User talk:Kinu

• If your article was speedy deleted, please read the reason in the deletion log. Also note that, while I may have been the one to actually perform the deletion, another editor was likely the one who actually tagged it for deletion. If so, they left a message on your talk page, so please read the information there first. It might be a good idea to have a dialogue with them in lieu of with me.
• If your article was about a band, please see WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia administrator User:Chrislk02 explains our speedy deletion of band articles in more depth here.
• If your article was about a company you work for, founded, etc., please see WP:COI. Chances are your article looked like WP:SPAM. Take a moment to think about whether it could be considered advertising.
• If your article was a joke... no thanks.
• If I reverted content that I say was unsourced or poorly sourced, please see WP:RS. Verifiability is taken seriously around here.

• Post a new message at the bottom of my talk page. If you post it at the top, do something to break the formatting of this page, or replace everything on this page with your question, I will likely ignore and/or delete it. Common courtesy, please.
• For a new topic, use a headline that's more descriptive than "my article". For best results, make the topic the title of the article. I deal with scores of articles a day, and I'm not going to go hunting for one.
• Sign and date your entries using ~~~~ or the signature icon in the toolbar above the edit box.
• Avoid comparisons and provide reliable sources for me to consider. Glib rants that compare your three-piece garage metalcore band to Metallica or that say your website is just as important as Google generally won't sway anyone.
• Communication that is in ALL CAPS, is barely in English, lacks punctuation, is otherwise poorly worded or incoherent, contains profanity/personal attacks, or generally assumes bad faith will likely be reverted. I have no obligation to respond to anything that I feel does not benefit the project.

• If there is an issue that you feel requires or would benefit from my attention and administrative tools specifically, because we have communicated regarding it previously or you have other reasons to believe I might be the right person to deal with it, please feel free to create a section on my talk page!
• However, for general requests for administrative actions, it is best to file a report at the proper venue (WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, etc.) instead of pinging me specifically, for the reasons outlined below.
• While it may appear that I am active based on my recent contributions, I do tend to jump from task to task here (and between here and the "real world") quite frequently. Thus, even though I may be actively performing administrative work during one short spell, I may not be during the next, instead focusing on another task (either on-wiki or in the "real world").
• Likewise, if I have a high level of activity at a particular board and have actioned many reports, but not one that you have already filed there, it may be because I do not feel comfortable actioning it: I may not have a full understanding of the context and/or history or actually be involved with the editor/article in some way.
• That being said, any information you provide with the good-faith intention of maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, either here or to the relevant noticeboard, is appreciated! Rest assured that someone will act on it appropriately in due time.

Seriously, only three days? The page gets constantly vandalised, can you please extend that duration to indef please. Govvy (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm hesitant to apply indefinite protection, but given the most recent protections over the past couple of months, I think 6 months seems like a reasonable place to start. I'll update accordingly. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the timestamp for the YouTube video where it's mentioned where Danny Coulson mentioned Phil Coulson? CarverSindile (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. The reference desk might be a good place to inquire about this. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean when exactly does Danny in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2ZZyHfNE7M) mention that Phil Coulson was named after him? CarverSindile (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain why you are asking me, but I do not know. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the edit history, you added it but I could be looking at it wrong.CarverSindile (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Assuming you are referring to Danny Coulson, the only edit I have made to that article is some date fixes here. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can help me find it then? CarverSindile (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not have the time or interest to do so. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Notsammyray. Seems to have abided by WP:SO, agrees to avoid COI problems. Says all the right things. --Jayron32 15:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and comment there. Thanks for the note. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kinu. There was no need to block 180.245.230.51 (talk · contribs). All their edits were reverts of the vandal. See [1] for example. For that matter, I don't believe protecting the page was even necessary. It was a single vandal, from a single IP address, targeting a single page; about as straight forward as you can get. All that was need was a block on the one actual vandal IP. If the other reverting editors on that page would have just issued warnings or reported the vandal, this could have been resolved much quicker. I really don't understand why I was the only editor who bothered to issue any warnings.

Anyhow, thanks for the block to user:118.99.110.60, but please unblock 180.245.230.51 (talk · contribs). They did nothing wrong. And please consider removing the page protection. I will keep it watchlist and report back if there's any further nonsense. --DB1729^talk 05:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, uhh sorry, backing up here. I didn't see this edit[2] which although could be good-faith, except the IPs seem to geolocate to the same place and so probably the same individual. Also didn't notice there was a third IP before I had arrived on the scene, so the page protection was indeed probably a good idea. Thanks for everything, sorry for the fuss, and have great day. --DB1729^talk 06:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I admit I was a little confused at first myself about what was going on there, so I appreciate the second set of eyes to make sure that I did things sensibly. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing[3] shortly after protection expired. DB1729^talk 01:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've reprotected. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! for also applying the partial block to the range. Another good idea:) And as for my previous posts last week, it's encouraging to see admins getting it exactly right, even when at first blush, it may have looked wrong. DB1729^talk 08:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind revoking the TPA of HoveringTurtle? They've made it clear they're jsut gonna keep making accusations towards others (ans since they're complaining about sockpuppetry when there is no such mention that makes me think they are a sock) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the heads-up. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I warned them that if they continued on like that they would lose their talk page access. They clearly ignored that. Unfortunately I don't know who the master would be so I can't exactly file an SPI report. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your help in blocking Vandman1's socks and LTAs, and deleting their created pages! I wonder they'll stop, though...but thanks! Tails Wx 03:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, and thank you for your diligence in reporting these accounts! --Kinu ^t/_c 04:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there are some conflicts that occur in the Arabs, so I see that it should be marked with protection because it is within the Arab-Israeli conflict related page. Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article already appears to be listed as contentious per its talk page. I don't see anything particularly egregious in the recent history to warrant any sort of protection, but if you disagree, you're welcome to take it to WP:RFPP. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My draft that you deleted was actually meant to be in the sandbox, I am merely testing out Wikipedia's article editing functions. Could you allow me to retrieve the source code for the page? You can still delete if you want. Regards. ~~~ Dwasirkaram (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwasirkaram: I have restored the content and moved the draft to User:Dwasirkaram/Mohammed Ali. As a user subpage, there is somewhat more leeway versus the Draft namespace, so no worries. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you semi protected this article in 2011. I was thinking 12 years has elapsed and maybe it's time to lift protection? LibStar (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies... I got the initial notification about this and meant to respond, but have been busier than usual as of late, so it slipped my mind. I got a courtesy ping indicating that this was resolved via RFPP, and I hope that said resolution is satisfactory. Thank you for letting me know. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you revdeleted content on an article because it was copied from Fandom. It can be undeleted because Fandom releases their text under a Creative Commons license compatible with Wikipedia. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the content that was subject to revdel was the entirety of the script of the film, which regardless of source is still subject to copyright. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't know that. You are right.  Self-trout. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that 2a02:c7c:5ea0:1800::/64 is part of the current attack; they were just swept up by my insanely broad filter. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... thanks for letting me know. I think I had too many tabs open and got confused as to which ones were the true offenders. I've unblocked that range. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re Special:Diff/1161904841, maybe I'm missing something but I see no sign that the connection has (yet) been confirmed by a CU. I'd agree with tagging as proven but not confirmed, not yet. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the confirmation was per this, but feel free to amend the tag if you see fit. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the RD2 edit on the revision history of this article. There is one more edit from the same user that seems to also meet the revdel requirements, any chance you can also also revdel that other comment from the same editor? Thanks.

• Note -- in an effort to avoid any conflict of interest, this is to inform you that you and I know each other personally IRL. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the edit, I don't see anything that egregiously flouts WP:BLP to the point where the RD2 redaction criteria are satisfied. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please reduce the move protection that you placed on Richter magnitude scale to semi-protected (or lower)? There is a requested-move discussion to move the page to Richter scale. I would close the discussion now if the page weren't move protected. SilverLocust 💬 04:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Admittedly, I didn't dig into the history to see why it has been protected for so long, but hopefully it's no longer necessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kinu. There's currently a standard-offer unblock request at UTRS from Eni.Sukthi.Durres, an editor blocked by you on 10 April 2023. (UTRS appeal #80104.) You initially partially blocked from mainspace because of incompetence at English, and then extended the block to sitewide, including revoking talk page access, because of threats etc. (Relevant links: ANI archived discussion which led to the block; User talk:Eni.Sukthi.Durres).

The editor is now asking to be unblocked to return to the less controversial kind of editing he believes he did from 2013 to 2018, after which he had a long break, and returned in a different spirit. The editing history is quite extensive, but I have spent some time checking it, and my impressions are as follows. Certainly their editing from 2013 to 2018 was not totally trouble free, as their block log shows, but the problems were very small in proportion to the amount of editing he were doing, and nowhere remotely near the level of the problems which led you to block him. His poor command of English didn't cause many problems in the 2013 to 2018 because he mostly just did things like updating statistics, and didn't actually write much English. I don't think he would have been indef-blocked had he carried on in the same way.

I am writing to ask you to consider whether you see a case for lifting the block, or at the least restoring talk page access to allow an on-wiki unblock request. I do not myself have a definite view on the matter. JBW (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: I apologize for the delay in responding due to the holiday weekend. Although my decision to block wasn't based on any sort of formal consensus for a CBAN, given some of the egregious threats and concerns raised by other editors (e.g., Drmies) at the ANI, I feel like this probably should be subject to scrutiny beyond just one or two of us. I do want to assume good faith about their intention to edit in a manner that would be less problematic, so I feel like restoring talk page access to allow an unblock request that can be considered more thoroughly and transparently seems like the best course of action for now. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with you that opening it to "scrutiny beyond just one or two of us" is best, and I would certainly not have unblocked on my own without consultation, so I shall restore talk page access and invite them to post an unblock request there. For what it's worth, my guess is that it will come to nothing, but I am willing to give them a chance to prove me wrong. JBW (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; please consider revoking talk page access from Leaf business consulting services due to talk page abuse (diff). Thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 08:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for letting me know! --Kinu ^t/_c 08:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 08:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It took a fair bit of 'massaging' the search engine, but it is real. Albeit, only barely. I left a message on the user's page which summarizes my "findings",[4] and here's a link to the actual site.[5] Pretty graphics, I'll give him that much. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for pointing that out! If nothing else, the information at that site (and the site for the related PaulaJS, which they inserted here) supports my inkling that this editor is a sockpuppet of User:Dataclick, whom I had previously blocked for inserting the same content. I'll act on it accordingly. Cheers! --Kinu ^t/_c 04:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kinu, I added that section title because it has been hard to read the comments as it is set up now, using a mobile phone or Desk Top computer. I have participated in many of these discussions on other articles; I always saw the comments without having to open the Edit page first. The heading Wilmette Wilbus sends me back to article, and does not show the comments. I do not understand why this discussion page is tricky to see. Adding the section title made it easy, ordinary, to see comments without first seeing the Edit text. All I do see are two section headings, none of the discussion posts, until I take that back door route of the Edit text.

Is there something unusual about this particular Deletion Discussion page’s format? As you read, it is the first time that I put up the article under discussion, and the first time I experienced this awkward path to seeing the comments before adding one.

i do thank you for reading the article carefully and making useful comments. - - Prairieplant (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(For reference, the discussion in question is here.) I'm not seeing anything particularly unusual about the format of this discussion versus others (aside from the copied content from the talk page, which should not affect the presentation). It appears fine on my end, so I'm not certain what would have been causing the issue you mention. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just something to keep in mind for the future - if there is a post (in this case referring to WP:EFFPR) where the content needs to be removed immediately (ostensibly because there is problematic content) please do not ask for it to be archived, as it then propagates the content in two different locations. Please blank it and email Oversight instead. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for the note. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your adminship and work in deterring vandals. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 19:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Kinu ^t/_c 20:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is live -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Kinu ^t/_c 08:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You might want to check the admin noticeboard page and maybe up the protection level a bit - the silliness is continuing. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the heads up. Here's hoping that the block and the additional eyes on it help. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kinu, why did you delete the {{Jimbo Wales}}? Can you please bring it back? There was content in it. Lionel Cristiano^? 08:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pls check the view history. Lionel Cristiano^? 10:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionel Cristiano: I incorrectly believed you were the one to have blanked it. I've restored it. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see what the template does now. Not sure we need this (and I've edited your comment so it is disabled here because I quite frankly don't want such nonsense here), but not a speedy deletion candidate, so I apologize. It might end up at TFD, but I won't push it for now. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for bringing it back. Lionel Cristiano^? 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't know about the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. I wanted to say that I don't know every single thing about Wikipedia, a lot of things through. It's great helping out even I've been on here kinda less. Cwater1 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you blocked this user [6]. Yesterday this user redirected an article I created Basheer Ahmad Masri to Bashir Ahmad Masri without any consensus. Their decision to do this is wrong he published under the name Basheer. I raised the issue on the talk-page. Is it possible to revert back to the original article title I created? I can't revert their edit. I tried looking up how to undo a page name change and I did not understand it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychologist Guy: Thanks for letting me know. I've reverted the move and commented further on the article's talk page. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please tell me why you would revert my contribution in High-IQ society. The Giga Society is also listed on the German Wikipedia, and that society has the likes of Richard G. Rosner, Dr. Heinrich Siemens as its members. 2A02:2488:1C55:FB00:E4F1:D919:D694:AD9E (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A listing on the German Wikipedia is not relevant here: there is no article on the English Wikipedia (indeed, it has been deleted in the past). Likewise, the information you provided was unsourced. As such, its inclusion contravenes WP:LISTCRIT. Please refer to the comment above the table and the associated talk page discussion regarding consensus for the appropriateness of entries. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's better that way . Why did you vandalize my edits? Skcin7 (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia, and I would recommend not throwing that word around without evidence. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing it back. It's better showing the Arabic numerals in parenthesis after the Roman numerals so people can actually know what Super Bowl # it is without having to do an entirely separately Google search, the parenthesis directly shows that it's no part of the official title and there is no confusion whatsoever, the only time readers are confused if when they are reading the article and have no idea what Super Bowl # it is since the vast majority of people don't automatically know how to decipher Roman numerals, and I don't appreciate at all you changing back my edits with a very rude message on my Talk page. Please do not revert my edits again. Skcin7 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is not an appropriate approach here (or anywhere), and the correct thing to do after being reverted to the status quo ante, which has been the standard format of the lead for as far back as the articles in question have existed (e.g., this), would be to discuss this at an appropriate venue rather than continue to make these types of edits. I see no established consensus or indication that such translations are required or useful inline; this would lead to similar clutter in article leads such as Charles III (3), Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (6), and Games of the XXXIII Olympiad (33rd). Similarly, saying "[i]t's better" is an opinion; likewise, the assertion that "the vast majority of people don't automatically know how to decipher Roman numerals" is unsupported. For what it's worth, my initial message to you was hardly "very rude", but I hope this explanation clarifies things further. Regardless, barring any such centralized discussion as mentioned, I see no further benefit in continuing this discussion. Thank you for your reply. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I am blocked from posting. I am generally sorry. I didn't mean to do whatever you are accusing me of. I also cited sources. I would like to appeal your decision. Thank you. Jdb443 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can post here means you are not blocked. Regardless, your edit was incorrect and has been reverted multiple times, so there's nothing else to say here. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I permanently banned. I also cited sources. Or is that not taken into account for a first offense? Jdb443 (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "you are not blocked" is pretty clear. (Further responses, if necessary, will go on the thread on your talk page.) --Kinu ^t/_c 03:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says i'm not allowed to edit certain pages I used to be able to edit previously. Jdb443 (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]