User talk:Kcordina/archive4

Copyvios

Hi, I am just stopping by to bring this case to your attention, and to ask whether such copyvio recreations of recently deleted pages qualify for speedy delete? Regards, ImpuMozhi 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block on 209.79.178.130

Hi there, I noticed that you blocked 209.79.178.130 for a month , then unblocked them to extend the block for 6 months. I don't know if this was a mistake, but you put a block of one month back on them. Was this on purpose? I fully support a 6 month block as I don't see them quitting their vandalism soon. Anyway, it's all up to you. Yours, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre, don't know how I managed that....ho hum. Vandalism doesn't seem to have reappeared so have left it for now.. thanks for pointing it out. Kcordina ^Talk 08:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patents and revert war

I've added a rationale in Patents discussion for the text you've reverted out on several occasions. You appear to be a generalist - do you have any special expertise in this area?

This is Boundlessly ^Talk. In your effort to "simplify" the discussion of the European patent Convention, you introduced a glaring error. It's an error I have fixed several times, and I will fix it again. I see in your edit history that you've been chewed out about this identical issue by others. Stop it. Please do not simplify it at the cost of making it wrong. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.138.184 (talk • contribs)

I've made a reply to you at Talk:Patent#European Patents. Sorry, your facts are all a mess. Please indicate that you will stop deleting stuff. Boundlessly

how I can become a memember of wikipedia?

HI I am salim khan from pakistan. would you like to tell me about the membership of wikipedia. thanks salimswati

Click on the 'sign in/create account' button in the top corner, create an account, and start editing. Simple as that! Kcordina ^Talk 08:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold is not an invitation to act carelessly.

I am more than a little concerned by this edit of yours. A ten second look at the uploaders contributions would have made it clear to you that he's uploaded photos from multiple distinct flkr users and tagged them all as GFDL-self. While it is remotely possible that he happens to be all these people, it is unlikely enough that it would warrant contacting the flkr users at a minimum before keeping the image and I welcome you to do so... but please do not simply remove tagging like that again. We assume good faith on Wikipedia, but we can't assume that people are competent... people make mistakes, especially in the confusing world of copyright. --Gmaxwell 12:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Kcordina ^Talk 12:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be helpful if things like this were noted when reporting the copyvio - the sheer volume of copyvio's to be dealt with means that not every single detail of every single one can be considered as well as they would in an ideal world. If more admins were to help us out dealing with them more consideration could be given. Sadly, tagging articles seems more exciting to people than ultimately dealing with them. Kcordina ^Talk 12:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said what it was, an edit summary isn't the best place to explain things... You could have asked. It's lucky that I checked my watchlist this morning, had I waited another hour it would have scrolled off. FWIW, I've done as much of the heavy lifting as anyone else... the reason I just left that tagged was because of the possibility that a mistake was made. ... But AGF is not a valid reason to detag something, even when an uploader tells you "I made this" rather than just picking from a dropdown, AGF still doesn't let you dismiss.. People frequently say "I made this" for screenshots from movies. :( --Gmaxwell 14:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL IP Block

A new feature in the MediaWiki software allows users who have an account to edit. For those who don't have an account, registration is unobstructed. I set both of these settings to take the effects above, so AOL editing shouldn't be a problem. If it is, please let me know. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 09:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for people with an account or who want to make one - but people wanting to edit anonymously from AOL may not be able to. Personally, I think that's fine as I can't see any reason why people shouldn't sign up for a username, but it seems to be wikipedia decided policy to allow, and almost encourage, anonymous editing. A nightmare for us folk trying to control vandalism, but ho hum, them's the rules. Kcordina ^Talk 09:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CP

Hi, thanks for pointing this out. I did a couple to show willing... Some require a bit of investigation. I'll try to drop by sometimes to help, but - sheesh - so much to do everywhere! Feel free to drop a reminder in the future if you wish. Tyrenius 12:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-production of society and technology

Greetings, Sorry, but I cannot remember if I finished the merge of Co-production of society and technology into Technology. Which ever of us does it is fine with me. Thanks, SteveMc 14:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, have you got the right user? I don't remember being involved in that article. Kcordina ^Talk 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.167.58.37

Hi, would you take a look at this user's talk page (67.167.58.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) and perhaps consider unblocking? I think he deserves another chance.--Lo2u 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for pointing that out - I have unblocked the user. Kcordina ^Talk 08:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Kim Mizuno & Michael Bisco

I don't think that either of these are notable. I'll put them up for AfD if you agree. Ste4k 08:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Kcordina ^Talk 08:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll do so directly.~~ They are submitted, under Kim Mizuno, Thanks. Ste4k 09:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Brookfield copyvio

I don't understand your decision on the resolution of the John Brookfield copyvio, where you said "only a small part taken". If you go to [1], you will see that most of the Wikipedia content has been copied directly, with only very slight alterations. I wasn't able to insert that link directly into the copyvio template, for some reason, so I had to substitute something else and list the "real" link separately. In any case, it's more than a "small part" that was used - pretty much the full content of the page (including the picture) was inserted into the Wikipedia entry except for his contact information. Dsreyn 13:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the Research summary section has been copied. The education part is clearly different as the website simply makes a list of things, whereas the wikipedia has a lot of padding. The list of papers could well have been copied, but there is only one way, really, of expressing that and so no way of escaping the appearance of copying. The copied bits are only a small part of the pages on the website so I still think it is OK. The photo may well need deleting, but that hasn't yet been listed as a copyvio, hence I didn't remove it. Kcordina ^Talk 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]