 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kuru. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Hondo creek
I noticed the maps you've created in your gallery. Could you make one for Hondo Creek? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Si. Let me see what I can dig up for that. It may take a bit, since I need about an hour of contiguous free time to play with it. Kuru (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Request
Can you protect my user page and my 2009 archive page (edit:autoconfirmed/move:sysop) [both indefinate]? I don't trust some IP editors that would follow the archive page rules, but by instead vandalising the pages . I hope this request doesn't or won't bother you or other administrators. Kind regards, and a happy new year! DivineAlpha (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know what to make of this. On the one hand, General Legume (talk · contribs) is a quacking sockpuppet of General Mung Beans 2 (talk · contribs). On the other hand, it looks General Mung Beans 2 might have been blocked improperly for block evasion based on a misunderstanding. Specifically, it looks like this individual was banned from a different website, and both Toddst1 and MKoltnow misinterpreted the statement on their userpage to mean that they were banned from Wikipedia. For what it's worth, there is a user named General Mung Beans (talk · contribs), but they never edited. Therefore, this might not have been G5-able, as this user may not, in fact, have been banned. And Howard Franklin Morris may be a worthwhile topic, in spite of the military service confusion. Thoughts? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- They're both socks of User:The Lloigor at a minimum; flip through the common deleted edits. There's quite a bit of nonsense article creation between all the accounts involved, hence my quick trigger on the article in question.
- If you can validate some of the references given, that would be great. I could not locate anything in Herringshaw's, on the page given or in the rest of the book; a quick google web/book/scholar search turned up nothing as well, but that kind of search does not work well with that type of article. I'd be happy to assist any other validations, but I'm not fond of good editors spinning their wheels on the words of silly vandals.
- By the way, you username is great - a top five episode of the TZ. Kuru (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, apologies, I assumed you were an admin above and I just noticed you were not. I can restore a copy to your userspace if you'd like to work on it? Kuru (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- No thanks, my concern was mainly based on the fact that it seemed so damn plausible (as MKoltnow wrote elsewhere). Looks like this guy was prolific indeed, creating these types of hoaxes that seem plausible. If you weren't able to find anything in Herringshaw's, that's good enough for me at this stage; I admit I didn't think this was a hoax at all until I noticed the 26th/28th discrepancy. (The silver lining is that this incident made me decide to create 28th Ohio Infantry.)
- And thanks very much; it's my number one favorite episode, although there are a few others that come awfully close.
- Anyway, thanks for all your hard work on this. Best, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, apologies, I assumed you were an admin above and I just noticed you were not. I can restore a copy to your userspace if you'd like to work on it? Kuru (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
No edits since final warning
There is no requirement that there be edits subsequent to the most recent warning. If there were, I would never warn when bringing an item to the noticeboard. There is sufficient vandal activity, recent vandal activity, and vandal-only activity -- let alone warnings, ignoring the most recent one. One given today has already been ignored.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then what exactly was the point of warning him again if you just want him blocked? There has been no activity from that IP in 13 hours, so he's not actively vandalizing. If you feel there is significant enough disruption, please feel free to post to WP:ANI. Otherwise, we can leave your note up on AIV for a while to see if anything else happens. Kuru (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are two issues. 1 -- vandalism should lead to a warning, so the user and subsquent editors/admins see the level of vandalism. 2 -- the level of vandalism here warranted a block. Where the level of vandalism is great enough, and the most recent ignored warning is recent enough, there should be a block. The fact that there was an additional warning entered which will alert reviewing editors/admins as to the level of vandalism is not reason to avoid blocking the IP in these circumstances. I see this has now been addressed by another admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- That makes little sense. Warnings are used to alert editors to their behavior and warn them of consequences; to deter vandalism. If you'd like to skip straight to the consequence part, hey, I'm all for it, but leaving a "final" warning and then blocking them without any other action on their part seems silly. Kuru (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree, for reasons stated (which no doubt were the same reasons the other admin blocked).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- That makes little sense. Warnings are used to alert editors to their behavior and warn them of consequences; to deter vandalism. If you'd like to skip straight to the consequence part, hey, I'm all for it, but leaving a "final" warning and then blocking them without any other action on their part seems silly. Kuru (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are two issues. 1 -- vandalism should lead to a warning, so the user and subsquent editors/admins see the level of vandalism. 2 -- the level of vandalism here warranted a block. Where the level of vandalism is great enough, and the most recent ignored warning is recent enough, there should be a block. The fact that there was an additional warning entered which will alert reviewing editors/admins as to the level of vandalism is not reason to avoid blocking the IP in these circumstances. I see this has now been addressed by another admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Essay spammers
I found a couple more -- check my block log. Looks like they are spamming at least five websites -- have you put those on the blacklist, or should I do that? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still looking at the socks. I'll make list of the sites and get it on the list in about five minutes. Kuru (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've added the socks to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tanya09. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Page protection
Could you protect User talk:Coolguy101012 as his sockpuppets are disrupting the page? Thanks. Momo san Gespräch 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hippo43
I just wanted to bring to your attention that he's back to his old ways... please check List of common misconceptions. Thanks in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Kuru, I'm not sure what specifically I'm being accused of. Hearfourmewesique has repeatedly added material which is not supported by the sources he cites. I've repeatedly tried to discuss the matter, and given detailed explanations of my view on it, but he has failed to engage, preferring just to revert. Please see Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Music_examples. He seems to think that because I was previously blocked for some aggressive editing on other articles, that he doesn't have to discuss challenges to his contributions. His most recent revert undid some 14 intervening edits, without any edit summary or contribution to the open discussion. A look at the recent history of the article and discussion should show that I've engaged with other editors about other parts of the article over the last few days and we've been able to make some improvements. I wish he would take the same approach. --hippo43 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Unblock
Fantastic!! I love it--Jac16888Talk 01:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Blip
My apologies. My account is shared between two different individuals. Feedington (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I am urging you to intervene... please, this has gone way too far. At least two other editors have grown tired of hippo43's incessant disruptions. I have done more than enough, I seriously believe that my cointributions are valid and do not contradict the WP guidelines, in spite of hippo's endless efforts to hinder my work. I await your sincere response – thank you very much in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Kuru. I've also looked into the Hippo43's recent contributions and well, they're making the same edits I blocked them for originally. I'd block Hippo43 myself now but that'd be wheel-warring. Please consider. Regards, FASTILYsock(TALK) 07:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Kuru, I think Hearfourmewesique is reading the situation wrongly - another editor has recently likewise disagreed with his stance, and no other editors have spoken up to agree with his point of view. I have been trying to get him to discuss it for weeks, but he has refused, saying he won't take my bait, calling me a troll etc. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do when an editor simply keeps reverting and refuses to discuss the issue. If I have done something wrong over this issue since my last block expired, can Fastily or yourself explain? Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Requested Move
May I ask you yet another favor, and move Sea star => to Starfish as per the consensus on that talkpage?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
list of alternative metal artists
It seems that 65.8.171.174, without using the talk page during the block, or even still not using the edit summary, is still willing to add the extreme metal genre to the list of alternative metal artists. Any further recommendations?--猛禽22 •• 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Internal Audit Article
Why do you internalauditguru.blogspot.com is a low end blog & that comments from it cannot be posted on wikipedia? 203.199.30.92 (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Amit
- Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources for adding material; it is self-published material. The blog itself is also not suitable as an external link, as noted in the links I left you on your talk page. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi
You recently declined an unblock request from this user. Since the unblock request was declined, the user has removed the unblock request template from their page even though it does say not to do it. I have reverted it as vandalism, but thought I would let you know in case any further action needs to be taken against this user for their actions. If I was wrong to restore this template then please let me know.
Hope you're well :) --5 albert square (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Real name
Do you think that Katie Perry is a realname problems considering that Katie Perry and Katy Perry exist? ww2censor (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I usually wouldn't bother unless they're editing in places where that becomes a confusing claim, but I'm not sure what the conventional wisdom is at the moment. You may want to ask at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Kuru (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Blocking of User:70.29.59.12
Hi, thanks for your action on this. User:Rightous who appears to be the same editor has started up the same behaviour immediately. Diffs: [1], [2]. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Report for submission error
Resp.Sir,
During the submission of article named 'Fachsoft' on wikipedia.The machine reported the following error: User Kuru (talk) deleted this article after you started editing it, with a reason of: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion Please confirm that you really want to recreate this article.
My client just informed me later on. Fachsoft is an emerging IT company in the state capital of India.
Fachsoft Solution is a dynamic development company that provides strategic business solutions. Our repertoire of knowledge gained over a period helps us to create a positive merger of both business and technology.
We provide full lifecycle product engineering, independent testing, security, staff escalation, as well as professional services for disparate industry segments. Our commitment to quality & timelines has helped us to gain advantage over our competitors and goodwill among our clients. At Fachsoft Solutions, we bring together technologies, partnerships, and resources to provide positive blend for IT investments.
Wikipedia can check it on www.google.com.
The given information is correct.
Please let the article to be hosted
Thanking you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anvarjam (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- The article you had written was complete, unambiguous promotional material. Please do not add it again until you have completely read our submission guidelines. I'd usually give more feedback, but the twelve paragraph puff piece I deleted was far over the line. Additionally, you mention your 'client', please also read our conflict of interest guidelines. Kuru (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Mark Cuban
I don't get it. What do you have against my stories about Cuban? Do you doubt their veracity? I played rugby with the guy, let him copy my calculus notes, drank a lot of beer and got high with the guy, came to blows with him on more than one occasion but in the end don't believe I've said anything untrue about him. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregsedits (talk • contribs) 03:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Jorn Barger
I went to high school and played football with Jorn Barger. Honest injun; cross my heart, hope to die. Can I reference our high school on his site? You can verify the school and location at http://www.robotwisdom.com/jorn/hs.html
Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregsedits (talk • contribs) 03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of both the Takedo_panacea company page and my user-space for Edegonz
Dear Kuru,
I am writing to discuss and contest both the speedy deletion of the Takedo_panacea page for the company Takedo Panacea and most recently the deletion of my Edegonz user page. You (Kuru) wrote that you could walk me through the guidelines "for what we can include here" so I appreciate that olive branch and gesture. Yes, I would like some help and apparently need a little at least but before we proceed allow me to bring to your attention that the reason I'm writing just "a little" is because I've already thought about this considerably and things aren't as bad as you think (i.e. you also wrote the page was "so far off the mark that [you] would not know where to begin"). Please allow the following to better scope your guidance so that we can come to an amenable agreement without in any way bringing discredit to Wikipedia, an organization I admire and deeply respect (to prove my admiration I just donated $500 on 19:37, 21 February 2010)[3]:
To bring you up to speed RHaworth recently wrote that the pages were "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and "Wikipedia is not a free host. Please publish on your own website.". Similarly, Tbsdy_lives wrote "Patent nonsense." Harsh attacks on my character and both the company's legitimacy & intent, but I am not easily offended.
First of all, I would like to say that I can see, most definitely, how experienced Wikipedians such as yourselves on first glance would flag this page and/or warning lights would shoot up in his or her head. Second, I am not interested in free hosting. It's an insult to a company that it cannot afford $10 per year for a host. I personally have 2 websites of my own and setting up their domains took less than an hour and just $20. To prove it would it help if the company owner contact Jimmy Wales to donate $500 to Wikipedia? But this is beside the point and makes money an issue when it shouldn't be. Moving on...
I can understand the "unambiguous advertising" label. This Wikipedia page is simply a descriptor page for a company and not a marketing gimmick. As you'll see the page has no direct or even indirect links for purchasing anything or even contact information to facilitate such so please reconsider this pejorative label if/when I try to upload this page again for this company. Next, "patent nonsense" is also understandable but only when in the context of this being a first glance of the page. There are lots of non-profits whose aim is to promote love, education in the art of eastern mysticism, spiritual practice, and alternative forms of "conscious" holistic healing. All of the above categorize the company. I do not find this as nonsense. Odd, sure, because the company is new and in the eyes of this editor unestablished but allow me to provide further support for my position.
Before I proceed, I just wanted to say that I can even empathize with someone who would think to qualify this as a Wikipedia "Conflict of Interest", but I hope that this person can also see that I've followed most of the other rules to the best of my ability (e.g. third-party sources) in making this page live for Takedo Panacea. I've tried to write in as neutral tone as possible, but I am willing to tone it farther down and AS FAR AS you expert Wikipedians would like for increased legitimacy. I do defer to the community's opinion and will take the editors' advice very seriously and reassess all future edits.
Ultimately, I think that this page, although it's on a company and not an individual, would qualify as a justifiable Autobiography per-se. Why? Because I believe this company is notable enough, which is substantiated by the depth and rigor in referencing the hundreds of internal and over-a-hundred legitimate "notes"/external references, which at the least can serve as educational for anyone interested in the field this company is participating in. Again, I defer to the consensus of the community, but I find it a little frustrating that there are dozens of pages for small bands and one-hit-non-wonders while this page is finding considerable resistance. I'm sure you try to discourage those small entity writers as well, but I really just hope some or all of you actually spend the time to read this company's page and understand that this is a real page, about a real & legitimate company, and with a consistent message throughout. It's got depth and others who are reading it are finding that it's a work of art in itself even though it is yet unfinished (I suppose it never will be due to the beauty of Wikipedia).
Thank you very much for taking the time to read and address this post on your user space.
Cheers, Eduardo
Updated 6:26PM PST: I think you're right about the Quetzalcoatl.jpg File not being Denis Radenkovic's. I didn't see anywhere saying that the image was protected by copyright though but it's best if we delete. I tried deleting it myself but didn't see how or where.
Edegonz (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again! I finished responding to your other 2 questions. On second thought since this image has been downloaded 15,422 does that not make it fair game or do we need explicit permission for usage on Wikipedia?
Thanks! Edegonz (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely no question; we delete it. Even if that blog had permission to host that image, it does not give you the right to claim it is under a creative commons license and redistribute it. The number of people who have downloaded it is not relevant. Kuru (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Understood. I'm backing away now from the idea of having a real, live page on Wikipedia at this moment since I don't qualify yet for question #2 that we have on my user space discussion/talk page. Could you let me keep my page in my local user space (after I re-add it a 3rd time) until I can come up with that information?Edegonz (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
San Antonio task force
Hi! I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas/San Antonio task force. If you want, please join to help improve San Antonio articles. Thanks for your consideration WhisperToMe (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.
Thank you for protecting my talk page from IPs until March 4th. :) - Zhang He (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocking of user 122.109.252.15
Thank you very much for temporarily blocking IP 122.109.252.15 from editing due to vandalism of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill! Kmsom (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Happy Kuru's Day!
 |
User:Kuru has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Social accounting.
Why were the links within the sphere of management accounting deleted today? The links made reference to the page/s where one can find more detailed information upon the subject within the free textbooks. Due to copyright issues, I am only able to link to the material via an external web link. As an accounting instructor I and my students have found the textbooks which I linked extremely useful in gaining further (free) accounting materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toastcard (talk • contribs) 13:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- These link directly to an e-mail gathering service / subscription service. If there is a direct link available, then that might be more appropriate. It is always preferable for you to add your own material here, and use published sources as references. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can see that the Newsletter signup box is now a mandatory field upon the publisher's website whereas it used to be optional. It would appear that the site i first discovered the books http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/books/bookboon/ has remained the same however, with the email box being still optional. Could I link to the materials contained within the books if i linked the the partner site that does not gather e-mail addresses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.58.252.12 (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The Julius Caesar vandal
My pleasure. I remembered him from the last time and realized immediately who he was. He did chose an interesting cast, though - Russell Crowe, James Caviezal, Casey Affleck, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Daniel Craig. I'd probably go see it. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Request for review of my appeal on my Block
Kuru,
A moment ago you denied my appeal of a Block on my account (Joeperez69) even though I hadn't yet WRITTEN my appeal -- I had merely typed a test sentence to test the markup. I'm sorry for taking more of your time, but I believe my excellent editorial record of service justifies a minute more to read my appeal. Thank you. -- Joe Perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.121.164 (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for handling 204.111.65.79. Much appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Machine to Machine
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Machine to Machine. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine to Machine. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Threat left on your page
It's being dealt with here [4]. Ridernyc (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Mcjakeqcool
These users would be added to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mcjakeqcool
AfD nomination of Governance, risk management, and compliance
An article that you have been involved in editing, Governance, risk management, and compliance, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governance, risk management, and compliance. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Darkwind (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Article about a GCSG Ltd
Good afternoon. Couple of weeks ago I have joined wikipedia to contribute to creation of this unusual "book". A week ago I created article about GCSG Ltd. It were deleted (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). It is a pity that article were deleted, becouse article were created for information purposes and it isn't advertisement. I spend couple of weeks time to get all the information from differente sources and would like to ask if it is no possibility to publish article in wikipedia, is it any possibility to get information about a GCSG Ltd back? Does it means that user must save articles separatly from wikipedia in case it will be deleted?
Many thanks in advance for your prompt reply Mindaugas Januska 11:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.100.95.195 (talk)
- I've created a temporary copy at User:Kuru/GCSG Ltd minus the cut&paste of your company's terms and conditions. The article as it stands is complete adcopy with no external, third party references. If you need more information of why this is promotional, please ask. I'll leave it up in my userspace for a week or so; you can create an account of your own if you'd like me to move it there for longer. Please do not create this again in the main encyclopedia in its current state. Kuru (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is the User:Mindukas account yours? That may be a better spot for it to live if so. Kuru (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Why remove without considering content reference?
Hi Kuru, I noted you removed one of the reference left by me on page for FOB (shipping). I wonder why the reference was removed? There are other references which may be less authoritative. The content added is correct and valuable to users. You left the content but removed the reference from where the content was obtained.
Garysimple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.127.140 (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Pls stop removing my edits
If you were objective, you would Note that we are the only retained search firm that does what we Do. That is the Reason why we do Not join AESC, because we do not comply with their stringent guidelines, we are a truly unique Hybrid, and deserve the post juxtaposed the strictly Huge and the boutique (which this site gives short shrift to)...BTW Who made You the Decider? seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infonet100 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm super excited for you and your firm. Please do not add advertisements on general topic pages. If you'd like, I can get you in touch with a competent PR agency. Kuru (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm also interested in a competent PR agency. Please refer me. --203.111.229.246 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I left a question for you on the talk page linked above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Jamen Somasu's edits
Out of interest, why do you not see User:Jamen Somasu's edits as vandalism? That user is clearly making edits that are contrary to conventions laid down by WP:FOOTY, and refusing to stop after repeated requests to do so. Is that not the very definition of vandalism? – PeeJay 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- They appear to be good faith edits, unless I'm missing something. Acting against a consensus, set by a wikiproject or by a group of users, is not overtly vandalism - this looked more like a content dispute. It is, in this case, clearly a one-sided aggressive edit war and he was blocked for it. I'm sure there's quite a bit of history I'm not aware of; football - your football :) - is not my thing. If you're reporting it to AIV, I've got to extend him good faith and I can only act on clear, bad-faith stuff. If there's a complex history, it may be better to report at ANI or someplace where a more complex history can be considered. Alternatively, you can find admins more familiar with the area who can make the more nuanced calls there. Hope that hopes - please feel free to ask follow up questions. Kuru (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
User:9 to 8
Considering that the user's initial complaint was that the definition of "shampoo" required a citation, it seems fitting that you have now "Washed that user right out of our hair." :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Kuru,
This is user ewebb49. I am messaging you on reference to the false information i put on the san jacinto page. I just wanted to tell you i was writing a report for school on Wikipedia and i was just testing how fast vandalism would be fixed. I am sorry if i offended you and i want to apologize as i had not gone back on my userpage since i finished writing the report. Now that i am done, i have bought a book on how to become a good member of Wikipedia and plan to do such that. April 8th, 2010
Executive Search
Hi Kuru,
I see you removed a section named 'Executive Agency' from the Executive Search page.
Despite both filling Executive positions for companies, there is a clear distinction in the respective business models of an Exectuve Search and an Executive Agency.
The text said:
Unlike an executive search recruitment agency, an executive agent works on behalf of top level executives to find them a suitable position of employment.
An Executive agent operates much like a literary agent, a talent agent and a sports agent to source full-time opportunities for its clients by liaising with head-hunters on the executive’s behalf whilst also providing services which could include interim management or non executive roles.
In the UK market, InterExec is the only company offering an executive agency service.
-
The link provided was from Richard Donkin's website, and was an article posted in the Financial Times, arguably the UK's most respected Financial Newspaper.
There is a link to the the article here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2359f3ea-7b0d-11d9-a8c9-00000e2511c8,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F2359f3ea-7b0d-11d9-a8c9-00000e2511c8.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInterExec&nclick_check=1
as well as others to the company: http://www.businesslinedirectory.com/directory/employment/recruitment-and-staffing/interexec.html
May you please reinstate the text, either removing what you see is unfit or adding what you see it fit.
Kind regards
FS61 (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, six months ago. Sorry, there still seems to be no to trivial differences to the manner in which many firms operate. The fact that you've single out a specific firm, and one which you have an apparent conflict of interest with, seems promotional. I don't see any reason to add the text. Feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me as I have obviously failed to make the distinction – apologies.
A headhunter / recruitment consultant is employed and paid by the company (not the employee) that it is providing the search for.
An agent is employed by the employee (not the company). This agent will then work with the headhunters / recruitment consultants but not be paid by them or the employers that they work for.
In the UK there are approximately 4000 headhunters working for companies. An agent provides access to this market – which would be impossible for the individual employee to do. This model is the same as for actors, writers, musicians etc.
By virtue of legal dispensation by the UK’s Government Department of Employment there is only one company that can be paid by the employee . This does not provide them with exclusive rights it’s just that no other company has decided to adopt this business model. We are not trying to promote this company per se but are looking to highlight the fact that there is a fundamental difference between the business model of a headhunter and agent.
I shall also post this on the talkpage of the article as you kindly suggested.
Kind regards
What makes you so good
I see you're a businessman. How do you promote your stuff? What's wrong with putting some links in WikiPedia pointing to some useful information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jansengeorge (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- By providing excellent services to our customers, listening to their feedback, and developing an affinity for our core markets. Spamming community driven online encyclopedias is not in our marketing strategy, if that's what you're asking. If you'd like feedback on whatever transgression prompted this question, please feel free to ask with your original account. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering whay all Filipino shipping companies can have their own page including link to their ccmmercial(!) site. Why not my company? --203.111.229.246 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
impersonating
Blah, that was my fault for misreading the talk page. When I block user "Robert McFictional" for impersonating Robert McFictional, that means that he has a userpage on which he states "I am Robert McFictional and I am a fat ugly dog-molesting loser with a small penis! Hate me! I deserve to be spat on by everyone I meet!", or the like.
I misread "sucks rocks" as "sucks rocks", which is considerably less offensive than some stuff, but was still enough to trip my "insulting someone by stealing their identity" detector.
I've already unblocked; go ahead and explain to him if you want. DS (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
HI.
I was blocked on April 9th for writing on a talk page, which you said were "disruptive edits." I was blocked until this day, the 12th, and I don't understand why. I thought a talk page was where you could write whatever to someone. I did, and you removed it seven times. I put it back and came and saw I was blocked. I don't get this. It was on Anatandrus dude's talk page and I find this unfair... thanks. :\—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.184.13 (talk • contribs)
Sorry!
Sorry for doing the wrong cleanup on the Consultant article. Thanks for catching my error! Libcub (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to know if you got my email in reply to yours
Would like to discuss further, but did not get a reply from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.229.246 (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did; I'm not sure how I can help you with marketing shipping corporations in the Philippines ; it's not exactly my thing. Kuru (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not involved with a shipping company and as far as I know I was the one last replying to your email and expected a reply from you. Don't like this anonymous kind of thing. --203.111.229.246 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi kuru, about your message: " Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Stock market simulator . Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)"
Yes, I think a list of stock market simulators available should be there and in many users asked for it. Many articles have a list of available examples, and I think is very useful. I don't understand the problem with this, as you said it doesn't affect search engine rankings, and I would like the list to be completed by users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximo22 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You are doing a fantastic job
..But I think it might be wise to fully protect user talk:Snigbrook for an hour or so if you can. Thanks --Tommy2010 15:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
He's baccckkkk
Requested deletion
Of this edit if you can for personal reasons. Thanks --Tommy2010 18:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe check this page
Maybe you should check the page Professional_web_designers. This has some commercial external links I guess. --203.111.229.246 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Sb200912
After seeing the deleted content on this user's talk page, I figured it was better off to go ahead and block. Blueboy96 22:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please weigh in – the farce is back and now hippo brought some friends with him. I really appreciate your input. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of management consulting firms
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of management consulting firms, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of management consulting firms. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Jayron32 04:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
how do i prove abinomics.com is a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisabness (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
time keeper
what are the main purpose of the deloper of the time keeper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.208.209 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Question regarding disruptive editor
Hello Kuru, I was advised by User:Thumperward to bring an instance of disruptive editing to yourself regarding User:Hippo43. The page in question is Rangers F.C article regarding an edit that has stood on the page for about as long as the article has existed. The user in question User:Hippo43 has tried to push his pov as fact rather than take any other proposal by myself to try to clarify the statement on the articles intro page. I did not want to start an edit war over this but User:Hippo43 pushed ahead without consensus from other users on the article.
I am also concerned with how the argument was raised as a new user User:Martincolloby brought it up on the artciles talk page and immediately User:Hippo43 joined in on the back of that particular user. User:Martincolloby has since disappeared and has not followed up his initial argument??? I suspect it was a sockpupper of User:Hippo43 to introduce his pov argument to the article to make it seem less opinionated by User:Hippo43.
I would be very greatfull for any help you can lend on this and i am sure User:Escape Orbit would be as well.
Thanks for the help in advance(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
- This is utter nonsense. I've no idea who Martincolloby is, but I didn't need his prompting to remove the inaccurate material Monkeymanman supports. If I'd noticed it without it appearing on the talk page, I would have corrected it without any preceding discussion. As for the rights and wrongs of the content disagreement, I think any sensible person would agree with my view on it - I'd welcome the views of more unbiased editors.
- I don't know how sockpuppetry allegations are handled, but I have nothing to fear. When I am exonerated, I look forward to MMM's apology. --hippo43 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly I am going to apologise to both you and User:Hippo43 for wasting your time, this argument should have been finished with weeks ago, I made both the allegations of opinion driven edits and sockpuppetry very rashly and I have now apologised to User:Hippo43 for doing so. I do not want this to go any further as I am going to take User:Hippo43 word as fact on the matter.(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
List of Enterprise Search Vendors - What should I do please?
Hello, I wanted to add Exorbyte to the List of enterprise search vendors page and I did. I also decided to remove it because I noticed that the addition need to have an article: see history I work for Exorbyte and I don't want to spam Wikipedia which I love and use daily. However, we are growing in significance and I think we have enough history, and technology analysts and media coverage to justify a page like our smaller and often younger competitors PolySpot, Inbenta, Exalead, Brainware, or Sinequa. What should I do? Someone at the company created the Exorbyte article back in 2008 and it got deleted. Have the policies evolved? Here are a list of references I can use for the article: [5] CEO interview Exorbyte partner Relix Exorbyte autocomplete demo use of exorbyte for fast Levenshtein Distance processing Business Week Business Exchange Sound-Ex.de CrunchBase Danicc (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kuru, No answer....? 98.232.241.141 (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry, I totally missed this message. Looking into it now. Kuru (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- The previous article was just a one sentence blurb; it would have been deleted today just as quickly. We try to stay away from press releases, self-published sources, and blogs. I can't really tell if arnoldit is a blog or not; the fact that it is fairly professional and comprehensive and that it is 'repackaged' in the businessweek business exchange link probably makes it fine. I did not find much in my own source search, but my year of high school german was 25 years ago, so I'm limited in my ability to dissect many of the news hits. I'd say go for it, or if you'd like I can put together a draft this week if that would help. Again, sorry for missing your original query - I don't know how I missed that. Kuru (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. The important thing is you did answer and it helps me understand how to proceed. It would help indeed if you have time to put together a quick draft. I did not know there was such a thing as a draft on Wikipedia. Let me know if I need to provide anything.
- Regarding ArnoldIT, that site is in the form of a blog (posts in what appears to be wordpress) but like TechnCrunch for Web 2.0 software, ArnoldIT is a key piece of online trade press of the enterprise search software industry along with SearchTools.com. Thanks fo your advice. Danicc (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Kuru, Can you answer on the draft thing if you have a minute. Thanks!! 75.175.36.4 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Kuru, did you get a chance to help with this? Sorry to keep coming back to you about this. Am I bothering you? Thx - Dan 98.232.241.141 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Kuru, Will you have time to help this week-end? Thanks, Dan 98.232.241.141 (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
International Factoring Association listing on the Asset Based Lending and Factoring (Finance) pages
I noticed that you deleted the external links that I added to the asset based lending and factoring (finance) wikipedia page. The internaional factoring association is my client and is the world's largest factoring association and has a publication called the Commercial Factor. My background is over 20 years of commercial lending, marketing and PR experience. Other associations that asset based lenders and factors below to are the Commercial Factoring Association and others. The CFA has a publication called The Secured Lender which is not added and the ABF Journal is not association related but is subscribed to by most asset based lenders and factors. Please contact me with any questions or to verify that the links I added were good external links for readers who want to learn more about factoring or asset based lending. The IFA is the world's largest factoring association with over 350 corporate members. Linda50Words (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please read our conflict of interest guidelines; this is not a venue to promote your clients. I looked at the links and found little of value that did not require "registration". Thanks. Kuru (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Answer to a warn
Hi Kuru, you have recently sent me that:
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Freemium business model . Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Kuru talk 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
But i have NEVER done something like that... Please re-check that and tell me again.
Thanks, George Chri —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Chri (talk • contribs) 17:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hardblock on 192.251.125.85
I thought I had only blocked unregistered users if that is the port I'm remembering. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into the problem. Your time and assistance are greatly appreciated :) g2g886 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Spam
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SAP_ERP&action=history
Kuru,
If you are going to leave my ver batim quote from my site in place, which also referenced the AUTHORITATIVE German web site that anyone can translate for themselves, why did you remove the reference? I'm a little puzzled by the edits. I would challenge numerous references cited throughout any of the Wikipedia entries around ERP / Tech / IT topics that refer to articles published on ZDNET, etc., because they are plainly not referencing academic source material. They are often opinion, and often not very well supported beyond opinion.
Please explain to me why my reference, which DIRECTLY referred back to authoritative sources was removed when obvious SALES material is still left here (please remove all of the following links and references as well):
OBVIOUS Web Promotion with little or NO value... ^ "How much does SAP costs me?". web-geeks.co.uk. http://www.web-geeks.co.uk/SAP-Intro/sap-cost.aspx. Retrieved 2009-03-08.
External Links:
ERP Expert Free SAP HR Training with 5000+ real time screen shots
Worse still, you reference SAP's BPX community (Business Process Expert) from which I am not only an accepted member, but a regular SAP BPX blogger. I would challenge you to find many others with more experience or exposure.
I have reverted it back to the previous entry, if you wish to remove it again, please take the time to remove the OBVIOUSLY more biased entries that are there now. All of the entries noted above are far more biased and much less authoritative.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.135.19 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are certainly free to challenge any references and sources that other editors have provided on articles. It's a part of collaborative editing. The source you have re-added is a link to what amounts to your own self-published blog entry. If you feel it is supported by primary sources which are reliable, please feel free to add those. We would welcome your participation by cleaning up sources; but not in adding promotional links to your own site. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Removal of references that you have OBVIOUSLY not carefully reviewed - reckless removals
I can appreciate your zeal and efforts, however your time may be a little lacking. If you were to CAREFULLY read through the references you would see that most of them refer directly back to peer reviewed academic studies, and many of them are summaries with explanation of those studies from someone in the industry, specializing in this area, for over a decade and a half. Puzzled and curious because many of the articles that are allowed as references throughout wikipedia come from publications and authors with less industry experience or exposure.
At best the only reference removed from the a piece on Business Process or Software Engineering might be considered although I would dispute that. It is based on my experience doing ERP applications since 1994, and it is also posted on the SAP Business Process Expert site as well (http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/19050). The other entries had peer reviewed academic studies, including quotes and references, for their support.
I'm puzzled, would you remove Gartner references? After all, they are a commercial site but one of the most respected analyst sources in industry. They (like academic journals) charge for thier reports and run a for profit organization. In fact they rarely reference other academic research but are still well respected because of their use of industry analysts with similar experience to mine? What about Gartner contributor and author Michael Doane, who I have worked with and who has referenced me and a number of my quotes in his most recent book (the SAP Green Book) about successful SAP / ERP projects?
So Kuru, what constitutes an expert reference to you?
I have put the references back, please take the time to review them and compare the material to both publications that are often referenced, and to other research outlets like Gartner and you will find at LEAST similar quality and reliability of content. And in the context of the posts themselves there are NO sales pitches. Some articles may reference services at the END of the piece, but that is no different than every other commercial enterprise whether it is a widely accepted publication (like ZDNET) or whether it is Gartner that charges ~$400 for each of their reports.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.135.19 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- As above, you are free to use primary reliable sources which meet our guidelines. You have been asked to stop adding links to your own blog site. Self-proclaimed expert or not, we are not a publisher of original research and we are not interested in your synthesis of other sources. I'm sorry if you are confused about what wikipedia is for. Kuru (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Enterprise Resource Planning - Selective Edits and Selective Removals
Kuru,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning
On the ERP pages, please explain your selective edits of referenced authoritative sources while leaving less respected or less authoritative references in place?
On this page you LEFT pure, unsupported OPINION pieces, including one from a FORUM site no less but removed those that actually have real experience and academic research behind them.
13.^ a b What is ERP?, http://www.tech-faq.com/erp.shtml 4. http://www.erp.com/component/content/article/324-erp-archive/4407-erp.html
I'm puzzled by the selective edits. The whole idea behind Wikipedia is to expand understanding. If you are CAREFUL about reviewing my site you will quickly see that it fills a gap that very, very few sites do (if any). It is written by an insider, who takes the time and effort to review the academic literature (often citing it) and experience and then the peices are written from a CLIENT / CUSTOMER perspective. In other words, the consumer of ERP services and products and how they can get the most from their investments. I'm not sure what your agenda is but for some reason you seem to have been very selective in attacking my referenced articles and materials while leaving other, obviously less reliable materials.
Please explain how you came to the conclusion that other sites were acceptable but my references, including those with peer reviewed academic references were not acceptable?
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.135.19 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are absolutely free to add content to wikipedia which is supported by reliable sources. You are also free to clean up any sources you feel are un-reliable or do not meet our guidelines. Simply linking back to your blog hosted on your consulting site is not acceptable. Kuru (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Would it be considered fishing to do a checkuser? His first edits are sort of weird for a new account. I mean, I don't care one way or the other, I'm just commenting in passing. HalfShadow 19:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's an odd one. I've changed the block to indefinite; he's been copying parts of wikipedia articles to his site, adding google ads, then linking them back as 'references'. That's about as cheesy a spammer as I've ever seen. Kuru (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Suspect he's created another account - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Makebelievee. Moocha (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
comparison of time-tracking software
Hello,
I just would like to know why you removed the addition I have made on the page [Comparison of time tracking software] on monday (software Funkytime, (09:58, 31 May 2010))?
This software appears to me valuable, so as some others you took off in the past (Harvest (14:26, 25 May 2010), Cloud9 (13:49, 10 May 2010), Less Time Spent, 00:20, 28 April 2010) which are quite used, and are valuable solutions for people who want to find time-tracking software.
As a student working on the time-tracking software solutions for freelancers and their efficiency, this wikipage was very usefull for me to start my study, but after a while it seemed to me not updated.
Even if i don't think they are not notable enough for the moment to have their own articles, i think they deserve to appear in the comparison list, don't they? Do you think that the notability level must be the same for a single article or a list?
Thanks,
Mamelune —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamelune (talk • contribs) 08:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I do personally. Otherwise, it just becomes a useless list of promotional junk that cannot be verified by independent sources. The threshold for establishing an article is pretty low for software. Kuru (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kuru
You have sent myself a warning for no reason as others put their companies on the webpage and they dont get told to stop doing something. I do have an active company called Call Catcherz Ltd and it is a company that uses Homeshored Workers - Where does it state come and join us or anything like that - I am merely pointing out just like the other companies on there that we are a Homeshoring Company and we use Homeshoring Agents. Whats wrong with that ??
I have not asked anyone to join us but just wanted to get the message across that companies like ours exist only. Homeshoring is a legitimate Topic and so are the companies that do it.
I have references but I dont know how to put it on and also I have not got a clue what the subscripted numbers actually mean entirely.
I mean I have articles published in the Contact Centre Focus (UK) magazine does this count.
I dont want to get into any trouble as I do really like Wiki and the content within it.
Incidentally we are the biggest Homeshoring Company in the UK.
Regards
Vyper1974 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyper1974 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
green moon
what happened to green moon article--Demomoer (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Changes:
LOG: (cur | prev) 23:57, 9 March 2010 Kuru (talk | contribs) m (13,799 bytes) (Reverted edits by Jaisaacs (talk) to last version by Koavf) (undo) (cur | prev) 13:51, 9 March 2010 Jaisaacs (talk | contribs) (13,784 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 13:47, 9 March 2010 Jaisaacs (talk | contribs) (13,777 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 13:47, 9 March 2010 Jaisaacs (talk | contribs) (13,784 bytes) (undo)
It shows here that you corrected an edit by me on March 9th 2010.
This was a genuine edit of a incorrectly spelt word and I would like to have that change put back.
Also regarding the Microsoft incident, I told you (Wikipedia) that the edit was not done by me, i feared that my account had been incorrectly accessed by someone other than me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaisaacs (talk • contribs) 10:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit appears to have changed the sidebar template to read "no.", which appears to be simple vandalism. You also appear to have incorrectly capitalized psychology. What is the misspelled word you claim to be correcting here? You are responsible for all edits done with your account; if you've lost control of the account, we can disable it for you. Kuru (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
sorry, but I don't understand your message.
Hi Kuru,
Sorry, but I am not very good at the Wikipedia editing. I have read your notes and warning, but I am afraid that I am not sure what I am doing wrong.
I have written my edits down in Word and pasted them into the page that I am working on. I thought that I had included references to all of the citations.
I'm sorry for my newbie question, but I don't want to get banned. Could you please let me know how I can make sure that I make the right edits without breaking Wikipedia rules? I don't understand the warning page.
Again, sorry for the newbie question.
Mark Vze2656h (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please do not make any more edits until you understand this issue - this is critical. You MAY NOT copy material from other sites. You can write things in your own words, but do not simply copy the entire paragraph verbatim - that is simple plagiarism. It appears you're simply copying entire sections of text from the company's website and annual report and dumping them in here. Please do not do that again. Kuru (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Kuru,
I will not do it again. I am sorry that I did not understand. Consider the message received.
Mark
Why block a link to a Scholarpedia entry? Is it placement?
Recently added a link to an entry on "Theory of Constraints" in Scholarpedia - an article by an Academic who has real credentials and a background on the topic. Are links to Scholarpedia content not permitted, or should it simply have been placed elsewhere? Please clarify. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.136.63 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was indeed purely placement; my intent was to move it to an external links section and apply the standard scholarpedia template to it. It appears I was distracted by something during the process and neglected to return. I'll fix it now - thank you very much for the reminder. Kuru (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
American Inventions
Hi Kuru,
There is one user, Burpelson AFB, labeling any concept that has to do with the US as an American Invention. See here and here. This person is reverting reverts without even discussing them. Could you please check?
- Hi Kuru, sorry again. It seems that the user reverted his revert, so it's OK now, thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks for your speedy work at blocking vandals! It really is appreciated! :D --khfan93 02:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Names of Data Mining Vendors
Kuru, I see that you removed a list of data mining software, which I began compiling.
Is it the external links that trouble you? I do think it is appropriate to have a list of software. And other subject have it, eg ERP Vendors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_software_packages
I see the difference is that I added external links. Would you be happier if it just had a list of names, without links?
That is fine with me, I just think that a list is appropriate, and it was intended to be a neutral list of names, not favoring any one company.
Thanks for your help, will look forward to your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T789 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're seeing the problem that crops up; we can't just do a random directory of external links - those will always turn into a spam honeypot (not that such was your intent). Two of the solutions that pop up are finding a source of primary vendors (i.e. a Gartner list) and limiting the list to that, or often it is easier to quality control through a list of internal links to existing articles. It's also more desirable to simply let a category listing suffice, but this can be problematic with software lists. I wouldn't object to an internal list, much like the List_of_ERP_software_packages article you link to. Kuru (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- There already is a link to the appropriate DMOZ category on "data mining software". We should not duplicate this effort in Wikipedia! And in fact, just a few weeks ago, I had to remove an out-of-control link list on this page with lots of spammy, marginally useful links that just kept on growing. See WP:NOTLINK for reasons why Wikipedia does not want to have link lists in articles. See List of computer algebra systems for a more appropriate style of a software list within wikipedia. If you are interested in compiling such a tabular, sortable overview, you could start a new page User:T789/List of data mining software and when it's reasonably complete, move it to the main namespace. --Chire (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
IP hopping vandal
You just blocked IP 207.69.139.147 from an AIV report I made. He's already back with a new IP (207.69.139.147). I've filed a new AIV report, but if you're still around, could you look at it? It's not *quite* as obvious as the last one. Majorclanger (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly looks like the same user; thanks for the note. Kuru (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you sir! (or Madam!) He keeps getting the IPs over and over from Earthlink, so at some point, they'll hopefully all be blocked. Majorclanger (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- And he's back again, as 207.69.139.155 - if you're still around, could you look at it? The Einstein left me a message: [6]. *Sigh*. There's also an AIV report, so if you're not online, it'll probably still be taken care of. Majorclanger (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft
Thanks for the edit on the incomes, I'm a bit out of touch with current standards, and you are indeed correct. RN 14:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Applicant Tracking System
Keen to have Open Source ATS's compared/detailed as they're hard to track down. The open source one linked from this article has just been removed ; ATS revision
- should open source ATS's (and their history/evolution) be compared within the main ATS article, or would a link out to a new topic be appropriate? russh (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're keen on it. The section was removed as a citation to a reliable source was requested more than a year ago and never provided. You can read our policy on reliable sources for details on what can be used. If there is sourced material you can provide, feel free. Our confilct of interest guidelines will also be of note in your case. Kuru (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
there was a citation in second edit but the linked site disappeared! if there are Conflicts of Interest then fine - someone else do it.. but I have no commercial interests that would conflict - just involved in the open source project for one of the O/S ATS's. russh (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- A link to your project's homepage is not a third party reliable source for the claims you have added. Sorry. Kuru (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I referred to the linuxelectrons.com link;Applicant tracking system citation link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russh (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've reviewed your previous responses and I'll work on a comparison page russh (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Bender176
I think I'm going to AGF here and guess that IP might have been Bender just messing around. After all, there was nothing to provoke that error message -- the sandbox edit was completely innocuous.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Jen Friel?
Kuru, people are saying that this wiki page about Jen Friel is totally legit. I'm thinking it's probably not and needs an expert opinion. What do you think? - Darkbluesun (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's currently nominated for deletion here; looking at the opinions there, the article will soon be deleted. Kuru (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism
Sorry, I mistyped, apologise for the mistake, this was the diff to report. As for reverting I didn't do intentionally as I don't know what part to revert (unless you mean revert all ) - In fact I read 'rat-bag' and I suppose is not a polite term... -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not a problem; thanks for the report. If you wanted to be nice, you can just edit out the attack. In this case, that attack seems to create a pretty questionable intent, so I don't have any problems just reveting out the entire lot of uncited material. :) Kuru (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, but being not I a native speaker I did prefer to leave to someone else the 'hard task' to revert it, am not accustomed to that slang and for this reason I was afraid to cut even useful material off. Thanks for understanding ;-) -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Promotional link
why isn't the site I've been sourcing reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt FJ (talk • contribs) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sources
So why is it ok when I use The Film stage as a source and not We got This Covered, why is one anymore legitimate than the other? Im confused —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt FJ (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Contact Management System
Hi Kuru,
I don't believe your changes properly define what a contact management system. I made the original contact management page a while back and believe that a contact management system should integrate all communications activities that occur in an office. It is not a CRM as that would be managing the relationships a user has with their customers. For this reason, I have made the changes.
As well, another reason why I don't like including CRM into this page is b/c I assumed CRM companies would start adding their examples to the bottom list and this is incorrect as they only perform CRM functions.
What do you think?
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscarpenter25 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Requesting help re: disruptive edits
Duchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:
- "and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
In reality, the sentence said:
- "its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."
Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Vote (X) for Change, etc.
The latest postings at WP:ANI indicate it's not quite so simple, as the guy apparently has a significantly dynamic IP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm looking more at behavior. He does not seem to alter his pattern of edits much; I'm not sure why there was so much discussion about it. If you see another one, let me know. Range blocking some of the large British ISPs is right out, but it's simple enough to block him when he pops up. I blocked the last IP as well. Kuru (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- If wikipedia were to take the bold step of locking down an entire ISP, and say that it's due to these particular individuals, I bet that might trigger some action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Comparison of project management software
You keep deleting all additions of new software to the Comparison_of_project_management_software list because there's no Wikipedia article, but at present because of Notability issues is almost impossible to create Wikipedia articles for "small" (at least I've been unable to add a two year project with tens of thousands of users) project management apps. What solution do you propose to avoid this vicious circle? --Sdepabloss (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's an amazingly low bar for creating articles on buisness entities. If you can't meet that, then adding it to the list seems to simply be promotional - we're not a buisness directory. Once you've acquired independent covrage of your entity, create the article. We're not in a rush. Kuru (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it seems the bar for business entities is up again and it's almost impossible to get a new article, as mine was as good or better than most of the ones linked in the list, and with better "references". I don't think that's bad per se, but I also think that in the web 2.0 world is difficult to get any link more notable than one from Techcrunch, specially if you're based outside of USA, so if JamesBWatson does not accept it my hands are tied. I know it's not you job, but if you could take a look to Teambox you'd see it's a beautiful project - open source, lots of people helping, some companies already using it - and deserves to be in the list, which I think is one of the first resources people look at when searching for a project management solution. Either way, thank's for your time --Sdepabloss (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not a problem; I'll take a look at it this evening or tomorrow. Kuru (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at this, and I'm really struggling to find any reliable sources for an article. Do you have any you could share that are not from a blog, a press release, or a directory listing? There's actually a higher bar here since the article has not been deleted through a speedy deletion, but through the formal AFD process. JamesBWatson deleted the article not because of a notability concern, but because you essentially re-added the same article that was formally deleted by the community. A much better version of the article would need to be created, and that would start with very clear, reliable, third-party resources. If we can't find those, then we need to wait for them to appear. Kuru (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not a problem; I'll take a look at it this evening or tomorrow. Kuru (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it seems the bar for business entities is up again and it's almost impossible to get a new article, as mine was as good or better than most of the ones linked in the list, and with better "references". I don't think that's bad per se, but I also think that in the web 2.0 world is difficult to get any link more notable than one from Techcrunch, specially if you're based outside of USA, so if JamesBWatson does not accept it my hands are tied. I know it's not you job, but if you could take a look to Teambox you'd see it's a beautiful project - open source, lots of people helping, some companies already using it - and deserves to be in the list, which I think is one of the first resources people look at when searching for a project management solution. Either way, thank's for your time --Sdepabloss (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Spamming
I don't understand how I am spamming, you allow me to post other sites on here (eg: The Film Stage) without question and I've seen so many other film blogs on here (eg: Slash Film) so how is it that when I post We Got This Covered it's considered spam?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt FJ (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- As noted in my previous reply to your question, not five sections above this one, I have no idea what "Film Stage" is. If you have a source you feel is being using inappropriately, please provide a link and I'd be delighted to evaluate it for you. Your blog is in no way a reliable source, especially not for adding rumors to articles, especially not those dealing with living persons. I'm not sure I can be more clear: your next addition will result in a block. Further additions will result in the site being blacklisted. Kuru (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Images
Hello Kuru!! I sent the same messege to other admin, but only after i saw that he is vacations... If you can help me, i have a doubt with these images [8] , [9][10], i uploaded then to illustrated the soundtracks wich article, however, someone put out and now wich image is a orphan images...THe same happens with this image... I also read WP:FU, but seeing articles like this one (10 images in fair-use) and this (7 images in fair-use), for exemple, what is the problem with this image...?! :-/ i´am also a Reviewer on PT wikipedia, but i just want only like to be understood in this situation... Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Light Warrior (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Xpsp2windows
Can I get some more information on your block of Xpsp2windows (talk · contribs)? It's not readily apparent who this is supposed to be a sock of from your block message or from his edits. Kuru (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nevermind - I see it in your block logs. Kuru (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- It may be easier to use the "suspected sockpuppets" and "comfirmed sockpuppets" links the sockpuppeteer template on Xpsp2windows provides - all sockpuppets should be listed in those categories. That method may be preferable since my block log will be more difficult to search trough (especially if the block is several days or weeks old). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Why my edits dissapear?
Hi, I have linked some words (procurement) on wikipage to International Procurement Group. Is it forbidden? If so, why do you allow users insert links? And please change your tone while talking to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.165.180 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, you may not hotlink every instance of a keyword to your organization's site as you did here, here, and here. You can read out guidelines on conflict of interests, external links, and promotional activities. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Protection Request
May I ask you to re-protect my user page again? It seems to be attracting IP vandals again.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
help required for a newbie
Hi Kuru
i noticed that you recently deleted an entry of mine in the treasury risk management wiki page.I made that entry so that some of the more day to day terms that risk management professionals use is brough to light and so that when going thru treasury contracts and risk management proposals a person who is not an MBA or a masters graduate and a newbie to reading these contracts is at ease. Now these are standard text book definitions which i think should not be played around with as it causes a change in meaning.Since there are a lot of books for which citations is extremely difficult i chose to refer it to my Professors blog who is quite revered in this field.But i think it came across as plagiarism to you. Could you please help me in understanding and perhaps improving the manner in which i edit so that this does not happen in the future.
Simarjitsinghsuri (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Simarjit
- Okay, the first problem: I don't mean to be harsh, Simarjitsinghsuri, but it wasn't just that it "came across as plagiarism"; you just cut and pasted five or six paragraphs straight from your professor's blog. That's plagiarism and a violation of the copyright set up by your professor publishing his thoughts. We cannot do that, and please do not do it again. Use your own words and cite references for everything, just as if you were writing a paper for school.
- The second problem is that you'll need better references. Your professor's blog will not be acceptable, but if he's published peer-reviewed papers or has been published then references to those works would be fine. Obviously, any textbook is fine as well.
- Third, you seemed to be adding a "glossary of terms" to the article. In this medium, it is better to have an article for the term if it is a notable concept and simply link to it when the term is used. For example, there is already a large article on proprietary trading. Instead of repeating the information on the treasury page, add double brackets around the term when it is used and people can just click through to the definition. Hope this helps. Kuru (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
RA revision #376281397 decline
Could you please explain to me the reason for reverting my revision #376281397. BCDA is an effective tool in RA as are prototyping, use cases, JRD, etc.
Thanking you,Telemmoshe (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad it's an effective tool. I'm not sure why you're adding it to the article's lead section, which should be fundamental aspects of requirements analysis. If you could acquire some references that are independent of your own primary papers to support the claims, adding a sections on notable variations may be a better idea. Kuru (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Deletion in Wealth Management and Private Banking
Hello Kuru,
I have seen that you have deleted citations with the source MyPrivateBanking Research with the reason "blog source". This is actually not the case and I would appreciate if you consider the following information on the source:
MyPrivateBanking is not a blog, but an independent research company on financial topics (primarily on Wealth Management, Private Banking, Passive/Value Investing), which over the years has published numerous reports and hundreds of research-driven articles on this research topics.
Our research is highly respected and considered reliable by industry experts as proven by the manifold articles on and references of our research in the worlds leading media such as Bloomberg, Businessweek, Dow Jones Financial News and also all the Top-Media in the German speaking countries auch as Handelsblatt and Frankfurter Allgemeine. MyPrivateBanking is also regulary quoted in industry specific media such a Wealthbriefing, Private Banker International, Banking Business Review and Finews and the leading journalists in our field are frequently calling us to get our opinion on Wealth Management/Private Banking developments. Please be so kind to check the coverage of myprivatebanking in the media on our website http://www.myprivatebanking.com/MEDIA/in-the-media/ where links to a selection of articles written on MyPrivateBanking Rresearch published by the media mentioned above. MyPrivateBanking also has a permanent link in the "What we are reading"-Section of the Financial Times Blog http://blogs.ft.com/ftfmblog/.
The sources for the citations in the wiki articles were articles and research reports written by experienced analysts in the field of Private Banking/Wealth Management/Investing based on primary research (such as e.g. the report on the performance of equity funds or minimum investments for private banking accounts). I have looked at various wikipedia artciles in the field of Private Banking/Wealth Management/Passive Investing and have seen quite a lot of information and/or references missing, therefore have added selected information and references for the readers benefit. Again, MyPrivateBanking is not sponsored by any company, takes no advertisments and is a highly respected source in the industry and media on topics of wealth management and investing.
I actually had a smiliar discussion with a fellow member "Themfromspace", who given the risk of spamming understandably had at the beginning similiar concerns on the reliablility of the source MyPrivateBanking. After checking our credentials Themfromspace came to the conclusion that MyPrivateBanking is trustworthy. Please check our discussion on his discussion page page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Themfromspace, Posting "Reasoning for posting of now deleted entries". I would appreciated if you agree with his judgement and revert the deletions.
Best,
Christian ChrisNolte01 (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisNolte01 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Christian, you clearly have a conflict of interest with this site. As I noted on the IP that was adding these links, it would be a much better idea to cite this material to other reliable sources. Most of the "articles" you have been linking to are short with no citations to primary research or indications of the actual authors. I don't see any indication of wide publication or editorial control; for all intents and purposes this appears to simply be some kind of self published blog. Since you're here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and not to add promotional links to your own cite, I'm sure you have no problem with using other sources, correct? Kuru (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kuru,
Thanks for your quick response and I am happy to address your question, because I absolutely have no problems using other sources as long as other reliable sources are existing.
I think the main misunderstanding is that MyPrivateBanking is a blog. We indeed have a blog, were we do what usually is done in a blog: Pick information from other sources and comment on them. However, I have not done a single link on our blog posting, but only on our primary research. Because we are not an information aggregator but an provider of exclusive and primary information and research !
And this is actually the reason why for most of the citation I can not offer you other sources, because MyPrivateBanking is the primary source for the information integrated in the wiki and these information are based on primary research performed by our researchers and analysts. The articles I have linked to are not written “out of the blue”, but almost all based on primary research we have done. In the articles the respective research studies are mentioned and linked to and if a reader is interested in more in-depth information he/she has free access to the studies. And to answer your other concern: All studies have name and picture of the author and as well a detailed description of the methodology.
Our studies and guides are exclusive primary research, because the are based on surveys, interviews, mystery shoppings our analysts have done. We are working with the same model and code of conduct as companies such as Gartner and Forrester Research (For the later the founders of MyPrivateBanking actually worked in several senior positions) . We have not started a blog, but a research venture. We applied the same high standards we have experienced and executed at Forrester to our research: Independence, primary research, in-depth analysis and clear calls. And this is the reason why top financial media are covering and citing our research.
I appreciate that you kept most of the information I have added to Wiki articles and agree with me, that the add value and enrich the information for the reader. I would suggest that I briefly go through the keywords were you have deleted the references to MyPrivateBanking and give a brief explanation to why I can not offer other sources. And if indeed there is an alternative I have done several suggestions for citations.
Mutual Funds, Passive Management, Total Expense Ratio
For these keywords I have posted a link to the summary of the results of our analysis of equity funds from 2004 to 2009, that given their value-added information you also kept in the article. I can not offer another source, because this was a study done by us. I think the particular value of this study was, that it had a clear approach to the selection of fund providers are analysed (the 15 largest) and a very international outlook, since we analysed the funds for the US, Asian, European and global equities. The analysis of the fund performances and as well Total Expense Ratios is our exclusive, primary research. For readers interested in more details (Author, Methodology, Results per Region) a link to the free study is set in the article. Our approach and analysis was unique and very thorough and therefore got featured among others in Bloomberg, Dow Jones, Handelsblatt, Institutional Investor. Please feel free to add or replace with an alternative source providing the same kind of primary data if you can find one. I have not found any comparable supporting material.
Wealth Management
In this Wiki Article I have added a reference to the sentence where the various types of wealth management providers are described. You actually kept the need for citation and I fully agree. My reference was to our directory of wealth managers worldwide, which are not only lists the providers by country, but also offers further information on the type of manager, the assets under management etc. These information were researched entirely by our analysts, various times checked by senior editors and can all be verified by annual reports, websites etc. of the providers. All information are first-hand. In my opinion it is a clear value-add for the reader, to be able to see what are the providers actually looked like that are described only in general in the sentence. Again: These database is only available on our site. I honestly can not provide you with another freely available source with this scope and detail. For this reason the database was featured in the Wall Street Journal. Please feel free to add or replace with an alternative source providing the same kind of primary data if you can find one. I have not found any comparable supporting material.
Swiss Banks, Banks, Private Banks
I have added information on an important feature that was missing so far in the description of a Private Bank: The minimum investment amount, and not only in the past, but also as of now since the market is changing rapidly. I have done a link to an article based on information we got during a Reuters Wealth Management Conference we attended in Geneva. Indeed, that was no exclusive information since more researchers and journalists have attended the conference. I have no problem at all if you feel more comfortable in using other sources which covered these conference and suggests the following link for all the “Citation needed” you added to my entries on Private Banks: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5954D820091006
Private Banking
For the citation needed on the minimum investment amounts in Private Banking I also suggest the above link. The other information I added was on the pricing models in private banking, which I consider an important information and you also kept it in the entry. The article on our site I linked to is a part of our guide on wealth management costs which is for readers interested is freely available and has all required details. These guide is based on a survey we have about 18 months ago for which we did a mystery shopping study with the 20 largest Private Banking Providers worldwide, where we got first-hand information on investment proposals, pricing models and price list. These study is freely available for readers interested in details. Again: These was primary research done by us and covered by top media. I can not offer another reliable, independent and up-to-date source for this information
Market Timing
I have added results of our above mentioned mystery shopping study that clearly shows, that also financial advisors are not immune to market timing. In my opinion a very valuable information for readers. The reference was linked to an article analysing why we our research of investment proposals showed that a lot of financial advisors tried to time the market. If a readers wants to dig deeper as mentioned above the study is freely available for readers. I can not offer you another source for this interesting finding, since only we did such a study, visited 20 wealth managers several times and analysed their proposals.
Warren Buffet
I have added information on a in my opinion significant deal Warren Buffet did in 2009, because so far several deals were listed in the Wiki, but not the investment in Goldman Sachs. I linked it to an article of us which actually covered various of his moves he did in 2009. If you feel more comfortable with a different source and one that only talks about the Goldman Sachs deal I suggest http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB122256922970483051.html
ETFs
I have added information and a so far missing reference on exotic ETF. So far no reference was given and you also kept the information. My reference was on an article we published specifically on the risk of exotic ETFs, where we not only provided some general remarks, but listed various types and their specific risks. In my opinion a clear value-added for a reader interested to find out more on the risks of exotic ETFs. And if he is interested to find out more about what to watch for he has free access to an entire study on this topic. And most important in this case: We are neither an issuer of funds of ETFs and have no “hidden agenda”, what clearly distinguishes us from other, often sponsored articles on the risk of ETFs. Please feel free to add or replace with an alternative source providing the same kind of primary data if you can find one. I have not found any comparable supporting material.
Value Investing
I have added information on the very profitable outcome of Warren Buffet´s value investing in financial crisis. In consider this an important information, because during crisis value investing shows its particular advantages. I am happy to use another source, however, have not found an article summarising the results in a similar way. If you have a better source this would be fine for me.
Offshore Bank
I have added information on the recent development of offshore money in Switzerland. I think this is a very important addition to demonstrate the impact of changes in the regularly environment on offshore banks and destinations. I linked to an article where we analysed data of the Swiss National Bank. Besides the fact that I think the article provides a solid and well-summarized analysis the data of the Swiss National Bank is possible to do a direct link to the data of the Swiss National Bank. First of all it is written in German and second of all it is spread over various publications. Consequently I do not see why these information should be rather without a reference then with one to our analysis.
I think these were the keywords were you deleted MyPrivateBanking references and I appreciate the time you take to consider my above mentioned arguments. As outlined for most of the information I added to the Wiki and also accepted by you as value-added information MyPrivateBanking is the only source. As a matter of fact it is difficult to find any other reliable sources, because MyPrivateBanking is the first independent research venture worldwide on wealth management and private banking topics. Of course in general a lot of research is published, but either directly by banks, wealth managers of product issuers or from media depending on ad revenues by these players. As a consequence the independence and primary research focus is mostly missing.
MyPrivateBanking is the source widely respected in the field, with our own primary research following the highest standards and as a consequence referred to in a wide range of top media (which absolutely certain would not do a single reference to a “blog”). I hope my reasoning allows you to consider re-establishing MyPrivateBanking as the reference for all the addition to keywords, where we have done the primary research for and are the only source.
Best,
Christian 84.227.54.205 (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- You clearly have a huge conflict of interest, and it is also clear that www.myprivatebanking.com is a very questionable source. As has already been said to you if you really want to improve articles I recommend using sources that have no relation to you. Ridernyc (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Christian, my primary concerns have not yet been alleviated. The links you added lead to short, opinion based commentaries with no indication whatsoever of authorship or source. I saw no real research anywhere; at least not anything passing the analytical rigor accepted in your field - methodologies, assumptions, scope, results, etc. I only saw what appears to be a blog like teaser; perhaps this is based on your commercial work product. I'm afraid at this point it seems that you are only here to promote the work of your consultancy; I'd be delighted to move the individual conversations to the "keywords" you indicated above (please don't use the term keywords; that's a tip off that SEO is at work). I would ask that you refrain from adding any future links to your site; as Ridernyc notes above, the conflict of interest and motive is too great here. Kuru (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Soccer (disambiguation) edits
Please note that I was inserting citation required tags . I am not sure why that should be objectionable. Anyhow Materialscientist seems to have made an appropriate edit of the sentence which had no basis in fact. If you look at Australia discussin you will see that setain editors object to the use of "Association football" to describe the code rather than the increasingly pejorative "soccer". In Australia "soccer" is used as a dismissive term much in the same way as "kid" is used instead of "child" etc. Silent Billy (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Also I am unsure why you should threaten me with being banned or whatever without a full explanation. Silent Billy (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In fact is that what an admin is supposed to do - immediately threaten a ban without taking some time to investigate what is going on? Silent Billy (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- My interest in football/soccer is stereotypical for an American; I really don't care about your content dispute. What I care about is the edit warring; you've been given a simple warning that a series of reverts without actual discussion will result in a temporary block. Kuru (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well what I trying to get an answer to is how is a request for citations in any way the wrong thing to do. I have had plenty put on articles I have contributed to. What I do is try to find the citations. Is that not what you should have told Bidgee to do? Silent Billy (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- So in that event why did you chip me for doing the right thing and not boot him for a bit for bullying tactics (ie threatening me with being banned without foundation? Silent Billy (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I must have missed the part where I said "you were doing the right thing". You were both edit warring over good faith edits; there was no vandalism there. I'm glad Materialscientist was able to resolve the issue that the two of you could not before either of you broke WP:3RR. Kuru (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure you are fit to be an Admin? I would say not as you did not properly investigate the issue before making a threat. Have a look at the change history for the Soccer redirect page. You will get a flavour of what this is all about. Silent Billy (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
79.75
Keep in mind that J1mj4m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first edit was a fake "unblock" of the 79.75 user. J1mj4m is either a sock of 79.75, or is a sock of "Light current" who's trying to impeach 79.75. Or both. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- He's certainly no sock of mine, and I am no sock of LC. Kuru, if you read the message I posted on BB's talk page, you will note that unless I get an apology any time soon, you'll have a lot of blocking to do. 79.75.131.158 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- N.B. I apologised to the IP on someone's behalf. I can't be bothered working out on who's behalf, just like I couldn't be bothered checking that I got the "apologise" button and not the "block" button. TFOWR 17:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- It appears that LC has switched tactics from sarcasm to righteous indignation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- N.B. I apologised to the IP on someone's behalf. I can't be bothered working out on who's behalf, just like I couldn't be bothered checking that I got the "apologise" button and not the "block" button. TFOWR 17:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You're fast!
I removed an ambiguous link to CMO then 5 minutes later realized there was an appropriate article. When I went back to fix it, you had already done so. Thanks for your speedy work. Robsavoie (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Request for Editing/Suggestions on Harbour Results
Hi Kuru - I'm looking for feedback on an article I'm writing. I was wondering if you'd be willing to provide some ideas on how I could improve it for publishing. I'd really appreciate your help! The link to the subpage is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eisbrenner/Harbour_Results Thanks. Eisbrenner (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Eisbrenner
User:Balagonj786
User:Balagonj786 began to edit again the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. page. Balagonj786 was banned many times for distorting the accuracy, neutrality, spelling and grammar of this page. Furthermore, Balagonj786 refused to cooperate with other Wikipedia users and he still insist his own version of the page. And now, after he has been blocked, he is still doing this. Can you please ban this user again and revert the page back to what it was before he edited it? Because everytime a concern Wikipedia user trying to fix it, Balagonj786 and his apprentice Jailbreaker212 still insist their own version. Thank you very much.
(You can delete this section after you read this message. Thank you very much.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughn (talk • contribs) 02:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Editing Noah Lowry
I took your lead and tried to constructively remove other poorly sourced, untrue, or unneccesary information. Thank you for your note.
Thine Tyrone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.0.43 (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
GeoCities cleanup worklists
I'm still awaiting your answers. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Rollback remove
How come I clearly abused the rollback? Maybe I should settle down before I can be a rollbacker again, but I have to understand: sometimes I'm crazy, and I have to be honest that I am a 12th grader in a U.S. high school who is autistic since I was born...
I want to say sorry to the IP address I was arguing about. Maybe I should cool down a little bit. Is there any suggestions, and how I can get my rollbacker status back? Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Kuru, I thank you for stepping in and providing your input. I hope that you'll understand that I am sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Minna, I'm assuming Kuru is referring to this edit where you rolled back a legit question on a talk page. Be very hesitant to revert anything on a talk page. One problem with rollback is that you don't leave edit summaries, and a lot of the rolling back you do really should have an edit summary. Use "undo" instead and use an edit summary, please. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I understand; I've certainly been there. We have to be very careful about the use of rollback - it is only for use with obvious vandalism - basically where no sane person would disagree with a comment-less reversion of text. In this case, that IP is actually a long term good faith user who simply does not want an account. There are quite a few of them out there if you look for them. I know there is a tremendous amount of goofy vandalism coming from IPs, and it makes you want to revert them on sight, but we still have to assume good faith and try to puzzle out the meaning behind edits that are not perfectly clear. In this case, he was trying to communicate the reason for his edits, and was being reverted instantly. That's not helpful. Try editing for a few days and slow it down, and we can restore the rollback function. I won't forget. Kuru (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I'll just settle myself down for the weekend and participate in Articles for deletion discussions, which are quite fun for me. Hopefully in the early part of next week I'll be back; maybe I'll also use Lupin's anti-vandal tool as it slows me down and gets me better accuracy. Also, the Huggle automated vandalism-reverting software seems to be automated, and sometimes I cannot get a handle of reverting vandalism efficiently, so maybe it's better I'll try to use Lupin's tool to revert vandalism. Any suggestions?
Bigtopみんな空の下 (トーク) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)- What a mess here. Take a look at this - I reverted it with Lupin's tool! Hope this was interesting in your favor, as it was some kind of absolute, indisputable nonsense made by an IP. [11]
Bigtopみんな空の下 (トーク) 20:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)- (edit conflict) Twinkle is another good slow anti-vandalism tool. - Donald Duck (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still pretty old school. The only "automated" tool I use is a macro for selecting from a handful of common warning templates and two or three block messages. It forces me to slow down and look at the situation. Keep in mind that the role you're playing is 'content protection'; slowing the pace of vandalism. You have to be mindful that the role cannot be executed at the cost of 'content creation', and you have to be careful of not stepping on the toes of others doing the same anti-vandalism work. Working with IP editors can be very tricky - you can clearly see all the silly and obvious vandalism coming in from unregistered editors, but you miss the rather large volume of good edits coming in from the same because they do not trip the "possible bad edit" filters. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that most of the content comes from IPs. Just be careful to evaluate edits without stereotyping based on them being a new user or an IP; especially when dealing with WP:BLPs (not that it was a factor here). I've also been guilty of assuming bad faith; in fact, I'm honestly becoming quite jaded after working with some of the truly malicious vandals and socks. It's one of the reasons I tend to stay away from new changes patrol these days... Bottom line; the tools don't matter, just don't get into a pattern of not thinking. Kuru (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- What a mess here. Take a look at this - I reverted it with Lupin's tool! Hope this was interesting in your favor, as it was some kind of absolute, indisputable nonsense made by an IP. [11]
- Maybe I'll just settle myself down for the weekend and participate in Articles for deletion discussions, which are quite fun for me. Hopefully in the early part of next week I'll be back; maybe I'll also use Lupin's anti-vandal tool as it slows me down and gets me better accuracy. Also, the Huggle automated vandalism-reverting software seems to be automated, and sometimes I cannot get a handle of reverting vandalism efficiently, so maybe it's better I'll try to use Lupin's tool to revert vandalism. Any suggestions?
- I think doing those fast automated systems like Huggle isn't for me. I think I'm ready to be a rollbacker again, but maybe Huggle seems a bit too fast for me - even though most of the vandalism I want to revert gets taken by Huggle users (such as L Kensington, which personally for me I don't like despite that he's been in Wikipedia since only this July!), and especially that I am going to start my senior year in high school that will require me to get studying in both my school curriculum and the SAT (which I am about to retake), I can still be a rollbacker but with Lupin's tool. That tool, unlike Huggle, might not find all vandalism, but it really requires me to warn separately just in case I reverted accidentally what it appears to be not vandalism. みんな空の下 (トーク) 00:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Understood - I've restored rollback. Please be more careful in the future. Kuru (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
A bit of help please
[Cross-posting to admins with prior involvement.] Regarding User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels. I have to strenuously protest the block with the rationale of being a Karmaisking sockpuppet. I think I might have been the one to request the Karmaisking SPI, but even at that time I made pretty clear that the "Camels" user had no discernible behavioral likeness to Karmaisking: User_talk:MuZemike/Archive_5#User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels. The SPI clerk at the time seemed to have less-than-concrete evidence, though you may be privy to other details. If there are IP similarities, then it's possible they may be IRL friends or some such, but I've become extremely well-acquainted with Karmaisking and really do think User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels should be exonerated. If for no other reason than WP:ROPE, I ask for an unblock for the editor. BigK HeX (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, and I am privy to the same information you are. I tried to assist this user and received some intentionally cryptic and unhelpful responses. I cannot waste my limited time here with those who do not want to be helped. Sorry. Kuru (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there.
Did I do something wrong here? - Donald Duck (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Request.
I'm not sure how the IP address added it, but I don't want all the white there, I just want the normal text format, but I can't figure out how to fix. Do you think you could fix it? - Donald Duck (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those big white boxes with the dotted lines around them? That's a fixed proportion format that happens whenever you begin a line with a space. Just remove the spaces from the beginning of each line and it will format according to the defaults you set up for your talk page. Kuru (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! - Donald Duck (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I am seeking help.
My Huggle rights were suspended for six months by DGG, which I think is unfair. Will you please take a look into it and see if anything can be done? For more information, you can check my AN/I section or my talk page. Thanks in advance! - Donald Duck (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've read through the ANI section and the applicable diffs. To be frank, I concur with DGG's response. Once that section started you should have throttled way back on your reverts and warnings to ensure that no other mistakes were made; instead you seem to have made more obvious errors. The repeated re-insertion of copyvios alone could have lead to a block - the long term problem that DGG and others noted instead was that your usage of automated tools was leading to quick and incorrect decisions. I would suggest you apply your efforts manually for a while, and then discuss re-activation with DGG directly after a month or so. Take ownership of the problem; stop worrying about the personalities of others and listen to what they are saying. Kuru (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the good advice. I will use Twinkle for now, as it's a slow anti-vandal tool and time can be taken to review said edit better. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
RE: Trader edits
no prob. 69.116.236.229 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Ad-Aware Adding ADS .
I have been courteous , I have used the discussion page . It is sad people are ganging up on me . All for stating the fact Ad-Aware spouts adds since the last few releases. This is not an opinion , this is solid fact . Sources are added in the article , even statements from employees.
It's a sad day that small contributers get harassed like this.
Did you even take the time to read the dicussion , take a look at the pictures linked there , than read the source link posted in the main article?
Do me a favor , and instead of simply blanking out , try wording it in a way that you would deem acceptable for wilipedia. We both know what I am saying on there is nothing bot fact.
83.101.79.121 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Mmavipc
You blocked him a year and a half ago; now he's requesting unblock and says he's grown up. Any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Last edit 30th Aug 2010
Hi Kuru, I can see, U have made an Undo to my last edit on your page (IRM- Information rights management). I respect your consideration of removing unbound list of external links, but You could have left the names of organizations which are working on IRM and DRM solution. That wasn't any kind of advertisement. It was difficult to get all those informations and were really valuable to viewers. I strongly believe that It is necessary to mention some names.
regards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitpradhan18 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Autoblocked
I think that did it. Thanks |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Sophie Shapiro
Hello, I would like to know why you deleted the article about Sophie Shapiro?Savedon (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- The article was tagged for deletion by another editor because it did not indicate why the subject was notable; I reviewed the tag, agreed, and deleted the article. There were no sources, and lines like "It really is a pleasure to view her fabulous work" make it promotional as well. Kuru (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!
Thanks for your help with my CSD here is something for your troubles!
Wolfnix has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Douschbag
I don't know how, but I think I inadvertantly recreated this article by tagging it for deletion. Could you find out what happened? --Confession0791 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Hey thanks for undoing the auto-block. Cheers man —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwightschrute1010 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You protected this page over a year and half ago, making it impossible for IP editors to communicate with this user. I think the reason for the protection is likely no longer a concern. Would you either ask if protection can be lifted or pass on a message for me? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- As good a time as any to test the waters there; done. Kuru (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. To be more clear, the anon. repeatedly removed information from the article without explanation, and changed correct information so that it was no longer accurate. He did all of this, apparently, because he simply felt he knew better. All I did was restore the article to the stable version. For all his crowing about their being no sources, you will notice that he never added any sources himself for the changes that he made. Yes, the article is a mess, needs copy-editing, sourcing, and the removal of POV. But, the article is not improved by an anonymous editor who makes dubious changes and responds with personal attacks when asked to stop and explain his changes. But, yes, I should have initiated a talk page discussion rather than continuing to template him. Problem is, I got irked and did not think straight. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Si, I've walked into this myself when removing uncited nonsense from articles and someone points out that most of the article is unreferenced. Good luck sorting it out! :) Kuru (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's rather a never ending problem. But, we have to start somewhere and keep plugging away at it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Another anti-IP editor
There's currently a thread on my talkpage in which another editor is attempting to claim that IPs are not allowed to participate in AFDs. Would you care to chime in and set this clueless one straight? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be resolved. For future reference, WP:AFD calls it out rather explicitly with "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion", followed by a provision that their opinions may be "discounted" (mainly targeted to the no-so-uncommon SPA flood). Kuru (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking it out. I suppose that referring to the actual project page could have worked also, but then I would have missed another amusing dialogue with Drmies. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Financial literacy links
Dear Kuru,
You have accused me of spamming for adding a link to my non-profit organization's website. Decision Partners provides financial literacy programs to hundreds of universities and medical schools. How is it spamming to link to a legitimate organization that serves over 100,000 students per year? What does an organization need to do to meet your standards?
Thanks,
Austin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.41.98 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see no resources at that link other than promotional material for your products. If there is anything available without registration (see WP:ELNO #6), then please link directly to it. No, you may not add a link simply to promote your organization, as it appears you have from multiple IPs. Kuru (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Ultimate Career Guides, Inc.
Hi Kuru,
This was the first time I have posted on Wikipedia. I know understand how the system works and why it works this way. Thank you.
I am an honest person and want to update the post to a much more "objective display of information" way.
Below is my updated version for "Ultimate Career Guides, Inc.". I don't know how to re-post this, so please help if possible. Thank you kindly.
Ultimate Career Guides, Inc. is a provider of interview preparation and information for professionals and students who are pursuing or managing their career opportunities.
The company created popular "flash-card"-type mobile apps (for iPhone, iPad, iPod and Android) of the most common interview questions for jobs ranging from finance to students, as well as creating a brainteaser app.
The company was founded in 2010 by a former Goldman Sachs employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.brian.holland (talk • contribs) 04:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Brian - the first step in the process would be to add reliable third party references that support the statements in your article. Without those, we cannot exercise our policy on verifiability, nor can we test this against our notability guidelines. Language non-neutral language such as 'popular' should also be avoided. You may want to also read our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Amazing Mr. Blunden
Thanks, I didn't realise I'd left my sig there :) Red Fiona (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Question on removal of bookMyHours
Hi Kuru,
We had added a link to bookMyHours SaaS product on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_time_tracking_software and also created a page for the bookMyHours product information. To our surprise, both the page and the reference on the comparison sheet seem to have been deleted. Could you let us know the reason and how we can make a better entry to stay in the comparison sheet?
Regards | Vikas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhazrati (talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I removed it from the comparison article as the criteria for inclusion there is that the product must at least have an article on wikipedia. Your article was deleted by another administrator as a purely promotional addition. I've reviewed the deletion and concur with his assessment. You can try to create the article again, but please stick to material that is covered in third party sources, and completely avoid any promotional language (rc: "entering timesheet was never so easy"). Thanks. Kuru (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for responding to my unblock request so quickly! --PresN 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I understand rule but he/she is an interwiki puppet who are committing interwiki vandalism. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really care about disputes at other wikis; his actions here are all that I can evaluate. At the moment, I can see no overt vandalism - only a simple edit war between two editors. Please not not engage in edit warring and continue the discussion on the article's talk page before anything else. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Kuru, in the article Hakkari, it is written that Assyrians were killed by the Kurds. Takabeg said that it was not kurds but turks who killed assyrians in this regions. But (he knows that) there are and were no Turks living in this regions now and before. I said OK if you put a referance you can write that Turks have killed assyrians. 10 minutes later, he put a book as a referance but there is no motion about Hakkari at the page he gives. This is vandalism !--82.236.107.61 (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
AfD of article you worked on
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate behaviour. Borock (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Will you please block the editor who keeps vandalizing ABC Kids (US)?
Will you please block the editor who keeps vandalizing ABC Kids (US)? He's very annoying!! AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- He was blocked for a month before I saw this; my apologies. If he continues after that or shifts IPs, please let me know. I'm sure it must be frustrating for you; I've seen a rather disturbing amount of "disney" and kids show long term disruptive editors. I don't know if it's the same ones over and over, or if that genre just attracts it. Kuru (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I got stuck in an edit conflict and wasn't able to decline this before you accepted it. I'm not convinced there isn't some sort of socking going on here based on checkuser evidence; you may want to look over the questions I just left this user there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh. Yes, that's a pre-sock farm he was setting up. I've no doubt the "Otta" account was set up for an eventual block evasion (as he hinted at in the previous block) and I would not have supported unblocking it. The other accounts are unfortunate. Will comment there. Kuru (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I just reverted another vandalism at Brattleboro, Vermont by this user. Would you like to give him a little longer to think about it this time? Thanks, . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Quick question
Was this block based on my ANI report? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, someone posted a block request at AIV for repeated removal of a copyvio tag. I noticed one warning for possible sock activity and the behaviour of the three accounts matched (as did the name pattern). I did not notice the discussion at ANI; will follow up there as needed. Kuru (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I had noticed the weird activity as well, but was unsure how to proceed. There is also a User:11alatham that is part of this same group of throw-away accounts. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sweet; same behavior, same warnings, so blocked as clear sock. I posted an update at ANI jsut to be transparent. Thanks!
- Perfect! I imagine there may be other 'x'alatham accounts popping up. I'll let you know if I come across any. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sweet; same behavior, same warnings, so blocked as clear sock. I posted an update at ANI jsut to be transparent. Thanks!
- I had noticed the weird activity as well, but was unsure how to proceed. There is also a User:11alatham that is part of this same group of throw-away accounts. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Banking BPO Services
Hello again - not sure what your direction is on last post. Are you requesting that I change title to more commonly referenced "Financial Services BPO" or offer validation of title. AND with some revision will this page post? thanks for direction
Blocked
Kuru, can you explain to me what I should have done differently? Thanks.SpecialKCL66 (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly. Conclude the discussion on the article's talk page before continuing to revert the article itself. Once you realized the edits were in dispute, stop re-adding them - even if you're right, even if someone else acting in what you feel is an uncivil manner. If you can't get to a compromise or a conclusion on the talk page, there are a variety of dispute resolution methodologies on Wikipedia that can help resolve conflict. No, it's not perfect, and yes, other people will game the system. I know this is frustrating, and I know it all seems like an absurdly bureaucratic mess when you know you're right, but it's just not possible to have such a massive number of editors, all with free rein, playing in the same sandbox without a bit of process. Yes, the process bogs down; especially on articles that a highly contentious, but we're not on a schedule. I'm sorry if this block of text seems patronizing, but I've just watched too many of these conflicts act themselves out in the past. If you have more specific questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Kuru (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I'm not complaining about the beauracracy, I totally understand it. What I don't get is that I thought I was following the rules to a T. What I don't understand is that I was the one who was trying to get the other guy to stop re-adding his edits, which I was contesting, and to discuss it on the talk page. Yet I was blocked and he was not. For the life of me I still can't figure out how that worked out. Obviously you were just reviewing my unblock request, rather than the original 3RR report that I filed against the other guy, so I'll have to talk to Looie about that.
- But more specifically, you wrote in the unblock denial:
- Decline reason: "I'm not sure why you've labeled your edit at 7:30 as "restore" as opposed to "reverted the immediately preceding edit by an editor you are at odds with". This does seem clear; if you are still confused about our edit warring policy, I see no reason to believe an unblock would help. Kuru (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)"
- That revert that you're referring to there about was a totally different issue regarding totally different text. How would that count as a 4th revert? I know that some of these rules are necessarily a little vague, but that would seem very odd if that counts as a 4th revert, because that would seem to suggest that someone isn't allowed to make any edits to an article period for 24 hours after 3 reverts, even if it were in a completely different section of the page. Thanks again SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, reverts do not have to be the exact same material each time. It's simply undoing any other editors additions or changes, in whole or in part. Glad I could help. Kuru (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, let me analyze a scenario: Guy X changes the description of Albert Pujols from "large" to "huge." Guy Y objects, reverts. X redoes the edits. Y reverts. X redoes the edit. Y reverts.
- Sorry, reverts do not have to be the exact same material each time. It's simply undoing any other editors additions or changes, in whole or in part. Glad I could help. Kuru (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- That revert that you're referring to there about was a totally different issue regarding totally different text. How would that count as a 4th revert? I know that some of these rules are necessarily a little vague, but that would seem very odd if that counts as a 4th revert, because that would seem to suggest that someone isn't allowed to make any edits to an article period for 24 hours after 3 reverts, even if it were in a completely different section of the page. Thanks again SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- At this point, X gives up, and decides to move on and change the description of Albert Pujols' mother from "old" to "ancient."
- Now X has committed a 3RR edit warring violaton? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- If Y had recently added the material that X is changing, then yes, I'd block for that or protect the article from further changes. Just to make things even more clear, please note that 3RR is simply the "bright line limit" - either X or Y could have been blocked before that if there was a history of edit warring on that article or from either editor. There is no "three revert entitlement". It can be a judgement call which can vary from admin to admin and is quite situational. Many editors limit themselves to "1RR" and will immediately go to the talk page if there is contention. Articles like, oh, controversial political activist groups tend to have many people watching them with hair triggers. That's exactly the kind of place where limiting your reversions would be a really good idea. Kuru (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now X has committed a 3RR edit warring violaton? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well I know there isn't a "bright line" rule and that the admins have tremendous amounts of discretion on this rule, but that's why I'm trying to figure out where specifically I should have done things differently, and why I got reemed by administrative discretion and the other guy got a complete pass. It's surreal to me because the entire time, I was the one trying to discuss it on the talk page before proceeding. So where should I have done things diffently? I mean if the guy makes an edit, and I revert and request to discuss it on the talk page, then it would seem reasonable to me that the other guy should not be reverting a 2nd time until we've resolved something. If he reverts again though, then I either have to report him after he's only made 2 reverts, or I have to revert it myself a 2nd time. If he reverts a 3rd time, then it's the same situation: either report him after only 3 reverts or revert him a 3rd time. So that's why I reverted a third time, then reported him once I found out he made a 4th revert. I mean should I have reported him after fewer than 4 reverts? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Let it go; stop reverting and continue the discussion. Yes, he should have done the same and enjoined the discussion, but don't let that bait you into an edit war. I say that hypothetically - when I review blocks I focus on the blocked user's behavior, not that of other people involved, so I'm not sure who you were reverting without going back and looking it over. (note this is only for review; obviously I look at all parties before blocking myself). If you find yourself "counting" reverts, that's probably a good sign that you're in an edit war and should stop. Again, the easiest way to navigate the gray areas is to avoid them entirely. Kuru (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well I know there isn't a "bright line" rule and that the admins have tremendous amounts of discretion on this rule, but that's why I'm trying to figure out where specifically I should have done things differently, and why I got reemed by administrative discretion and the other guy got a complete pass. It's surreal to me because the entire time, I was the one trying to discuss it on the talk page before proceeding. So where should I have done things diffently? I mean if the guy makes an edit, and I revert and request to discuss it on the talk page, then it would seem reasonable to me that the other guy should not be reverting a 2nd time until we've resolved something. If he reverts again though, then I either have to report him after he's only made 2 reverts, or I have to revert it myself a 2nd time. If he reverts a 3rd time, then it's the same situation: either report him after only 3 reverts or revert him a 3rd time. So that's why I reverted a third time, then reported him once I found out he made a 4th revert. I mean should I have reported him after fewer than 4 reverts? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Well first of all I know you were just reviewing the unblock, so I wasn't questioning you regarding the situation with Xenophrenic, I'm just analyzing the policy you were suggesting that I follow of limiting myself to 1 revert. The problem with that is that it would mean that the other guy gets his way without compromise every time. That would make me the most useless editor ever wouldn't it? I mean guy really only has two options - revert or report edit warring - unless he's willing to bend over and submit to the more belligerent guy every time.SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
UnitedHealth Group
Hi, can you reprotect the page? Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Whitmore 8621 ban
I saw you revoke Keating 1991's talk access. This has gone on far enough. I think a site ban is in order. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Web Experience Management
Hi there Kuru,
This is in regards to a Wikipedia page deletion that you administrated. I haven't had to deal with that (or many other wikipedia things) so bear with me and let me know if I am doing something wrong.
The page in question is the one about Web Experience Management ([[12]]).
You cite "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Multiple reasons" for deletion.
I strongly believe that the page has merits, is written with the right intent and believes it was written in a non-controversial non-promotional non-biased way.
Happy to spend some more time having a chat to you about it and even rewriting the page if you feel it necessary (any chance someone could email me the old version as a starting point to daniel(AT)nexle(DOT)dk?)
Thanks a lot in advance for your assistance and sorry for making more work for you - I truly have respect for the wikipedians.
Kind regards, Daniel
—Preceding comment added by Daniel iversen (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've restored a copy of the article to your userspace per your request (here). The article was marked up to annotate the problems before it was deleted, so that should highlight the problems. I would strongly suggest using inline citations (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)) and using only reliable, third party sources - material independent of FatWire and no blogs. If I can help with specific questions, please feel free to ask. Kuru (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Freelance Marketplaces
Hi,
I am the author of the blog/owner of the site which the material you removed came from, I thought this stubby little article did not reflect the richness of freelance marketplaces and the online outsourcing sector which is experiencing exponential growth at the moment.
The piece you removed regarding the history of freelance marketplaces, was actually done for the first freelance market review, also published at the same domain and was subsequently removed from there and published on the site for editorial reasons. The sources are generally the marketplaces themselves, so I can quite quickly list those sources. But will need to work out how to reference and provide citations properly according to Wikipedia standards as it was giving me some trouble (hence multiple edits).
You mention proving I am the copyright owner? How would you suggest I go about doing that?
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaifBonar (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you need to use the exact wording in your additions, then you'll need to provide explicit permission as laid out here.
- The best citation style for a complex addition that going to require many references is covered here. You may want to also review our core policy on verifiability and reliable sources. If I can help in any way, please let me know. Kuru (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Just a quick note of appreciation for your block of Iknowalltheanswers specifically, and for your admin and anti-vandalism work more generally. Many thanks! – OhioStandard (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Time to disable talk page access?
Per this edit, the guy (whom you've blocked indef about 20hours ago) has yet again demonstrated his talent for sneaky vandalism even on his own talk page. Time to disable his ability to edit his own talk page? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
why did you delete my contributions to credit scoring?
i can quite happily provide reference to my additions through many, many references such as martin lewis money saving expert website and forums and other sites etc? this is why i rarely edit things, you cannot edit them, moderators just change them back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.66.153 (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Block appeal of NYyankees51
Hi Kuru!
I would like to make some comments regarding User_talk:NYyankees51#Sockpuppetry.
Disclosure: I'm not neutral: I have very different views than NYyankees51, I had various clashes with him as User:BS24, and I brought up SPI evidence against him.
To start with the cons against lifting the block: I agree with most arguments of others from the Oktober SPI that he made many disruptive edits not only as NYyankees51 but also as BS24, including the ones I brought up at. And I would have liked him to comment more about such incidents than just admitting in general to have been "certainly not perfect". And I would have liked to see stronger indications that he avoids such edits in the future.
But coming to the pros: nobody is perfect, and these BS24 incidents didn't lead to blocks of BS24 before his history of NYyankees51 was known. And while the BS24 history is not perfect, I agree with him that it is better than as NYyankees51. But coming to the main point: It took some long time, but in User_talk:NYyankees51#Appeal he admitted core wrongdoings and demonstrates comprehension. I'm sure it wasn't easy for him to write this, readable for everyone, including to point that contributing to Wikipedia had become quite important to him. So, all in all, I think there is a good probability that he will be a constructive contributor to Wikipedia in the future. Also because of this hassle he had to go though, and since there are many other editors out there who will watch him closely, I think there is a good probability that his future will be better than the BS24 history. (And if he really comes up with further disruptions in the future, he can be blocked again at any time.)
Therefore, I suggest to assume good faith and remove his block (making clear to him that it is a second chance he should use wisely).
However, one important caveat: If any new socks are proven he didn't admit yet, then this should lead immediately to an unlimited block. The accounts and IP reported here reported by Xenophrenic really look suspicious and should be checked thoroughly.
Hope these comments help! Thank you for your time! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll re-look at it again later today. I was digging into the history yesterday and found too many inconsistencies in his timeline and claims for me to personally take action. Looking at some of the old socks, there was quite a bit of game playing, including the "it's not me, it's a friend on my computer" game. He's also been socking since the moment of his block, through IPs mainly. It's pretty had to believe he didn't know that was a problem when he was specifically blocked for "block evasion" at least once. I appreciate his approach to trying to be honest, but there are a lot of things he's leaving out, and it seems he's only being honest when a deception is pointed out. Anyways, thanks for "reaching across the aisle", and I'll look through it all again later if another admin does not. Kuru (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
External links in tax articles
Thanks for the changes on 3 international tax articles. Quick favor: could you check out Transfer pricing#External links? Most of them are advertising. The Big 4 ones, though self promotional to a degree, plus the OECD and IRS ones are very useful. (I'm not affiliated with any of them, though was Big 6 a decade ago) Any changes/deletions appreciated. Regards, Sfcardwell (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
LEGO Allied Forces
Dear Kuru, I am sorry I lashed out at you before, I was upset. Is there any chance that you could restore my article and tell me what to fix, or add, so that it doesn't get deleted again.
--Commander cody commander gree (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Sam Villano, Lieutenant Commander of the LEGO Allied Forces.
- Sam, you seem very young, so please try not to be frustrated with the policies of this site. This is intended to be an encyclopedia, and unlike paper encyclopedias we can include a great many more articles on just about any topic. If we included every single thing in the world; every person, every club, every street, we'd wind up with a big mess, and no one would be able to find the things that matter. So we've come up with guidelines on what is "notable" enough to be included. On some topics, these guidelines are very strict. In some places, they're very relaxed and just about anything goes. Even at that extreme, we must have reliable, third party sources for articles. Your article, which appears to be about your four month old Star Wars club, is not going to pass any of our notability guidelines. It is also very unlikely that you're going to be able to provide any sources for the article, either (your self-created free hosted site is not a reliable source for us). What I would recommend, would be to wait until your group has grown and established itself, and you've acquired some third party attention. When that happens, I'd be happy to help you write an article and navigate the nonsense here. I'd ask you just to be patient, and let's try again when your club is ready. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Senseless ranting and trollish remarks by IP editor
- Hello, could you keep an eye on User talk:174.118.149.54 (specifically the section of → User talk:174.118.149.54#"Administrative Terrorism" ←), the IP editor has been very uncivil in his remarks and comments towards several editors here, including towards a Sysop. Also, he has been meddling with the whois template which is supposed to stay on his talk page no matter what. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Will watch; might be a good idea to stop reverting for a bit and see what happens. Kuru (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Roger, wilco. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- As mentioned, he is back at it again and resumed refactoring the whois and welcome/warning templates I've left him. Time to block? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I reported him earlier. Declined. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Heads Up
Just a heads up, IP vandal 142.227.180.140 changed your name to Agent Buzkill Jenkins and called you rude for blocking him. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:32 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be fair, Agent Buzzkill does seem to be fairly apt description of what I've been doing lately... Kuru (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- But you prevented any furthur vandalism from the IP. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:20 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Loan Calculator Link
Hi Kuru. I noticed that the article for loans was missing any reference to a useful loan calculator. I would think that this is a useful next step for readers after they have learned the principles of loans, to then see them applied. The calculator I suppied is the most powerful loan calculator on the internet, and supplies very useful information to the user(full amortization schedule, ability to manipulate paments, amortization, payment frequency, test effects of different repayment methods, etc.). Can you tell me why it was removed, and if there is a better way to connect users to this type of resource? I have been a financial professional and can tell you that when dealing with mathematical concepts, people can learn much better if they have clear text explanation and useful application examples. I would have thought that it would be more informative to a reader to have a calculator than not. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptop.graham (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem we run into is that, as you're well aware, there are thousands of loan calculators out there. I'd be stunned if every single respectable financial institution didn't have one lurking about somewhere. Most of these sites also have promotional material slopped across them as well, be it soft lead ins to that particular bank, or simple google ads all over the place. We are also faced with the very subjective "which one is the best" problem. What we usually do is dodge the problem by linking to an approripate directory somewhere; usually the Open Directory Project. You can see an example of this at mortgage calculator. Kuru (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
New calculator website
Hi Kuru, you may want to reconsider your reaction to my calculators being inserted into articles as external links. My finance team and I have just launched our website dedicated to providing the best financial calculators on the internet. We offer our services free of charge, and include 2 ads in order to pay for the administrative costs of our site. Our each calculator was designed to maximize the value that users are looking for in a calculator. Our financial models are designed to provide information, insight, sensitivity analysis, etc... to the user, something sorely lacking in the online calculator world until now.
We have developed calculators that specialize in loan repayments, mortgages, home equity, investment properties, retirement income, and taxes for those interested in better understanding personal finance. On the academic side, we have included a large selection of financial calculators to build students and professional understanding in the areas of investment valuation, time value of money, capital budgeting, cost of capital, and financial statement analysis.
These are the best calculators on the internet and they are provided in a benevolent way, free of charge, easy to use, and not cluttered with around useless or promotional information.
You have taken it upon yourself to call us spammers, this is not the case. In the area of finance, there is a lack of quality calculators available to users, and wikipedia provided a good way to connect users with the information they are looking for. By inserting our links in the areas in which we offer significant value, the users of wikipedia will be able to find our site, and gain the information they are looking for.
By removing these links you are acting against the purpose of wikipedia, to connect those looking for high quality information with the suppliers of that information. Your vigilance and the speed with which you declare an ulterior motive speak more to your character than to ours. If I were to follow your example, then I would have to accuse you of sabatoging wikipedia to ensure that new and better information does not replace old, outdated, less useful information. I will not though, I am sure that your intentions are honourable, I would suggest that you provide me with the same benefit.
If you find a better calculator for any of the links that I have inserted, then please let me know, as we pride ourselves on adding value to our users. You may contact me at graham@ultimatecalculators.com, or through wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptop.graham (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much!
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.185.184.2 I've been following this IP around for over a month. I'm so glad it's got a month-long block on it now. Just wanted to say thank you! siv0r 00:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Huggle
When are you going to use Huggle again even though it's been a long time since you last used it? WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
IP 212.85.12.84
Hello Kuru. I was hoping you might be able to explain the block log of this IP user to. When it says anon. only, account creation blocked, does that mean that you've blocked the IP address and you've blocked anyone at that IP address from creating an account for one month? What does anon. only mean? Also, if this is the case then could you explain why you decided to stop them creating accounts? Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting that you did the wrong thing; I would just like to understand the factors that contributed to the decision making process. Some links to policy would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Those two options are the standard "default checked" options for an IP block.
- "Anon only" means that anyone who already edits with a registered account from that IP is not affected by the block. Turning that option off is very rare; you would then have what is called a "hard block" which prevents any usage of that IP. You would typically only see that with open proxies or IPs which have large amounts of socking.
- "account creation blocked" does indeed prevent the creation of new accounts. Since Wikipedia has a frictionless registration process, not having this option would make blocking a pointless exercise; the person misusing the account could simply create new accounts at whim and bypass the block. This option is usually turned off only when we expect the user to create a new account (such as for bad name blocks).
- These two options together create a standard set for blocking anonymous vandalism. The options for legitimate anonymous users are to A) register a new account from another IP available to them B) request a new account from the unblock mailing list (in which they are usually asked to use a non-free e-mail address to prevent mass account creation to avoid the block) C) request the IP be unblocked or D) edit from another place. Unblock requests can be successful if there is a large amount of traffic moving through the IP, or if it is clearly the primary vandal making a solid case for unblocking.
- There are a variety of other options available when blocking; I'd be happy to run through those if you're interested. Kuru (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed reply; I do appreciate it. I'll digest what you've talked about and leave the other options for as and when I come across them. I'll only get confused if I try to learn them all in one go. Thanks again Kuru; you've been a great help. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello
Could you delete Talk:Flying Platform? --Accountiuz (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking over the page, I had noted previous unblock requests had been deleted...
...because there were, frankly, so damn many of them, and it was starting to get kind of crowded in there again. I was simply tidying up the page to leave the last current unblock request. I don't care one way or the other, I just did it in passing. HalfShadow 21:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
User IANVS block
Hello, Kuru.
Thank you for your help at White Hispanic and Latino Americans.
I of course agree that ChineseNygirl earned her block. Besides engaging in original research, and despite weeks of discussion with me in which I expressed to her my impression that she was engaging in OR, she persisted.
As you can see from the edit history, her edit was opposed as well by user MikeWazowski. User IANVS had not yet reverted her, but proceeded to break the 3RR rule (inadvertently, I presume). Yes, IANVS has been blocked before, but given that it really was ChineseNygirl who was precipitating it all, as she was trying to force content into the article against the advice of 3 editors, would you show some leniency to IANVS, please? Would you reduce his block to 24 hours? SamEV (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree with SamEV's assessment and also request leniency for IANVS in this instance. Erikeltic (Talk) 23:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I just don't see that he has a working understanding of our edit warring policy. I opted to ignore a 5RR yesterday between him and yet another editor and instead protected the article (White Argentine) in lieu of blocking them both. I'm disappointed that he did the same thing the very next day. If he can put together an unblock request that indicates he understands the problem here, I'm certainly willing to review the situation. At the moment, this appears to be a fundamental problem which is impacting multiple articles and multiple editors. Please know that I'm fully aware you are editing nationalist/ethic articles - a tough environment to operate in. If I can see any path forward, I'm delighted to support y'all, but my hands get a little tied when reverts are as blatant as those were. Kuru (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Apply the 3RR rule always
Hi, I see you blocked a user nicknamed IANVS. I don't know what the problem with the article White Hispanic was, and he probably did violate the 3RR, but please, you administrators, punish the breaking of this rule every time that someone violates it. In the article White Argentine there was an edit warring a few weeks ago, the rule was violated several times (especially by an IP user), and none of you showed up at that moment. Please apply the same rule to everyone; Justice must be Justice.--Pablozeta (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was not watching that article a few weeks ago, and I'm not here to dish out punitive blocks to 'punish' people. I will take actions necessary to prevent further disruption only. If you see something in progress that violates our edit warring policy, please report it at WP:AN3, or if it's really overt, to WP:AIV. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pablozeta, if an admin had been aware then they would have assisted. They are fair. It just sounds like no one was "around". It wasn't about justice.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pablozeta, if an admin had been aware then they would have assisted. They are fair. It just sounds like no one was "around". It wasn't about justice.
- If you would, can you please take another look at ChineseNYgirl's continued activity? She is approaching a third 3RR violation in 36 hours and thus far all of her edits have been distruptive and directly related to race. At what point do you think this type of behavior would warrant a topic ban? Erikeltic (Talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Your edit on Comparison of time tracking software
Dear,
Can you please specify why you chose to remove certain time-tracking applications (in this case Ontrack!) from the overview on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_time_tracking_software
but leave other applications in the overview? The change seems arbitrary to me since rougly the same kind of information was provided for Ontrack as it was for other applications and the application performs basically the same task and as such belongs in a comparison. Is it because the Ontrack! timetracker does not have its own wikipedia page? It did, but was removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnTrack_TimeTracker) by courcelles, probably again on the reason that it was commercial. Agreed, it only included a description of the application and some external references, but it was not different in size, content or quality from, for example the description on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Time_Tracker. We never received any response on why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Time_Tracker can stay but the Ontrack entry was deleted from courcelles either.
Note that my main question is on the seemingly arbitrary nature of those deletes with respect to other entries in the list. If the Wikipedia policy is that such entries are vandalism because they are too product/advertising/commercial oriented, I can understand that. If that were the case, however, many other entries would need to be removed as well.
We would really appreciate some clarification on why the current entries are allowed to stay and the Ontrack entry was deleted.
Kind regards, Yves Vandewoude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.109.86.190 (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- The criteria for inclusion on that list is "notabality"; in this case enforced by having an established article on the subject. My removal included the note "rmv addition with no article". You were also presented with the following warning when you edited the article:
- **** All new entries that point to non-existent articles will be deleted-WP:NOTABILITY ****
- The criteria for inclusion on that list is "notabality"; in this case enforced by having an established article on the subject. My removal included the note "rmv addition with no article". You were also presented with the following warning when you edited the article:
- This is a comparison of notable time tracking software packages and web hosted services.
- IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE ROLLED BACK WITHOUT WARNING.
- Only place entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable time tracking software. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not time tracking software will be removed. If you have questions, use the talk page. Please try to keep entries in alphabetical order. Adding unnecessary links or text to any other section (such as the "References" section) will also be removed. Thanks.
- Hope that helps. If you're having trouble creating an article that does not meet our criteria for inclusion, I'd be happy to review it for you. Kuru (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous
Hi Kuru, I must admit that I don't understand your warning to The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. The latest Artist's statements on the NYyankees51 talk are open and direct, but not only factual true, but presented in a neutral manner. I don't see any harassment here. In contrary, I think the main problem was NYyankees51 trying to hide the declined unblock request and its text from the ARBCOM. It would be not good if people think they can get away with such things, and I think therefore it is also not good damning the discovery action, even if this discovery is driven by personal animosities. If I hate my neighbor for whatever reason, and even if I myself have stolen many cars, does this mean that I am not allowed to call the police if I see my neighbor stealing a car? This looks like a dangerous path to me. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Once the police have arrived, taken the suspect to jail, and he's currently on trial, it may be a good idea to stop frantically dialing 911 and yelling insults. Now that we've driven that poor analogy into the ground, when you're asked several times to disengage, it may be a good idea to do so. There was nothing there that had not already been dealt with without personal attacks. ARBCOM is quite adept at resolving escalated unblock requests, even if there were not five administrators watching that talk page. It's one of the reasons it takes them longer to conclude their look at the problem. We're very familiar with the tactic of taunting hotheads with opposing viewpoints until they snap; that's not the best way to resolve problems. Kuru (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if I didn't oversee something, then AKA brought up something important which was not dealt with yet, and he didn't use personal attacks, but presented it in a neutral manner I think. I'm a bit worrying that style (how calm or "hotheaded" someone is) seems to be more important than the issue itself (keeping on subject instead of personal attacks, being truthful on facts). For example the SPI was flooded with ad hominem attacks, and no admin seemed to care, but if AKA brings up a valid issue, he gets beaten for that, and then shortly afterwards, nobody seems to care about a completely unneeded purely personal attack. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi 82.135.29.209, I just saw your comments on my own Talk Page followed by your comments here. I must ask, couldn't the user have brought this up in a way that would not have involved posting on the other user's talk page again? Two admins directed him to leave the other user alone about his indefinite block; the user could have easily achieved the goal of bringing it to an admin's attention without directly communicating with the other user. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he could. And definitely, calmer reactions usually lead to better results than feisty reactions, definitely. Notwithstanding, to look at the history, his first post was completely fine, he didn't harass and didn't violate any admin directives, but was polite and very optimistically ASF. Then, only after being bashed for this, he engaged into a more feisty tone, but still staying on the facts. My impression is that this course of events is overshadowed by some "here he is again" feeling. But all in all, nobody got hurt, and while I can also understand your and Kuru's view, I just wanted to answer to a, in my perspective, on-sided view, which I have done. So, possibly after you both added some final thoughts about the matter, I think we all can put this episode to file. 15:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.29.209 (talk)
- At the end, since human beings have so many "flaws", finally these "flaws" are also the source for strength and creating new things, and it is a pleasure so see how, after such very complex interactions and fighting but also much more cooperation between so many people something such wonderful like Wikipedia comes out, as product of exactly these persons. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi 82.135.29.209, I just saw your comments on my own Talk Page followed by your comments here. I must ask, couldn't the user have brought this up in a way that would not have involved posting on the other user's talk page again? Two admins directed him to leave the other user alone about his indefinite block; the user could have easily achieved the goal of bringing it to an admin's attention without directly communicating with the other user. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if I didn't oversee something, then AKA brought up something important which was not dealt with yet, and he didn't use personal attacks, but presented it in a neutral manner I think. I'm a bit worrying that style (how calm or "hotheaded" someone is) seems to be more important than the issue itself (keeping on subject instead of personal attacks, being truthful on facts). For example the SPI was flooded with ad hominem attacks, and no admin seemed to care, but if AKA brings up a valid issue, he gets beaten for that, and then shortly afterwards, nobody seems to care about a completely unneeded purely personal attack. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Unban request by (part of?) User:The abominable Wiki troll
Hi. As an admin who has previously interacted with this banned user, you may be interested to participate in the discussion at WP:AN#Unban request by (part of?) The abominable Wiki troll. Regards, Sandstein 11:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Removal of References
I am uncertain as to why you removed the references I created for the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization_schedule The article asks for someone to cite references or sources. I put a reference for the Present Value of Annuity Formula to a credible website that has correct information. For some reason you prefer to have no references then an accurate reference. When is no information more valuable than factually correct information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.133.9 (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- That website is not a reliable source, and we've had problems with it before. As the material is likely included in several thousand finance books, you should have no trouble finding an alternate reference. Kuru (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Church of Cognizance
sorry about re-adding that.. that was wierd. I must have had edited an old copy of the page or something. sorry about that -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
OpenStreetMap - OSM Book published by Packt
I've Undone revision 400322065 on OpenStreetMap. The book is not vanity. The book is real, published by a mainstream publisher. I own a copy. -- Firefishy (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Print on Demand" does not mean vanity. I really think you are being outrageous here. Are you going to remove all the O'Reilly books next? -- Firefishy (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- and, presumably, merge Print on demand and Vanity press? --ChaRleyTroniC (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Firefishy is correct; I've self-reverted on that page. I mis-read the submission page for that press. I'm concerned about the rather prolific amount of WP:BOOKSPAM, but that does not appear to the case on OpenStreetMaps. Kuru (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- It turns out that said publisher has been abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes for over five years, culminating in blatantly abusive spam like this: [13] [14] (note where it redirects to). I've requested the domain be blacklisted. MER-C 05:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blacklisted by Beetstra. MER-C 10:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- It turns out that said publisher has been abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes for over five years, culminating in blatantly abusive spam like this: [13] [14] (note where it redirects to). I've requested the domain be blacklisted. MER-C 05:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring
Thanks u for the answer in the edit warring page. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
92.14.116.65
They're back and it looks like they have not learnt their lesson. Simply south (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Apriva
Several adjustments were made on the Apriva entry, based on all of the comments that were made. Please let me know what more I can do, should you have time. Thank you.Bfeddern (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Removed page
Hello! You have removed page AllNetic Working Time Tracker, copyright holder sent a publish permission to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org. Could you help restore this page? Thank you! 4MB (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- To be frank, no. If someone there wants to evaluate and restore the material, then that's up to them. The original I saw was fairly promotional and had no indications of notability, or third party reliable sources. A better idea would be to start a draft written for an encyclopedia; not a marketing one-sheet. You will also want to read WP:COI. Kuru (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Michael Dell
I modified the Bibliography section of Michael Dell's page by adding a link to American Jews. If you go to that page (American Jews), Dell is one of the people listed there. However, you removed this link from Michael Dell's page. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.194.178 (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Question about redirects
Hi, can you help me understand why "Human Network" redirects to Social network but "Welcome to the Human Network" redirects to Cisco Systems, which has no information on the human network? How can I get the latter also redirected to Social network? Thanks! New World Tech Girl (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like "human network" was created a few times as a touchy-feely article attempting to cast the term as a some kind of future web 2.0 construct envisioned by Cisco's marketing staff. After a couple of deletions, it was redirected to social network to avoid confusion. The actual marketing brandline of "welcome to the human network" was created and redirected to cisco much later as a specific slogan. I don't really mind articles for campaigns that become "legendary" (such as Where's the beef? or Proud as a Peacock), but every non-notable jingle being directed to the company that made it gets a little too close to keyword mining. If you want to to change something like that, then change it (as per WP:BRD). If anyone objects, start a discussion and see where it goes. Kuru (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to the Nortel article
Your continued contributions via reversion of bad edits, but mainly via additions of new and updated material, are appreciated. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: Angelos Tsiaklis
As far as I can tell, he has only signed for Anorthosis, but not actually played for them yet, making this difference a moot point. If however, you have a source that I missed and he has played for Anorthosis, I would recommend not deleting the article unilaterally. Anorthosis is one of the clubs that's right on boderline for granting notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
User Histree
Hi Kuru,
User Histree is currently adding some annoying edits, you can find some here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scope_creep&action=historysubmit&diff=402752845&oldid=402752218 ) and here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_network&action=historysubmit&diff=402753037&oldid=402752186 ), adding spam links to a website historyandpolicy that is completely irrelevant to the topics. I have reverted one of his edits 3 times already (oops).
- is soliciting reverts to help you get around 3rr allowed? Wikipedia:Tag team Histree (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God_Of_War_Soundtrack.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God_Of_War_2_Soundtrack.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God_Of_War_3_Soundtrack.jpg){kind=link}
| Happy Holidays! |
 Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 15:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
My user page
Late thanks for the reversion. Simply south (talk) and their tree 17:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean to over rule my decision or was that just an edit conflict type thing? [15] Given the age of the article and the number of edits it seems possible the site it appears to be copied from is a WP mirror. Have already added to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 December 27. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that; appears to have been a conflict. There was no action on the page when I reviewed. As the first edit was a cut&paste of the exact text of what appears to be the artist's official page which carried a date of 2004, it seemed fairly straight forward. I'm usually pretty automatic about undoing my actions when there's a question, but I'm a little shy with copyvios. Will review again. Kuru (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think your explanation at the copyvio page is probably correct, this just took a long time to get found. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)