Jump to content

User talk:Kuru

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MKil (talk | contribs) at 00:25, 30 January 2007 (Rocky unprotected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end. Please note that I will usually response on this page to keep the conversation together.
Start a new talk topic.



ARCHIVE: 1Q2006 2Q2006 3Q2006 4Q2006

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)[reply]


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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs).

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

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

Masky 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

USA events

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

152.117.207.37

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

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 (talkcontribs).

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)[reply]
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 (talkcontribs).
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)[reply]
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 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
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 (talkcontribs).
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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

The old quickest gun in the west?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let me be the second to say... Congrats! ViridaeTalk 03:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OECD Anti-Bribery Convention

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ViridaeTalk 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the reverts

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

Thank you!

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Your welcome and . . .

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

~

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

Detlef 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]