User talk:Kinu/Archive 13

Why do you remove my message? --Gajolen (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Without any sort of context, I have no idea what you're talking about. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the person who declined the Petro River Oil AfC submission. How were you able to block the offending user so quickly, out of curiosity? ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 20:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I ran across the submission while looking at recent changes (the submitter's username was quite a red flag) and was on my way to decline and block. It appears you'd already taken care of the first part, though, so thank you. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 20:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi - you previously protected the above article on 21 March 2013 - I see that it's under attack again. Can you re-protect? Regards Denisarona (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That was quick work on CFrenchie1823 - I'd only just blocked him! Peridon (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]  Ryan Vesey 02:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to start a discussion about having my admin privileges revoked. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Ryan Vesey 04:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Whomp whomp whommmmmp! --Kinu ^t/_c 04:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Kinu.

Re: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=User:TapkaJohnD

You rejected my article because Wiki is "an encylopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook." I've read the page that links to, and see the first and most relevant item on it, which includes the sentence, "Describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use something is not."

I submit that my article is precisely the first, a collection of ways that other people have dealt with this problem. It is emphaticly not an instruction manual, but a discussion of possible causes and solutions that other people have used. Thus it should be within the "encyclopedic reference" heading, but may need rewriting to bring it into Wiki-style.

I know this is an open question, but is it possible to rewrite the article into acceptability by going into the causes in more detail? I note the item on FAQs, to which my article may be compared, and which suggests the author "format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article" that might do the same thing. Or is classic car maintenance just beyond the Pale?

best wishes John

TapkaJohnD (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, being an admin on Commons I'm contacting you, as you IMO correctly blocked image-vandal User:Iphone1998, after it was refused to me on COM:AIV[6]. I would ask you to consider blocking Vernmildew (talk · contribs) who has 4 times added unrelated images into 3 :en articles [7]. Thanks to the WMF-invented, but not thought-through mobile web/app upload facility, the number of dangerous image vandals, who insert images of identifiable people into :en articles in order to slander them, is currently increasing. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked this user. Thanks for letting me know! --Kinu ^t/_c 01:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think it was you who asked me to keep an eye on this. A second article has been created and there's been another copy-paste move [8] that left the history in a confusing state (the new article has the history of the old one). —rybec 21:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yikes... I can see the history issues but I'm editing via mobile at the moment so fixing things will be difficult. Would you mind making a report at WP:SPLICE? Thanks! --Kinu ^t/_c 16:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering if there's anywhere we could file a report about a rude editor? User: Politsi has always been rude to new people, i.e. the ones who haven't edited this particular article, for example here. That is not the first incident of him acting aggressive and insult other editors (see the rest of that talk page and the archives if you want to see for yourself) and I'm certain won't be the last time either. That thread, and especially the latest homophobic comment was the last straw I think he should get at least a warning.--Krystaleen 12:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that you were the protecting admin for the page title Seryn. This is the name of band that seems to satisfy Project:Notability that I'd like to create a sourced page for. Will you consider lifting this title protection? Thanks! -SeiADP (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We seemed to have edit conflicted on both the block and the user talk page. Feel free to restore your block or your edit - either way is fine with me. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries... I misread your 1 year block as a previous block, but it appears to be the correct length given the block history, so we'll go with that. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 17:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The entry for HAMS was deleted on 14 May 2008. The deleting editor is assigned as your user ID, and that is why I am contacting you. The entry was self-promoting and the group has since written a new article, on PsychologyWiki, that is based solely on information and not in anyway promoting of the group, its ideas, or anything else associated with it<ref>{{cite web|url=http://psychology.wikia.comview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=HAMS_Harm_Reduction_Network}}</ref>. HAMS would like to get an article back onto Wikipedia, using this entry as a template.

What would have to be done for the block to be removed?

Rexyphi (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

http://psychology.wikia.comview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=HAMS_Harm_Reduction_Network

I see that you were a contestant on Jeopardy. That's enough for a congratulations in its own right, so congrats! How'd you do? Ryan Vesey 06:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It taped a while back but finally aired today, so I can be open about it now. :D I came in a distant third place (ha!), but the experience was good and I feel that I can nonetheless remove that from my bucket list and move it over to my list of accomplishments. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 06:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, I reverted your redirect of this page to the user page. The editor may not have seen the notice of how to appeal when TPA is revoked, + it makes it harder for other admins to see the history of this farrago. It's true that he was fairly insulting (to me too!), but I don't think such drastic action is required. Sometimes simply leaving stuff like and letting it speak for itself, is far more damning than hiding it. It speaks volumes, in fact. If you feel really strongly about it, though, I'd suggest archiving everything but the last two block notices, rather than simply removing everything. Voceditenore (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I see that Bbb23 had previously removed this appalling screed/threat. Needless to say, I left that deleted. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually had not noticed that the most egregious of the WP:NPA-violating trash had already been culled, so thank you for pointing that out. I don't see this editor getting any sort of second chance, quite frankly. However, given that many of the scathing comments were directed toward me, I might not be the most objective person to choose what to archive (hence why I picked the "all-or-nothing" approach), so I'll leave it to someone else. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrator, you just told me that my feelings of harassment are unfounded. Please see these comments below that were written on an AFD page for Rocket Records a short while ago during the middle of a productive discussion I was having with another editor. Here were the comments that came out of nowhere by this editor:

Per nomination and PeterWesco. Most importantly, an article was previously created by a bunch of socks (see Talk:The Rocket Record Company collapsed section). They were all blocked and about a month later the Zachtron account was created and their only purpose appears to be to recreate this non-notable, self-promotional article.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you can be objective or not because you seem to have had some recent interactions with this editor judging by his history, but it is not right to be accused by this editor on a public AFD page. That is not criticizing my contributions, that is a personal attack. I can't do anything about it because I'm not an administrator like you, but it's simply not right. It is stuff like this that makes honest editors leave Wikipedia all together. I even agreed with consensus deletion of articles (you proposed AfD for Diverse and Ryan Prescott) that I personally contributed because I respect the community's opinion, but I'm pretty much done with this. First PeterWesco and now this I am One of Many individual attacking me (not my work) personally with harmful accusations because he had a problem with the article eons ago which had nothing at all to do with me. I'm over it Administrator, and Rybec or somebody else can work on Rocket Records (which should not be deleted/vandalized) and other similar articles for a while. Anyway, I appreciate your reliable reference tips the other day on my Talk page. Regards. Zachtron (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The comments by IAOOM are, in my opinion, statements of facts about and a timeline of the history of article. There was a previous version of this article that was a sockpuppet fiesta, and you have edited primarily in this area, as most (if not all) of you edits are related to this collection of articles. There is no reason to hide those facts; anyone can see them. Furthermore, in all fairness, I see no statement by IAOOM saying "Zachtron is a sockpuppet" anywhere, so I fail to see how any of this constitutes a personal attack. (However, your retaliatory nomination of several articles is disruptive; I honestly don't know what you were thinking there.) Likewise, a piece of advice: how you choose to respond to every single thing written about this article (be it at the AfD, the COI noticeboard, or here) with a diatribe about how you feel harassed isn't useful. Don't take this the wrong way, but the long diatribe was the calling card of the sockpuppets that were involved with this article a few months ago. Perhaps now you can see why some eyebrows have been raised. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an intended diatribe. I was made vaguely aware of some past issues with the article (though sock puppets were never mentioned to me) by Rybec and a few other editors at the time I first worked on the article about Rocket Records for WikiProject Music and its various sub projects. I had originally been contributing to Elton John-related and other music articles when I was made aware of the Rocket Records in America, as well as the one in Finland. I looked at numerous past versions of the article, and tried my best to decipher what was factual/notable/current and what was not. I created (along with productive editing help from Rybec and a few other editors) an article about the American record label Rocket Records, while Elton's old label was moved by consensus over to The Rocket Record Company, its rightful page. I then created some other articles a short time later about some of the company's key figures as well as some indirectly related historical pop music figures from the limited references available. The articles were surely not SPA or promotional, and were fully neutral in tone/facts stated. I was just trying to contribute solid articles for WikiProject Music and its various sub projects. If those articles indeed fail WP:GNG (you nominated some of them for deletion), than I fully respect the community's consensus to delete them. I'm sorry for the mix up/some of my responses, I will heed your helpful advice/words going forward, and I surely do not wish to get into a heated dispute with anybody else again. Best regards. Zachtron (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrator Kinu (not a diatribe, rather your opinion(s) asked for), I am going to be making an official proposal to the community at-large for WikiProject Music regarding community updated WP:MUSIC guidelines (including WP:GNG and WP:CORP guidelines specifically for music) for the project and its sub projects, which includes the subject of record labels under WikiProject Record Labels. The Wikipedia community at-large recently updated WP:GNG guidelines for the specific music category of producers, composers, and songwriters, yet no WP:MUSIC update (although it was discussed by the community at-large) was followed through upon as it directly relates to record labels. The article for Rocket Records is an interesting test case, because it is an RIAA certified record label in the United States with some highly notable commercial music releases (Howie Dorough, Nick Carter, etc.) , yet "online press coverage" for it (as well as for 95% of all record labels, both Majors and Indies) is difficult to come by the majority of the time. The Wikipedia article for Horizon Records (this is just one example of hundreds) has the same issue, being an RIAA certified record label with highly notable commercial music releases, yet limited online press coverage. Obviously WP:GNG and WP:CORP are indeed never inherited, but record labels are a very unique subject matter, and their direct attachment to the notable music industry accomplishments of their key individuals/entities (artists, producers, songwriters, etc.) is an extremely important part of what makes them notable, even though the record labels themselves rarely receive significant coverage, both online or in print media. This even goes for some of the world's largest record labels. For WikiProject Record Labels, a good majority of project members currently feel that RIAA certification (which is THE top standard for record labels) with notable WP:MUSIC accomplishment guidelines similar to the new ones for music producers, composers, and songwriters would indeed be appropriate for record labels as it relates to their inclusion in Wikipedia. Record labels, though "companies", fall much more in line with music artists, producers, songwriters, and composers as opposed to "everyday" companies subject to common WP:CORP guidelines. Would you personally object to the "Stubbing" or "Starter" classification of Rocket Records, Horizon Records, and some other notable (precise WP:GNG record label guidelines TBD) record label articles like them that can be included or deleted dependent upon newly proposed WP:MUSIC guidelines for record labels, as opposed to just fully deleting them right now (which is detrimental to WikiProject Record Labels) before those new guidelines are set? We are trying to complete the project as best as possible for the general community of Wikipedia readers, so that is why I am asking you these specific questions. Zachtron (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. But yes, I would object to the closing of the deletion discussion of Rocket Records as you suggest. The AfD process is designed to determine whether an article merits inclusion and in this case no convincing case has been made that sources exist; therefore, the article should be deleted. I have no opinion on any matter outside those on which I have already voiced one, but I will say that attempting to convince other editors that record companies should be an "exception" to WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:RS, etc., will be a futile uphill battle. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I have asked the WikiProject Music community to help find and contribute sources for Rocket Records as well as the many other record label articles (there are indeed many) that critically need such. 7 days is the minimum length required before an article can be deleted, but AfD's can productively remain open longer with no harm whatsoever. I had zero objections of your deletion of some of the articles that I contributed to for the valid reasons that you stated, but I do kindly request that the AfD for Rocket Records remain open for a reasonable bit past 7 days so that the WikiProject Music team members and I can try to find/include some proper reliable references for the article. Keeping an article which has merit is better than deleting it if reliable references establishing guidelines for the article's continued inclusion can indeed be found, so to that at least you will hopefully not object. Kind regards. Zachtron (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You and I have very different definitions of "an article which has merit" then. Not to be harsh, but a discussion about an article that has exactly zero reliable sources about the company, essentially violating the verifiability policy, and for which zero reliable sources have been found by multiple editors, does not warrant a relist. I'm fairly certain whichever administrator acts on the discussion (it's not going to be me, since I've !voted and am involved) will most likely see it the same way. If you manage to find a source later, whenever that may be, feel free to request undeletion. Until then, I don't have much else to say on this matter and will let the AfD and my comments therein speak for themselves. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright. The WikiProject Music team and I will try and find reliable sources in the allotted time, or before/after another administrator makes a decision about the article. In the meantime, I saw your recent edit to/concern about the article, and went ahead and made yet another edit deleting as much biographical information as possible regarding the record label's personnel. I understand your "shoehorning" concern which is certainly not a purposeful intention at all, and I left only the bare bones minimum biographical information taken directly from the article's references under the article's History section in order to make it a tangible read. Regards. Zachtron (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Gogo Dodo told me that you deleted a page regarding to Playa Fly's album Movin' On. He directed me to simply contact you so the page could be restored. Just trying to keep information on Playa Fly alive on the internet.

Thanks,

Shane SFleming93 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC -4)

SFleming93 arrived before I could leave you a courtesy note. He asked me to restore several albums that were deleted per CSD A9 for Playa Fly. Since the artist's article was restored, I restored the album articles that I deleted. You did the deletion to Movin' On (Playa Fly album), so I referred him to you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored the album article. I would suggest updating it with references as soon as possible! --Kinu ^t/_c 17:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw your name on the Template:TxDOT talk page. An error has been introduced in the template probably by a change at the TxDOT website that affects FM 500 to FM 999, but not others. An example is the citation here, Farm to Market Road 640.

• Old path: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/FM500/FM640.htm
• New path: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/FM0500/FM0640.htm

I write lots of articles but I confess that editing the template defeats me. Can you help? Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The problem appears to be resolved. If you fixed it, thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ShuttlesworthStatue.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, I know you are quite familiar with them and they are back. I filed a sock report here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Professional Music Blogger. I am One of Many (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch... some people just don't know when to quit, do they? Ha. Thanks for letting me know. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

They sure don't and I don't expect that it will be the last we will see of them! I am One of Many (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

...this was not badly written. It is correct info that belongs on this page and you didn't include it. I demand you either put my input back or put something into the article related. and it had a source...it also was related to pure water....which is what the article was about. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultrapure_water&oldid=571663739&diff=prev</ref> Dddash107 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The "source" provided was a link to another Wikipedia article. Statements such as "Drinking water, which we usually think of as pure, really contains a whole mess of salts and sugars" and sentences written in the second person do not belong in an encyclopedia article. I stand by my assessment of the content and its relevance. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kinu

"HistoryofIran" user vandalism in Lurs and Luristan page. He remove All Historical images and "Lur people of iran" map no valid reason. I ask you to stop doing this "HistoryofIran" user.

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=User:HistoryofIran

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Lorestan_Province

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Lurs

Thank youSetenlyacc (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I was considering taking both of them to ANI. The articles they are edit-warring on are a mess. However, I discovered that Setenlyacc ignored my warnings about copyvio and, as I did earlier with HistoryofIran, I have blocked him indefinitely which means he is blocked until we can be sure he understands our copyvio policy and can edit it without breaking it. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Daisy Blue Groff Deletion I was looking to write a page on Daisy Blue Groff, however, when I went to create it, noticed that one had been previously written (twice, once in 2012 and once in 2013), both for self-promotion. I didn't write these two previous articles but am now not allowed to post since the other two have been deleted and recreated. I'm a relatively new user and have a new article (complete with great outside references like CBC and the Edmonton Journal (an Albertan newspaper), so just checking in to see what my options are. So I go through you for the request? Thanks! 02:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Keystonetext (talk)

All of them have been nominated for deletion, including {{La Salle County, Texas Highways}}, which you created. Please feel free to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 26#Texas county highway navigational boxes. Imzadi 1979 → 23:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating on your reasoning behind this? --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• The hatnote linked to a non-existent article, which serves no purpose. (See WP:NOARTICLE.) --Kinu ^t/_c 19:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)