User talk:KTC/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

CfD nomination of Category:Doping cases in shooting

I have nominated Category:Doping cases in shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. CrimsonBlue (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sulayman Reis (pirate)

I have nominated Sulayman Reis (pirate), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulayman Reis (pirate). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet - would you be interested?

Hey. I'm proposing a Manchester wikimeet on 24 April - would you be interested in coming along? Mike Peel (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 1116 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Domesday

I see that you are entering a useful link to Anna Powell-Smith’s University of Hull’s domesdaymap.co.uk in numerous settlement articles’ ELs, with the "Domesday" element blue-linked. Some articles already have Domesday text with the book blue-linked, and with descriptive Domesday text inline-cited to Smith. Doubling-up blue links in long articles is understandable, but in stubs or starts wouldn’t this be overlinking ? Is there a way of de-blue-linking “Domesday” in the EL tag for when Domesday is already blue-linked? Is there value in adding an extra EL to Smith’s Domesday when one already exists as an inline that supports text ? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1116 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you (at least) autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, AndrewN talk 23:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles For Creation - Local Splash

Hi KTC,

Thanks for your comments on my article for creation page. Can you explain to me how my links are not valid enough to warrant the page moving forward and receiving approval? This text is form Wiki:

"In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be: the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications."

Aren't both of these requirements fulfilled by the accompanied links?

Please let me know.

Best,

Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBordeaux (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey KTC,

Under the awards and accolades section, don't those links alone fulfill the notability requirement as they cite reliable thirty party sources and ranking indices? Is there anything that needs to be removed entirely to help the article stick? To the best of my understanding this is how citing reliable sources works.

That would be great if you could remove the flag for sure.

Thanks again for your time on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBordeaux (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Insight into Forex Trading

Hello KCT , this is regard the article about book insight into forex trading. i don;t know how to write the review of book, i just put the info which was given, my intentions were clean. i really liked the book because it was written in pakistan . this book is only available in pakistan and i tried to search from net about it but could not found anything , actually i want to write about this book because i think it will help the new authors and encourage them if third party wrote something about their book. Where can we find reference about some local book , but if it is good written then we should appreciate it. Kindly guide me how can i amend this article to reach the standards. Thanks Valient0986 (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

RHYTHM Liqueur

KTC I have looked at other liquor ads and do not understand why the one I wrote on Rhythm is deemed as advertising as I do not offer recipes, selling locations, websites or other information to lead the reader to sell. In fact, after reviewing other pages I find that many of theirs advertise in great deal in comparison to the article written here. This is a new product that is receiving many reviews and deserves to have a listing. Please let me know what else I can include. The information I listed was straight from a spokesperson at the company. I would appreciate your help.

Jamal Jwalker1977 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have made the changes recommended and also included additional information as listed on the approved liquor/liqueur pages currently in Wikipedia.

Jamal Jwalker1977 (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

RHYTHM Liqueur Article Published

Thank you for approving the article but you added information which corporate has requested be removed in connection with requests by the parties listed. Can you leave the article minus the name references and put "local wine maker and three University of Louisville grad students"...as three of the four are no longer associated with the brand?

Other than that I appreciate your efforts.

Jwalker1977 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't want to seem helpless so I made the change if that is okay.

Jwalker1977 (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, KTC, for your feedback at my RFA. I plan on being more careful with AFD nominations and rationales, thanks in part to your feedback. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulation on a successful RFA. KTC (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

SEFA (disambiguation) meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion

For information : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEFA_(disambiguation). Best Regards. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you for reply. I think the best option should be to move the article SEFA to Selected Elevated Flow Apparatus because SEFA is juste an acronym (as written in the article). I suggested here and Huon agrees : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_creation%2FRedirects&diff=495830115&oldid=495829113 but I can't do the job. Kind Regards. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

GAC Candidates (meta)

Yep, I figured that a milisecond after I saved the page ;) hehe. Still, I guess it was a good idea to make it more visible. Thanks for the heads up! --solstag (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

B-Boy Bouillabaisse sections articles

Hello KTC,

In response to your negative review on my submission for a new article, I would like to say that every other section of "B-Boy Bouillabaisse" has already its article (who haven't been created by me however); I just wanted to complete what was begun :-)

Friendly,

Fortunateson33 (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello KTC,

Hello again, I agree with you I think there should not be too much articles with so few informations in it, I just wanted here to complete the puzzle ; I start with little articles because I don't understand for the moment all the technic aspects of editing/creating a Wikipedia article :-)

Friendly,

Fortunateson33 (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll remember to leave early comments thanks for saying!

Fortunateson33 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tortoise in Love

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Marc Drillech for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marc Drillech is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Drillech until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Fabrice Bardeche for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fabrice Bardeche is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabrice Bardeche until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Added the references as required!

Hi, hope you are fine.
Just wanted to discuss about the article I submitted. Link to it is as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Higher_Diploma_in_Accounting_(HDA)_-_BIMS

You said that references should be made there. So I have added some more references for the content put in there. I hope that it validates what it shows. Also I have edited the section "About SQA" and in fact exactly quoted the sentences put on their official website and then given url reference to the official page. So I hope that would be now fine for approval.

Actually its an accounting diploma called "Higher Diploma in Accounting" offered by BIMS whose official website is http://www.bimsedu.com and the information given in the article can be verified from this website. Some information regarding Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA) can be verified from their website http://www.sqa.org.uk . Also some other information can be verified from another website http://www.hdapakistan.com

I hope that the references added now are enough to be cited. So please approve the submission. Thanks.
--Mr.irfanullah (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just some steam

Hi KTC. Just venting some steam, sorry - feel free to ignore. It's about the afd for Fabrice Bardeche. I don't think your comment on my vote was entirely justified and could in itself constitute newcomer-biting, because although I have had an account here for 4 years, I am still in general inexperienced - and a complete newcomer to the world of afd and afc. They are areas I have recently been trying to help with.

What is particularly hurtful is that the accusation comes after I have invested a fair amount of time trying to help newcomers (see Noetic positivism and its deletion discussion and Folkstreams).

In the case of that particular afd, my vote was not a knee-jerk - I live in France and read French, so I checked the references and arrived at the conclusion in my vote. I should not have made the cheap promotion jibe however. But if anyone is not assuming good faith here, I fear it is you.

If you have been, thanks for listening, and I will now retract my (probably over-sensitive) head beneath the parapet. Mcewan (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you note. I appreciate it. Just a misunderstanding I think. All the best. Mcewan (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Word of caution

Hello KTC, in the light of your comment, I wanted to give you a little background about the IP 80.13.85.217 here so I don't influence the voting page which should be decided on the merits of the article alone. The IP 80.13.85.217 (talk · contribs) is the same editor as 78.239.175.7 (talk · contribs) although he denies it. He is currently blocked (indef) from the french Wikipedia for lying about using different IPs, POV-Pushing, misrepresenting sources, promoting articles mostly linked the IONIS Education Group (group of private schools); for example by creating a bunch of articles about people vaguely linked to the group to increase the number of links to those school articles. Since the sanction took effect a few weeks ago, he has used more than 20 sockpuppets to go around his block (non exhaustive list here) to the point that all the articles related to IONIS have been semi-protected so the other editors can work in peace to neutralize them. So please be careful when reviewing his submissions. Thanks.--McSly (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

He is doing his harassment and personal attack also on Excirial talk page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial#Creating_an_account.3F. Sorry about that. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

FreeTaxUSA.com

Hello KTC,

THANK YOU TREMENDOUSLY for taking the time to review the FreeTaxUSA.com article. Your direction and guidance in this process is highly appreciated! I'm grateful for the excellent point of notability that you brought up from your review. I do believe FreeTaxUSA.com is notable and worthy of being highlighted on Wikipedia; however, I do agree with you that references used did not reflect that. Therefore, I look forward to the opportunity to represent it's notability by improving the references cited in the article.

My goal is to raise FreeTaxUSA.com to the standards and qualifications that Wikipedia requires. As I'm newer to Wikipedia, I'm eager and anxious to receive as much guidance and direction on this matter as possible. This FreeTaxUSA.com article has already been such a wonderful learning and growing experience that has carried over into all aspects of my work.

KTC, with your vast experience with Wikipedia, I was hoping to receive further guidance from you on which references I should keep and those I should replace. Your time and attention would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much again for your kindness in reviewing the article and helping me improve it's quality.

Newtaxguy (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

KTC,

I wanted to thank you for listing out the references and describing for me which did and didn't work and reasons why. I have gone through and changed the trivial passing references of 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, and 13. I added 14 as another possible source. I was hoping you could look at those and see if they will work as references. Thank you once again for your help. It's always appreciated.

Newtaxguy (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

KTC,

I wanted to thank you again for all your help in improving the FreeTaxUSA.com. I appreciate your kindness and love for your work. I would recommend anyone needing a review to go to you. Thank you so much! It really means a lot. Thank you for all the hard work you put into Wikipedia :)

Newtaxguy (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, KTC. You have new messages at Junglejill's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Afc: Biking against nukes

Hello You have declined my article Biking against nukes some 19 days back due to lack of citations and references. I have resubmitted it for review again. Please review it so I can complete the article.

Thanks --Arash 09:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arashdeep (talk • contribs)

Nomination of Anibar International Animation Festival for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anibar International Animation Festival is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anibar International Animation Festival (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Scheme $6,000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Third relists

Hi KTC, I noticed you relisted a couple of AFDs for a third time. Per WP:RELIST, third or further relists should be accompanied by "a short explanation... why [you] did not consider the debate sufficient." I hope you'll consider doing this in the future. There are some cases, especially those which have attracted no comments since the last relisting, where the debate has essentially ended, which may happen even with little participation. If you'd like to respond, please feel free to do so here. Best, BDD (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am aware of what it says on WP:RELIST. However, I felt that the relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood from the Soul & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Old Woman were fairly obvious and didn't require an explicit explanation, given both had only one comment since it was listed. While WP:RELIST does say what it say, it's fairly common practise nowadays if one goes through AFD that a comment on relist is only offered if a discussion has had quite a bit of discussion. I'll obviously will consider your comment, and think about it if I'm in the same situation again. KTC (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up after myself

If you can't tell, I'm not a regular at AfD (no, really :) so I don't want to mess it up further, although I do want to fix it. Because the links on the article and the editor page link to the second nomination, should I delete the first, or will that leave people wondering what happened to it? Or should I delete the second, and edit the links on the article and editor page?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You're a sysop, either will work. Delete the first, move the 2nd to the first title without redirect and fix any transclusion and link, or you can delete the first and fix I think there's a single link to point to 2nd and just leave an empty first page. Lastly you can delete second and fix any link and transclusion. Doesn't really matter. KTC (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Stop

The current edit war on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape in Northeast India is meaningless. The AfD sorters are reasonable in their opinion. The chronology is to be followed. That is also important to understand, if someone came following a new del sort. --DBigXray 08:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Erm, I was reverting because the change spilt my reply to Magog the Ogre from what I was replying to. I'm one of those who think chronology should be followed.... Please be careful when making accusation. KTC (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have sent a message to all the people involved in the edit war. linking to this discussion. --DBigXray 08:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less to be honest but it shouldn't be placed at the bottom of the article. User:Snow Rise moved it for purely aesthetic reasons which is ridiculous & it confused User:DBigXray causing him to place his comment in the wrong place. Hardly an edit war just leave it where KTC placed it is fine. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct, not an edit war; I was going to let it rest after the last revert because an edit war over something so stylistic in irrelevant to the AfD is not really acceptable. That being said, I didn't think that Duck's comment in his last edit summary was appropriate either; "Don't do it" is not really in his purview to demand - there's nothing anywhere in policy that I've seen that forbids it, and that kind of routine arrangement is seen in many contexts across different namespaces. In fact, various postings in a discussion are almost never chronological since we in-line our comments in the threads (and often employ various other organization tools that are break continuity and chronology for the sake of organization). I was just trying something new to keep the page more tidy and keep the index notices from getting lost in the mess (something I would have though Duck would approve of, since he seems to spend a lot of time indexing those discussions to begin with, but that's irrelevant). Actually, I started doing it days ago, updating it on occasion when another post got bellow it and no one noticed until yesterday. Perhaps I should have started with an AfD with multiple notices to demonstrate the usefulness better, but I honestly didn't think anyone would notice or care. For the record, I don't see how it could have confused DBigXray, nor how it could have split anyone's response, since all I did was move the notice well bellow all other comments and separate it by an obvious gap; I think that's highly speculative. In any event, I'm done with it -- I won't change it again in this discussion - but I think it was a silly thing to revert in the first place, and I definitely don't think that anyone has a genuine policy claim as to which way is more appropriate (if someone does know of a good policy argument against it, I'd genuinely like to see it, just for clarity); or perhaps there's some technical argument against it that I am missing. But "it's standard" is not in-itself a policy argument against trying something new and potentially beneficial that really causes no harm to the discussion - if that were policy, nothing would ever improve on Wikipedia. Just my thoughts. Apologies to KTC for using his talk page as a soapbox. No offense intended to any other party of this edit "skirmish". ;) Snow (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if Snow is aware of this or not but often the AfD debates get heated up with accusations of canvassing/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry The comments by new users after delsort notice also explains how they would have reached the discussion, and saves some bad faith accusations and subsequent defence. Also during the course of discussion the participants point out or include another del sort group to get more consensus. It is perfectly reasonable to put the delsort notice at its reasonable place (i.e. the point when it was sorted.) Although i agree that putting all the delsort notice together looks a bit cleaner but considering these accusations its advisable not the meddle with it. (this also follows WP:COMMONSENSE by the way)--DBigXray 10:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the timestamps could still be referenced pretty easily, but I suppose I see your point; anything that reduces acrimony in AfDs by stopping people from jumping to conclusions is worth preserving. Snow (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Her talk page, but whatever. Like I said in the edit summary the second time round, "I don't really care where it is". I didn't and wasn't going to revert Snow again. Top, middle, bottom whatever, as long as it's not in the middle of a thread splitting a reply from the comment it was replying to. And I don't mind the soapbox, add a little excitment to the day. Thanks for all those orange new message box Snow (and others)! :D KTC (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Orange :P. The only reason I said don't move was to avoid constant reverting as it had been done a number of times before I got involved. Indeed there doesn't seem to be any policy on the matter & I'm not to fussed were the delsort goes once interested parties are notified, but it did cause DBigXray to place his comment in the wrong place. Although I do believe your intentions were well intended (sorry for the ridiculous comment above) they did prove slightly disruptive hence were all wasting are time discussing a minuscule matter (Agreed would have been best on Snow's page). Seems were all agreed now in the grand scheme of things it's not a major deal where they go but it's best to leave it alone so I think that should be an end to the matter. Good day to all. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm just glad we could all talk it out civilly, too often these kind of debates spiral unnecessarily -- or, almost as bad, the issue gets dropped but everyone walks away thinking "that douche User:X always has to have it his way", and that sort of thing doesn't help when those parties meet again and again in certain types of discussions where the same faces turn-up, of course. It would have been an especially stupid thing to get side-tracked by, given the context of our being there to resolve another conflict (and the seriousness of the article in question, for that matter). Snow (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hah, glad you don't mind then (and sorry for the gender mix-up). I'm not sure where in the changes your comments got severed, but I apologize for the chain reaction in any event. Like most Wikipedian's, I suppose, I have an organizational fixation. ;) Snow (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Much needed after the recent discussion :) It is always advised that people having good intentions but a difference of opinion should sit and talk. Discussion always kills ignorance and makes people wiser . cheers. DBigXray 11:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

AFD

Hi, regarding your message on following the AFD guideline, I tried -- several times -- but apparently I did something wrong. Thanks for fixing this. - DonCalo (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10