and the like to make sure any nominations for discussion aren't of the "this guy needs an article, but I don't have any evidence!" variety. --Kinu t/c 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that, Kinu. Can you restore the deleted image as well - in order to complete the article?? It's not just this article on DRV which I think is a cause for concern, but rather single-purpose accounts trying to get articles back through DRV.

I did have a brief skim-read of it originally, and I think my "delete" nomination was probably the best course of action. As regards the Daniel Morcombe article, read my comments on today's deletion review. I'm trying to WP:AGF every DRV, but it's a tough job doing DRV - I commend you for that - if I ever become admin WP:DRV will be one of my priorities!

You're an excellent admin, and a great editor too - keep the good work up! If you want to discuss any more DRV- or non-DRV-related issues, feel free to reply back... --SunStar Net talk 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional Liability Underwriting Society

Kinu, thanks so much for bringing the copyright violation to my attention. I have contacted the society and received permission from the Executive Director. I forwarded this to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, but now I'm unsure of how to proceed. Do I rewrite the page? Do I forward a copy to you as well? Please help! Megan.rw1 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Once the Wikimedia foundation sends you the ticket number and has confirmed receipt of acceptable release, you are free to recreate the article. Of course, you could always recreate the article in your own words, by using the official website as a source. It might even make it more encyclopedic and less PR-ish. :) --Kinu t/c 04:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kinu,

I see you deleted all of the external links I added. I fully realize that no-follows exist and I am not "spamming" to get higher search engine rankings. I make all of $10 a day with IntoWine.com. This is no huge money maker for me. When I get a good article and wiki has a section that is applicable, I add a link to my article. It's that simple. My articles aren't law, they are just interesting, additional content related to the deliberately generic, peer edited content of wikipedia.

When I read the guidelines it lists the following under "What should be linked to": Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. As my content is all orginal content written by wine writers, I would assume it falls under "meaningful and relevant". However this is purely subjective so I certainly can't complain if someone deletes it anymore than I can justify adding it myself.

I am getting the impression that your editing of my links is based on the critiria of "Links intended to promote a web site". Please correct me if I am wrong. I can't argue with you on this. This interpretation is purely subjective. You hold the power so you win.

Perhaps you feel my wine content isn't relevant nor meaningful. I disagree but again you hold the power. I feel I am adding access to interesting, related wine content wiki users otherwise wouldn't see. I don't add links to every page of my site, only to the articles and sections I feel have good, specific content that is relevant to the corresponding wiki page.

I added a link today to an interview I did with an author of a book on French Wine. If you delete it, then so be it. I won't bother wasting my time adding any more references. Let it be known though that my adding these links did not give me any direct or indirect monetary benefit (as I think your message to me is intended to imply that i was seeking). I added them purely because I am proud of the content on my site and wanted to share it. Wikipedia is one of my favorite sites on the web. I spend more time there than I do any other site. I thought my wine content is a good fit for Wiki. Apparently you disagree. I think this makes Wikipedia less valuable as a resource because access to relevant commentary adds color to the otherwise generic content supplied by the masses.

I'm not going to fight it though beyond this email. Thanks for your time. -Brad

  • Please read WP:EL: You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. Whether the links provide meaningful content is a community consensus decision. You admit the site is yours, which is not subjective on my part; this is considered a bad idea, per WP:COI. Likewise, your only contributions to date have been addition of these links to the articles, which in turn is a reflection on you as an editor, and it's possible that another editor might perceive this account as being a WP:SPA intended on self-promotion. Indeed, if you are somewhat of an expert on wines and such, perhaps you should consider improving the Wikipedia content rather than simply linking to your own site; it might add a little more legitimacy to your argument as to whether links to intowine.com should be included in articles, rather than appearing to be a simple case of conflict of interest. I hope this clears things up. --Kinu t/c 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hi...

Hey there, Kinu. I was trying to contact you on AIM, but it seems you were away (or ignoring me :-P). Well, anyway I just wanted to see how you were doing with all the admin tools and stuff. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Hey! Sorry I didn't get your messages... it must have been yet another case of falling asleep at the keyboard while AIM was running. :P Anyway, having the admin tools is definitely proving interesting... I took somewhat of a de facto Wikibreak a few months ago due to work, but I've come back strong in April and done quite a bit using the tools. Obviously I'd like to think I'm doing relatively well, since I've gotten the usual mixed bag of compliments and disgruntled vandalism to my user page. :D Once again, I definitely appreciate your nominating me, so thank you for that, as well as for dropping in. Back to vandal fighting! --Kinu t/c 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What does A7 and G11 mean?

Hi, I saw your good work on the protected pages list. I'm curious, what do the abbreviations A7 and G11 mean? I can't seem to find 'em defined. Punkgeek 03:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah... those are Wikishorthand for the criteria for speedy deletion codes. In some cases, especially on those sections of the project only seen by other admins (such as the protected pages lists), it's easy enough just to type those rather than a drawn-out reason. Hope this helps! --Kinu t/c 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Little Help With 72.223.117.236 AGAIN.

Kinu,

Checking up on recent contributions by vandalist 72.223.117.236, I have seen that his only contribution coming off the block is a "page blanking" of an article. Thought maybe you would like to block him longer since he does not seem to have learned from his mistakes. D-Hell-pers 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I've issued a "last warning" so s/he persists, I'll issue another block. Also, just in case I'm out to lunch if/when that happens (!), feel free to report him to WP:AIV. Thanks again for letting me know! --Kinu t/c 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought about using the AIV, however, since "we" just dealt with him not more than 2 days ago (and that fact you mentioned to keep you posted if s/he acts up again) that you were the first choice to mention it to. However, if you are busy I'll see it when you do not reply/take action within certain time and will notify AIV. D-Hell-pers 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(Random)

It seems somewhat ironic to use Google for detecting copyright violation if you know what I mean —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.36.96.237 (talk • contribs).

Thanks

Thanks for responding so quickly. I appreciate it. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Coilgun

Please remove my information and images that I posted, I do not wish for it to be on Wikipedia any longer as I am sick of the childs play. The information and images that I contributed to the article are my property, If you do not remove it I will sue you. Thank You Joe Gargasz TTLLOGIC 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

hello!!!!!!

i am masterofsuspense. now i dont want to vandal, but i want to contiune the talk we had. u can check out masterofsuspenseS0S(save our sockpuppets)'s talk page for info. i hope that creating this message on ur talk page isnt a vandal...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masterofsuspense5 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

  • You have been blocked as an admitted sock of an indefinitely banned user. Seriously, just stop, and please don't involve me in your block-evading shenanigans ever again. --Kinu t/c 04:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing pic

I hadn't realized it was fair use. To be honest, I hadn't looked at the licensing, simply picked the nicest shot from the Godzilla article. Thanks for catching that right away! -- Ben TALK/HIST 06:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah... didn't realize it was you who'd added it. I'd left a note for the user thinking s/he had put it there. Yeah, maybe that'll teach me to read the history next time. :P I'll retract the note I left for him. I guess we both made some tiny goofs here... thanks for letting me know! --Kinu t/c 06:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

notability tag

Hi, Can you review, and remove if appropriate, the notability tag on this biographical page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Don_donaghy ? Thank you.

Maryearly75 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tyco logo.jpg

Hello, Kinu. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Tyco logo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kinu/Sandbox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

EkulProductions

It gave me a laugh. I can't really imagine that anyone would be prepared to spend over $3000 CAN to get here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yellow cab

If you have a moment, can you take a look at this article? I tagged it for speedy deletion as no context, since it has no references and looks like it was just made up. However, another editor removed the speedy tag, and tagged it for cleanup and referencing. I still think it's utter rubbish. I'd like your opinion, please. ---Cathal 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It looks like no context to me, as I tend to think that these unsourced neologisms tend to fall into that category (unless they actually have anything that can be verified), but other administrators might disagree. I actually deleted Easy Japanesey by the same author under the same criterion, but I feel like maybe this one should go to AfD, just to gauge other opinions and in the spirit of WP:BITE. For all I know it can be reliably sourced, but I seriously doubt it; taking it through process would satisfy any and all doubts, though, so I might recommend that. Not really an answer, I know... :P --Kinu t/c 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I appreciate the response. I will take it to AfD, though perhaps not tonight. Thanks. ---Cathal 06:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Who knows, it might end up speedied before then after all? I'll keep an eye on it as well. --Kinu t/c 06:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Electro Fire

You have just deleted a file know as Electro fire. I would really wish to know why you would do that. Electro Fire is in fact a band and is well known by the town that they reside in. They are a new band who asked me to make this page for them. so they could be further know in the world. In months to come I will update the page further adding further things about the band, but as I said earlier they are a relatively new band who just wishes to be know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corrosive30 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Autoblock

  • Hi, you unblocked me several minutes ago because a mistake was made and I was inadvertently considered a vandal. I am still unable to edit articles, a message shows up saying my IP is autoblocked because it was recently used by a blocked account, which was, of course, my own account. Could you please take care of this? I just want to get back to spending my afternoon fixing up Wikipedia. I really hope this blocking mixup doesn't hurt my chances when I eventually try to become an admin myself. Useight 20:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Nunh-nuh, or whatever his name was that blocked me took care of it first. Thanks, though, for your help. Useight 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, ok... I was just on my way to check. My mistake for not checking for autoblocks when you were unblocked. Glad to see it's been sorted out. --Kinu t/c 20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Social Studies (UIL Test)

I don't understand all the terminology here, but why is this article being considered for deletion? The other uil competitions have wikipedia pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpirish (talk • contribs).

Thank you

Dear Kinu,

Thank you dealing with user 203.132.82.236's vandalism and personal harassment. It was a baptism by fire for my introduction to wiki and almost put me off. I appreciate it. --Serenity forest 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Commander toad

They could be autoblocked and using the wrong template. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, there were able to edit an article (per [2]), so I figured otherwise. They just edited my talk page too, so I guess s/he's in the clear. I've left them a note indicating such. --Kinu t/c 05:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This user mad ethe same exact edit on the Polycom page in this diffas User:Sirhan Kennedy is this diff. Just wanted you to be aware of it in case a sockpuppet pattern emerges. - BillCJ 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

deleting cge network

Created a new article, which was removed due to "advertising". Article: cge network

Could you please REMOVE any content considered as advertising and re-publish the article for me. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AUST ZoRrO (talk • contribs).

Your saying i cannot make a proper article about what my network does? How is that considered advertising? When other organisations/networks are able to create articles about their products or sites, which contain direct links - wait this isnt advertising, then what is it? Your policy isnt specific towards fan and resource organisations so your actions now are not valid. I agree the past would have contained links promoting the site, but current article had no relation to advertising. I seek a more advanced response thank you.

Why do you think that other articles were created by people with conflicts of interest with them? Also, you asserted a copyright over the article that is incompatible with the Gnu Free Documentation License, which Wikipedia is released under. So the article would be deleted as a copyright violation even then. You also need to provide third-party reliable sources in order to establish notability. Veinor (talk to me) 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
To add to what Veinor says above (thank you for that, by the way), it appears to be advertising because you seem to be adding external links to related articles in an attempt to promote your site, and are also creating an article to serve the same purpose. Also, trust me, Bill Gates did not create the article on Microsoft, nor is that article's purpose to advertise Windows... while not a perfect analogy, the point is that, ultimately, if your site is notable per WP:WEB, then someone else will create an article about it based on multiple, non-trivial reliable secondary sources. As it was, the article you created did not assert the notability of the website from these sources... it just contained unsourced information about what the site is/does and some PRspeak. Also, these are not my policies or guidelines, they are Wikipedia's. If you contest the deletion, take it to deletion review, but I would surmise that you would be disappointed with the outcome unless you can provide said reliable sources. --Kinu t/c 05:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Contested prods

I notice you've closed a couple of DRVs as contested prod - "procedurally sent to AFD". Perhaps you can point me in the direction of the policy or procedure which says contested prods must go to AFD? --pgk 06:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You're right, there is no policy or procedure, per se, saying that an overturned PROD deletion must go to AfD. However, it is my interpretation of the way proposed deletion works: if an article is nominated for PROD by an editor (acting in good faith) such that deletion by an administrator occurs five days later, then there is likely some basis for this (whether I agree with this basis is moot, for our purposes). On the other hand, a request to overturn from another editor (again, acting in good faith) implies objection, and logically, had the article not been deleted, the objection would be in the form of PROD tag removal, and the original PROD nominator (again, assuming good faith in that s/he had a basis for nomination) would likely send it to AfD. I'm simply connecting the dots in the standard procedure of PROD → contested PROD → AfD; the timeline just happened to be broken up by deletion and then reversal. In some of these cases, the merits of the article may truly need to be discussed, as the speedy undeletion does not effectively gauge consensus, and moving it to AfD seems like the best forum to do so, to answer the question of should it have been deleted in the first place?. My feeling is that procedure is important in this instance, and if the article is kept, so be it; if it is deleted, so be it. At least the community can rest assured it was consensus based, and not, ironically, a strict product of the DRV process. Looking at the two articles I speedily undeleted today, it seemed appropriate after a cursory review on my end. Of course, no one can close every DRV, so this won't always happen, and rightfully so; others' mileage may vary, and some articles may slip through the cracks one way or another, but ultimately I feel the system, whether they are sent to AfD or not, works overall (kind of like everything around here, no?). I know, kind of a long winded way of saying that it just makes sense to me (or made sense, in the cases of the two articles with which I dealt today), but I hope it provides some insight into my actions. :) --Kinu t/c 06:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and thanks for dropping by... it actually was nice to have to sit here and think about why I did what I did. There's nothing wrong with a little accountability around here, and it was my first attempt at closing a speedy undeletion DRV (seems easy enough, right?)... so if I did anything outside of the accepted norm, it'll certainly prove to be a learning experience. Besides, it's good to get a message that isn't "WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE!!!1!" every now and then, so thanks! ;) --Kinu t/c 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of the PROD system, if it was mandatory to list contested prods on AFD it would say so, no need for interpretation. If the prod had been contested at the time, there would have been no "procedural" afd listing. The original lister may indeed have listed it at afd, they may also have not. I'm not sure why you think you need consensus to undelete the prod, there was no need to gain consensus per se for the deletion, why would it be the other way around? "At least the community can rest assured it was consensus based, and not, ironically, a strict product of the DRV process". Undeletion of contest prod's has absolutely nothing to do with DRV, listing them at DRV is totally irrelevant (and unrequired). When articles are created from scratch we don't panic that there wasn't a formal consensus for it, why would this be any different to someone merely recreating the article? Are you saying all articles which haven't been through AFD aren't consensus based? You do realise that AFD decisions aren't in any way shape or form binding? Wikipedia policies and procedures encapsulate consensus, there is a consensus formed for how deletion should be handled, the consensus view for PROD is that once contested the article is undeleted, no consensus that an automatic AFD should occur.
Really I have no care either way on the articles (I haven't looked at either), my main gripe is the idea of a procedural listing at AFD. Frequently they are a nonsense and pretty much contrary to wikipedia not being a bureacracy. If you aren't going to stop by and argue for deletion we are effectively just stuffing more into an already bulging process. If you are, then there is nothing procedural about it, it is you believing the article warrants deletion. If you don't actively support the deletion it would seem to make more sense to just inform the person who originally listed the prod, they can then decide if they still believe that article merits deletion, if they can't be bothered, or if they can cajole the person contesting into fixing any problems (and possibly listing at a later date if they fail). At least that way hopefully any AFD will actually one which is actively pursued and probably have a better rationale rather than many of the pretty terse PROD reasons. --pgk 11:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, and definitely some valid points there. Thank you for pointing out the errors in my interpretations; I will refrain from repeating them in the future. --Kinu t/c 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:98E continues to discuss his relations to celebrities

This is the comment he left on his talk page: Now we can continue this discussion. As for the celeberities noty being related, they actually are. You see, one of Trey's ancestors was releated to one of Vanna's. And since I'm related to Trey, I'm related to Vanna as well. Plus Nas because I'm his <step>-son. Notice that step is in brackets. --98E (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC) It's obvious from that comment that the user still wants to continue this nonsense and waste everyone else's time. He hasn't provided any evidence to prove that his claim is true, just like his sockpuppet User:79Bottles, whose page was protected. Pants(T) 23:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I decided to protect the talk page indefinitely... why not? I tried assuming good faith that s/he won't anyone's time anymore, but so much for that. I've also decided to redirect the talk page to the user page, per WP:DENY, as it serves no constructive purpose, but the history is still there if anyone really wants to read it and/or for review purposes. Thanks for letting me know. --Kinu t/c 00:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

SHA-1

User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hairchrm 02:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sirhan Kennedy sockpuppet?

Polycom has been edited here by user:Pussy Farts Taste good in the exact way as edited by user:Sirhan Kennedy and his suspected sockpuppet, user:Commander toad. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened here?

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 3#Haml Herostratus 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting me know about this. As was mentioned in this deletion review, it was a cleanup issue brought up in the previous deletion review... that is, it made it appear that this was a case of a deletion decision that ended as such but forgot to happen in practice. I'm glad to see it got straightened out without me. Sorry for any inconvenience that it might've caused, of having it go through DRV again, etc. --Kinu t/c 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Antonio Carta

I disagree that Giovanni Antonio Carta was 'not notable', and your deletion of the article was unfair because the page creators were not informed or allowed to debate or discuss your arbitrary decision. As a verified, true case, I suggest you reconsider. How many WWI veterans are left? Certainly a lot less than the number of football players in the NFL.R Young {yakłtalk} 04:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The entire content of the article was: Later became a officer - Carta was a captain. Served on the front line, on the Asiago plateau. A Sardinian, he still lives on the island. Served from 1917 onwards. Indeed, your statement above seems to show more of a reason for the existence of the article than the article itself originally did. If a properly sourced article that does indeed assert said notability can be created, then by all means, please do so. --Kinu t/c 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Harriet Klausner

I was going to write an article about this Amazon Reviewer, for years the #1 reviewer at that site. But Wikipedia is showing that recently you deleted such an article for non-notability. Yet Klauser has been the exclusive subject in articles about her in Time http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570726,00.html , the Wall Street Journal, http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006483 , and elsewhere. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, this suffices for notability. Yet you deleted the article about her. Can you further explain your actions? I believe notability can be easily demonstrated. Kind regards, Gnossie 06:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The entire contents of the article I deleted: A prolific reviewer of books on Amazon.Com. This is barely an article and does not assert any notability. If you wish to create an article that actually explains how the subject meets WP:BIO and is based on reliable sources, please do so. Even the information you provided above is of more value than the previous incarnation of the article, and might provide a good starting point. The previous article was certainly not appropriate and merited speedy deletion. --Kinu t/c 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kinu/Archive_4&oldid=1146649662"