Jump to content

User talk:Kinu/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Why did you delete the SoChe page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantilar (talk • contribs) 02:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • As the deletion log indicates , it appeared to be a hoax and met speedy deletion criteria for hoaxes. To be frank, there is absolutely no evidence (either found in the article or any reliable sources) that this term is in use outside of the article, and your only other edits seemed to be attempts to shoehorn that term into other articles. --Kinu t/c 03:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • In fact, this has been a coined neighborhood name in New York just as those which came before it ex. West Village and East Village are sub neighborhoods of Greenwich Village. Please undo whatever actions you took to delete this page or let me know if you'd like to have a further discussion on this.
      • Please show me a reliable source that uses this term and I will gladly do so. --Kinu t/c 03:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
        • How could I possibly do that when it's a coined neighborhood that people use in New York City? There are no official neighborhoods in Manhattan they are all names that people started calling areas as they began to grow its own culture, pulse and feel. If you would like to discuss over skype please skpye me at my username mantilar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantilar (talk • contribs) 03:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, I can easily find terms like NoHo, East Village, and the sort on a map (like the MTA's subway map), in print (like the New York Times), and actual sources that meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. The claim of "word of mouth" isn't good enough until someone reports about it. --Kinu t/c 03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Hells Kitchen, Clinton, Spanish Harlem are all not on the MTA's subway map, but are real neighborhoods in Manhattan that people call home. I do respect (in fact I really respect after all this) Wikipedias accuracy, but I would appreciate you forwarding this issue on to an admin in New York City if that is possible. Thank you. - Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantilar (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Also, NoHo and the East Village, as you noted above, are NOT in fact on the MTA's subway map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantilar (talk • contribs) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
              • I hope you realize the MTA map was just one example of a possible source. These terms appear on other maps, are referred to in other media. What it comes down to is: adequate sourcing exists for those terms, but not for "SoChe." Without anything to show its existence, it violates Wikipedia policy on verifiability. All users (administrators or otherwise) and all content are bound by that. As I said before: show me a source and I will restore the article. Avoiding the issue isn't helping your case. (And, by the way... I'm looking at the MTA map right now. I'm a transportation nerd, and it's actually my computer's desktop wallpaper. Looks like they're there to me.) --Kinu t/c 03:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, such a ruling by the community board would not be sufficient to show that a neighborhood exists for a number of reasons:
  • As Mantilar points out, neighborhoods in New York City exist by common usage, and not by official action, so no official action can ex nihilo create a neigborhood.
  • The Community Board action is about zoning in a specific area of the Chelsea neighborhood. It may very well be (may be even probable) that the re-zoning will bring about a new neighborhood, because the character of the area is altered by the re-zoning, and many more residential units are created, but the creation of a zoning area does not in and of itself create a new neighborhood. That can happen only over time, and requires (for our purposes) references in newspapers, magazines etc. I won't be surprised at all if, in five years, maybe less, we have an article on West Chelsea as a separate neighborhood (perhaps under a different name), but we don't have one now and that is appropriate, since it does not yet have a separate identity.
  • The same is true, but even more so, of "South Chelsea", which is about two or three steps behind West Chelsea.
  • Even if South Chelsea were to be re-zoned, and the re-zoning was to change the character of the area, and it became a separate and recognized neighborhood, it wouldn't be "SoChe" unless people called it "SoChe", and we would need to have verification of that name from reliable sources as well.

All of this means that the cart is being put before the cart here. Neighborhoods can't be nudged into creation by writing a Wikipedia article and hoping that reality catches up, it's got to be the other way around. NYC has lots and lots of different kins of districts – police precinct districts, fire districts, numerous electorial districts, community board districts, zoning districts – but each of these is not a neigborhood, and a real neighborhood will frequently cross the lines of those districts, because they're created by the actions and attitudes of people and not by bureaucratic action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, that is a valid point. Perhaps my statement was a (semi-exasperated) extreme summary version of the events that need to unfold for this to be verifiable: if there is some action that legitimizes the usage of this term (either de facto or de jure), and then the term enters popular usage and becomes identifiable with the neighborhood, and then the usage is reflected in reliable sources, then such an article could exist. Your expanded clarification is appreciated. --Kinu t/c 05:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've actually heard that area called South Chelsea numerous times; however, I am not sure it has been called SoChe before. It is probable but evidence and usage (including links) is needed. Will do a bit of research as I've lived in the area for 10+ years and would be entertained if this is true in fact true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElBarone203 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea is rather a large neighborhood which is undergoing significant changes, so it's natural that people will start to refer to specific parts of it which begin to have their own character: thus, "West Chelsea", "South Chelsea" and so on. Real estate interests fuel this to some extent, as having an identifiably trendy or upscale neighborhood for your property helps sales (that's what's behind NoMad, for instance, and the Meatpacking District, although those neighborhoods have sufficient media coverage to warrant having their own articles) It's all an evolutionary process, with the push of realtors being held back by the inertia of the status quo, and the media divided between those that want to be trendy and those who don't want to use identifiers which will confuse their audience, and it's not always easy to tell when a neighborhood crosses the line and becomes notable, by our standards.

When I moved to my present apartment 30+ years ago, the area didn't have much of an identity, although it was sometimes called the "Photo District" because of the great number of photographers' studios and photo supply stores there, or the "Toy District" because of the influence of the Toy Center, and Hasbro and Mattel being located nearby. To me, living in the East Village, it was just farther "uptown". Now, it's quite firmly the Flatiron District. If Wikipedia had existed back then – when I moved in and there was no supermarket, no drugstore, no place to eat, and the streets rolled up at 6pm – someone who tried to start an article on the area as a neighborhood would have been shut down in exactly the same way as SoChe was, since the neighborhood was only on the cusp of emerging, and there was, as yet, no "there" there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi Kinu, what would you suggest? Give me some input so I have a direction in detail of what should be put in that space or cannot be put in that space. Thank you for your ear, I look forward to your help.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Looking at the deleted article, more than one sentence and something that actually indicates a claim of importance would be helpful. Aggrandizing statements like "a patriot of his country" without any actual substance do not convey importance and are subject to speedy deletion. --Kinu t/c 19:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Why was the AnaJet page deleted?
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

There is a significant reason for having companies in direct to garment printer manufacturing. Much like Epson, Toshiba, Vizio, and other significant manufacturers who have incorporated with other large entities. Why was this page blatant advertising if no reference to the product was mentioned. It was merely about the company and the direct to garment printing industry. Significant sources were cited. MantisMB (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MantisMB (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)1. The only "source" was the subject's own webpage; so apparently nobody ever heard of them.
2. The language was full of phrasing like "has developed new channels for such technologies as the ease of use of digital printing for apparel", which belongs in a press release or other advertisement, not in an encyclopedia article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the second time it was deleted. Can you pull up that deleted page? It had 4 "sources". If it's sold in 27 countries, nobody has heard of them. Direct to garment printing is worldwide, although it is an emerging technology. Several of AnaJet's managers are writers for trade publications[1]. The company has recently incorporated with Chicago Partners Group[2]. I thought it was significant enough to put them on here. Thank you for your curt response. MantisMB (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, the four sources: a link to the company's home page; a press release about the company (one of the links you provide above); an article written by someone identified as the "applications manager" for the company and not even about the company (one of the links you provide above); and an article that doesn't mention the company at all that is apparently by the company-employed individual who wrote the other article. Orange Mike sums it up well: ultimately there was nothing substantive indicating why the company is important (WP:CSD#A7), and it was laden with blatant adspeak and press release-type material/non-sources (WP:CSD#G11). --Kinu t/c 22:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Creator of GUPSHUP RIDER
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi Kinu, its me the creator of article GUPSHUP RIDERS, i was just putting a page for refrals for our community , and u deleted it saying GR was promotig a product :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqi g (talk • contribs) 12:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It was "a page for refrals [sic] for our community"... so what you're saying is, by your own admission, you were promoting something. Thank you for endorsing my deletion. --Kinu t/c 12:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hiya Kinu,

I see you have deleted my "sukimasis" page ... just wondering. It is, as you say, a hoax, but it's part of an ARG I am going to play with some of my secondary school students and I wanted to use different sources of information. I didn't think this type of stuff (it's not offensive to or lying about anybody) would automatically be deleted...

  • "It is, as you say, a hoax"... so you agree that the reason for deletion was appropriate. Likewise, I'm assuming "ARG" means "alternate reality game"... note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost/game server. --Kinu t/c 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough... any suggestions about where I could post it... kinda new to this type of stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.3.25 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion notice on Right to Information in local governments in Kerala
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

The contents of the page Right to Information in local governments in Kerala is open government information exists in the law (Right to Information Act 2005) and rules created by Government of India and Government of Kerala respectively and does not contain any copyright material. As well, the same details are there in the decwatch.org site administered by me (decwatch.org server admin's email is decwatch@gmail.com. If copyright issue is the only problem, as site manager of the decwatch.org, I can give permission. But I dont know the mechanism for doing it as I have not goen through the process. As well, kinldy understand that I have been building pages on local governance in kerala at times during the last two years. Please see other pages as well.I am not a vandal or violator of wiki rules. Please get in touch with me if you need more towards clarification. So please get to know more before taking a decison on deletion. (Rajankila (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

  • Can you provide a link to the original source from the Government of Kerala? Also, to be frank, the copyright issue isn't the only problem... a text-dump of a government document isn't really all that encyclopedic. I would think that the content would be more useful if rewritten as a sourced commentary. --Kinu t/c 22:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    • http://www.rti.kerala.gov.in/faq.htm as well as the entire site is my source. As well, the site is a derivative of the Right to Information Act 2005 at http://www.rti.kerala.gov.in/act.htm of the Government of India itself. That means mine is a third modified copy of a very significant act that gives people the power to see government affairs from its records. It is an act similar to Freedom of Information Law. The table created by me at my site at http://decwatch.org is nowhere else available. But I did not get time to crete that all I wanted to update and stopped with a note that all those editing and refining will be done soon. See that, for right to inforamtion act, there are innumerable sites in India such as those that are linked at the bottom of my page at decwatch.org,including e-learning courses, denoting its importance. I did not include historical facts like Kerala had a transparency law in India since 1962 when nobody else thought of it as a subject. I admit that the language of the page might be not so refined, but the argument that the subject does not fall under the encyclopediac category cannot be a valid one, to me. So please consider reverting and retaining the page, if possible, which I will improve in course of time.Rajankila (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Please read the above reply, check the links and decide whether the page was worth deleting. If not please revert the deletion.Rajankila (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I've looked over the content and still am unsure about the copyright status. While the government-created content appears freely usable, the content that you created on the DecWatch website does not appear to be usable at the moment. It is actually insufficient for you to simply state here that you own the website, unfortunately; while I don't distrust you, it just isn't sufficient per our copyright policies. I would say that you have a couple of options here, which are more succinctly outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials under the section "Granting us permission to copy material already online". This would allow you to release the content under a copyleft free license compatible with Wikipedia by either noting it on the DecWatch website or by providing proof of ownership via the OTRS e-mail system. If you're unsure, it might also be worth asking at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems; the editors who frequent that discussion are generally more adept at handling copyright issues. I hope this helps! --Kinu t/c 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The page http://decwatch.org/?q=node/133 is under cretive commons now. Please see the notice at the bottom of the page.Please revert the deletion.Rajankila (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Please see my resonse above. Is that enough? Rajankila (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Authoritative page
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi Kinu, I set up the Funzoo page but you deleted it. Are these links ok for external references: http://www.mobile-ent.biz/news/read/uk-launch-for-mobile-games-and-app-store-funzoo http://mobilemarketingmagazine.co.uk/content/funzoo-opens-business

If I just wrote about what it does, who set it up and where it originates from, what it supplies and what date is was set up would that be ok?

Regards, Gareth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneillgareth (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm still having a hard time seeing a claim of importance. Can you explain why the website is notable and would be an encyclopedic topic? --Kinu t/c 22:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Sydness Architects P.C.
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

I would like Sydness Architects page to not be deleted. I do not understand how you believe it not to be an encyclopedic entry. It is not for advertising purposes. The definition of Encyclopedia according to Apple is " a book giving information on many subjects." Sydness Architects is an interesting subject because the company was started by an architect who was one of the last partners of world renowned architect Phillip Johnson. Many people in architecture would like to know that especially since the ideas from this firm were closely worked on with Phillip Johnson. I can try and re word the entry but the Sydness Architects P.C. page is an interesting piece of information because of it's direct ties to Phillip Johnson.

Please undo the delete on the page so I can access it and add more reference. Architectural Digest and the New York Times have reviewed this company and it's significance to post-modern architecture. It seems I can't edit it unless you take it of "delete"? If you don't I will just recreate it, but out of courtesy you should talk to the author before you delete pages.(Kesydness (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)).

Putting in my two cents: I've looked over the Sydness Architects web page, and it seems possible that an article on the firm would pass our notability reqirements, although it's hardly a slam-dunk. Jeff Sydness, the principal partner, looks more likely to do so. However, if there's an article there, it shouldn't be written by anyone connected with the company, because of the potential conflict of interest problems that arise. I did not see the article that was deleted, but I can well believe that it was overly promotional in tone, as that is what generally happens when people connected with a company try to write a Wikipedia article about it.

Instead of attempting to re-create this article again, only to have it speedily deleted again, why not leave a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, explaining that you are associated with the company, that you think the company is notable and should have an article about it, give the highlights of what makes it notable (in your opinion), and ask if anyone there would be interested in starting an article. If that happens, you can then stay involved by making suggestions on the article's talk page, although you should avoid editing it directly, because Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view, and that's difficult to do when you have a conflict of interest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The editor has ignored my advice and recreated the article (very badly) as Sydness Architects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason to delete the current article, as the author did post a comment at the Architecture WikiProject noticeboard for feedback, and it doesn't look overly promotional. (It is terribly sourced, nonetheless.) I did tag it as {{coi}}, though, because that is apparent. Also, I felt that a {{spamusernameblock}} was appropriate for this account, because the username appears to be connected to the Sydness Architects company, and the comment I am associated with the firm seems to underscore that. --Kinu t/c 21:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
ROBS
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi! I noticed this edit

Because a secondary source "THE Journal" (a technology journal) is making a big deal out of it (an entire secondary source article), it's an "encyclopedic source" with encyclopedic information. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  • To be honest, I really don't see how information about the school's choice of e-mail solution really adds any value to an article about the school. Just because it's in a source doesn't mean its encyclopedic. Nonetheless, I have zero interest in this article and won't press the issue further. --Kinu t/c 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

06:38, 29 January 2011 Kinu (talk | contribs) deleted "Joborilla" ‎ (A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Can you please explain why Joborilla has been deleted. The article provided relevant history and information about about the company Joborilla Jobs, Inc. The information provided by the article about Joborilla Jobs is no different from articles such as Rawlco Communications and Kelly Services. The website joborilla.ca was not advertised in the article. It was merely an important part of the information about the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmanst100 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  • The notation in the log is accurate, and advertising wasn't the reason behind deletion. The article was tagged by another editor as lacking any indication as to why the website is important, and I endorsed that editor's assessment and deleted the article per speedy deletion criterion A7. (I'm uncertain as to the relevance of the links provided to the articles about a media conglomerate and a Fortune 500 company above.) --Kinu t/c 07:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hello,

Could you please explain to me why was VINF article deleted? I've seen that it was deleted months ago because of a "spammy tone", or beacause it "has doutless no physical existence", or "lacks of sources of notability". But all these things have changed:

-The spammy tone has disappeared, hasn't it? -"Has doubtless no physical existence": I don't see the point here, but it has a physicial existence: It's located in the Science park of Liège, in Belgium, as you can see on google. -"Lack of sources" : I don't know how many you need... Right now, there are an online article about VINF and its conference, official VINF website, institutionnal European websites that mention VINF, websites of organisations of which VINF is an important member (Nanoindent, Nanofutures)... It seems quite enough for me, doesn't it? This institute clearly exists. I could add proofs from the websites of its members, but it would be useless for readers. -"Lack of notability": It's a structure created for nanofilms professionnals, that gather the biggest research center in Europe, Israel and Russia, as the sources proof. It's clearly well-known in this field, I don't think it has have a general notabiulity to appear on wikipedia...

Therefore, could you please explain to me why it was deleted once again, and what does it lack in order to be published?

Thanks.

Jeylab (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • If "all these things have changed," then the article did not indicate it. The article was essentially identical to the version discussed and deleted in October, and thus the tone was identical. Indeed, looking at that version and this one, the introduction, history, and mission sections appear to be word-for-word identical, which also raises the question as to whether it was copied from another source. The only actual change was an increase in the length of the membership list, combined with a slew of external links to those members' websites, which added nothing in the way of actual content about the subject. Ultimately, the article in its last form was identical enough to warrant a WP:CSD#G4.
    As for what an article on this would need... you answer your own questions above. Citing (actual) references of the sort you mention would be helpful. And considering neither the last version of the article nor this one mentioned where it was located... that might be something to include. Saying it "clearly exists" and is "clearly well-known" is no substitute for actual sources that show it meets WP:GNG. I would recommend creating a userspace draft before attempting to make a live version, i.e., at User:Jeylab/Virtual Institute of Nano Films. I hope this clarification is of assistance. --Kinu t/c 19:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry?
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

I noticed this edit, where the supposedly brand-new User:Geowikis signs his edit with the signature of recently-blocked sockpuppet User:USLeaks. You were the blocking admin; any advice on whether something should be done? Yours, Huon (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up... obvious sock is obvious. :P I'll be blocking him and will possibly be reporting the issue to WP:ANI, since it looks like he's found a way to IP hop and it might be giving way to long-term abuse. Good catch! --Kinu t/c 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of John Ross Palmer
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hello and Good Morning. I created the Article for John Ross Palmer, a Houston visual artist. I am admittedly new to posting on Wikipedia but this should not detract from Palmer's notability from a great number of third-party and credible sources. Any suggestions you can please make prior to my re-submission? Thank you very much.Gamecockryan (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Gamecockryan

Roland Gibeault section of whistleblowers
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi Kinu, I promised everyone at Wikipedia, CactusWriter and VQuker that I would not go into these places again. Could you please take the deletion log tag from that name and promise you also that this is a place that I will never venture into again, you have my word. Thank you for your ear and patience,166.205.137.210 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm not clear on what you're requesting of me here, but if your statement indicates that you won't be engaging in COI edits, then that is perhaps for the best. --Kinu t/c 22:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

There are no continental competitions for under-16 and under-18 teams. Also Ukraine as most other UEFA members does not have under-23 team, instead under-21 team is being utilized for that reason. There is more information at the FFU official website, however, more is available in the native language. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I'll be honest, I don't know much about the topic nor do I claim to (and thus have no vested interest in the articles/template), but I don't think that WP:CSD#A7 applies. The articles appear to claim importance as national squads (with players/coaches notable enough for articles having been involved with them), which as a lower threshold than notability prevents speedy deletion in my opinion. As for the template, since the articles still currently exist, their existence in the template appears justified. If you feel the squads are not notable, I have no objection to you taking them to AfD. --Kinu t/c 11:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hey Kinu. I noticed that you removed my A7 nomination on this article and said that "it's a train". As I see it, the subject is either a company or a product of a company that makes no claim of notability. While I think there may be some claim that a train that transports many people is notable, I don't know of any inclusion guideline that would support that. You're the admin here and I don't pretend to be an expert so let me know if I'm missing something. Please hit me with a TB if you reply here. Thanks for your time. OlYellerTalktome 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

I removed the BLP prod tag you placed on Madhukar Keshav Dhavalikar as it contains exactly one source that supports exactly one claim made in the article. Not enough to verifiably establish notability IMO but (barely) enough to fail the criteria for BLP prod. I have no prejudice against nominating for deletion using regular prod or AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Foolkit" again
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Colleague,
It would appear that "Foolkit" is back again as Foolkit Australia. Your thoughts on this matter?
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hello; I'm dropping you this message because you commented during the speedy deletion discussion for Rewilding (Carnivores) on its talk page. I think that the result of that discussion was correct and that the article did not meet any of the CSDs, but I have nominated the article for the standard AfD process at the link above. I thought that you might be interested in joining that discussion since you've already looked at the article a little bit. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

When did you move to Somolia? [1] (lol). Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 23:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Thanks for deleting this hoax. The image associated with the article (Image:Tsotso.jpg) probably also needs to be deleted; it's probably a copyright violation of someone else's work. Should I tag it with something, or can you just make it go away? Thanks! Pburka (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

I noticed that you have deleted the Tabula company page for violation of copyright. However, the content that linkedin uses is borrowed from the about us page of the company itself and can be found at http://www.tabula.com/about/about.php for which I had already provided a reference. Further, I had modified the page to prevent the bot from generating copyright infringement issues by using a neutral point of view. Mohit Kanwal 07:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • If the content is actually copyright the company, per their website, it still means it's a copyright violation. Also, in comparing the text of the article (after your changes) to the original text, I noticed, other than the removal of the last paragraph, only a few minor changes (i.e., changing first person to third person) were made. Changing a few words doesn't not make it a copyright violation; the prose is just too similar. That text may be used as a source, but not as the entirety of the article's content. I hope this information helps. --Kinu t/c 07:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

You deleted too quickly. She is vice-chair of the Craft Potters Association, the representative body of studio potters in the UK. If you know nothing about the subject, then of course she is not notable to you. Please reinstate under "hang on". Marshall46 (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm not certain if being the vice-chair of this group is a claim of importance and endorsed the deletion tagging. The point seems moot, however, seeing as how you've recreated the article. Also, as to your comment (If you know nothing about the subject, then of course she is not notable to you): I would avoid such glib assessments in the future. We base things on policies and guidelines around here and usually do a decent job of it. --Kinu t/c 16:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hello. Earlier today you deleted the article for [[2]] extremely quickly through section A7. I read the article from user Chris that you referenced about bands in order to better respond to you. Although the band is relatively new onto the scene, they've accomplished a ton in a very short time. They've been on a major Ontario radio station (as cited) and will have an interview posted in a magazine in the next few weeks (also to be posted). They are also signed to the promotions company Pure Fokus Entertainment. The band will be headlining a major Hamilton venue this week, only shortly after opening for a very notable band (also on Wikipedia). The band's first tour to promote their EP album will take place in August for several weeks. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.240.113 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Having a few local gigs, minor local airplay, self-published albums, and sourcing to Myspace are not claims of importance. The phrase "relatively new onto the scene" essentially translates to "non-notable". See the band deletion FAQ mentioned above. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 16:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi, within about a minute of creating the "Retail Sales Monitor" page, you deleted it through G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://en.old.brocompany.com/analytics/economic-calendar/event/view/24500. I am the Marketing Manager of the British Retail Consortium and the Retail Sales Monitor is our publication. The BRC own the Retail Sales Monitor data which has been reproduced by the company you mention in G12 - indeed the page is called BRC Retail Sales Monitor. Please could you reinstate this page. Thebrc (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)ThebrcThebrc (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I noticed this message only after I'd blocked this account due to its username and suspicions that it might be a role account; while your comment seems to confirm my suspicion, I will nonetheless respond, in case you do petition for a username change on your talk page and do read this message if/when you are unblocked. The issue is that the copyright holder is the association, and any content that is used must be properly released under a compatible free license (i.e., CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL). As an agent of the association, you would be able to use one of the means provided at WP:COPYRIGHT to release the content; merely stating your role with the association here is not sufficient. However, this content would be subject to editing and neither you nor the association would retain ownership of the content on Wikipedia.
    On an unrelated note, given that you have edited British Retail Consortium, I would also follow the guidelines at WP:COI regarding editing about topics with which you may have a conflict of interest, especially because of your disclosure that your role with the association is marketing. I hope this information helps. --Kinu t/c 10:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi, I see you have deleted the Sean Donnelly/Andrew Lansley Rap page.

It seems a little precipitous to me. Sean Donnelly and/or the rap have been featured by both the BBC and the Guardian in the space of a couple of days, and it's pretty obvious that there is going to be quite a bit more where that came from.

Another editor had intended to rename the page, so that it highlighted the track itself rather than its author; in hindsight this might have been the better approach from the outset.

It may well be that within a few weeks this particular phenomenon may have sunk below the waterline of notability, but that seems rather unlikely now.

At any rate, deleting the article after just a few hours seems to be rather hasty.DanieleProcida (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hello,

You deleted an article on me, Daniela Oliva. The reason inputted is as follows:

06:33, 28 March 2011 Kinu (talk | contribs) deleted "Daniela Oliva" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.musicxray.com/profiles/1825)

My publicist wrote the bio (work-for-hire), under the law that means I have a right to that content. I created the page on Music XRay in order to accept submissions for various music-related opportunities. I grant wikipedia permission to use the content and I can delete the page on Music Xray if necessary.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniclrfna (talk • contribs) 02:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Simply indicating that you are the owner is not sufficient; we don't know that you actually are who you claim to be. Notwithstanding, thank you for making the conflict of interest clear in this article. That aside, another reason the article was deleted was because it did not address the importance of the subject, per WP:CSD#A7. Also, I would keep the Music X-Ray profile; that site is the appropriate location to write about yourself, not here; Wikipedia is not a free webhost or place to promote yourself. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 06:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Editing Needed In "Mordecai Tendler" Article
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Following your guidance, I have added the source newspaper articles that clearly show that the current Wikipedia article is in desperate need of factual correction. Also, they clearly verify the accuracy of the intial edits that I attempted.

Please Address the need for a serious revision to be done on the current page. Thanks.

Koltorah (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Victorious Kidss Educares is not a school, it's a private company. Corvus cornixtalk 04:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Gotcha.. that was unclear from the version of the article when it was tagged for speedy deletion, and it said it was a "school" directly, so I declined it... but of course if you have more information about it being a company, then I have no objection to the AfD. Thanks for letting me know. --Kinu t/c 07:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
A7 deletion on Diary of a Bad Man
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi, I was wondering about your CSD A7 deletion of Diary of a Bad Man. I looked at that article and concluded that the claim of 14 million views for the series was a credible assertion of notability sufficient to escape deletion under A7. I had previously challenged the A7 and replaced it with a notability prod, and was hoping you could provide some feedback on whether you think I was justified in my challenge to it. I'm not requesting the deletion be undone, as it did have a clear notability issue, just hoping for more info. Thanks, Monty845 07:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought that CSD was a bit harsh as well. Monty, it doesn't need to have an assertion of notability even, just an "indication of importance" - which in my opinion it does. I'm not sure if the show will pass notability in the long run, but it should at least be given a chance, and I recommend going back to PROD status. Marasmusine (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't ask for the deletion to be undone as it would seem a bit Pointy for me to ask that it be restored just so that it can be deleted in a week or so under a different process, but I do hope to discuss whether it really did meet the criteria for A7. Monty845 17:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm a bit too cynical these days in seeing a statement of "x views on YouTube" as a claim of importance... but nonetheless, I will admit that when x is in the millions, I can be swayed to agreeing with you. Part of me was also concerned that this is some sort of coatrack spam; the article on the creator of the series was deleted via AfD, and the list of episodes was deleted via A7 (although that was merely a list of plot summaries and did not contain the claim of importance indicated here). For the sake of process and allowing this article to be evaluated on its own merits, I have no objection to restoring the article with the PROD tag intact. Thanks for your message. --Kinu t/c 17:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Monte?
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Good day. Can look at this report please [3] ? Dighapet (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion of interest
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Block_evasion regarding an issue in which you may be interested. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Nice catch of yours on discovering RM 1431's business route. The route does exist, but the new RM 1431 bypass doesn't show on the map view on Google Maps. The satellite view, however, shows it clearly. It's also on the extreme east edge of TxDOT mapbook plate 400 and extreme west on 430. I added {{Infobox road small}} to the article, added it to the junction list, and submitted a new shield request. Fortguy (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  • And I have to give you credit as well... I was wondering what that extra red line was between pages 400 and 430. My assumption was that the designation was too new to be in the mapbook, but good find on your part! Thanks for expanding the text and for requesting the shield. --Kinu t/c 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

I actually go to that school so I know more about it than you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool68594 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of AsianScientist
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hello Kinu. AsianScientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. My inclination is to give the user another chance, but I thought I would give you the opportunity to comment if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And per your positive comment on their talkpage, Kinu, I've gone ahead and unblocked them. Best —DoRD (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Since the first draft of the article I have attempted to provide more robust references. You are correct, the original statement of being "best known" for his recently published book was incorrect. He is however, well-known for his work on the mathematics of diffusion. With regards to links to this article, when it is stable, I intend to add links to this article and The Diffusion Handbook from the Heat equation article. -- pgt (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL!
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Looks as if you and I came to the same conclusion regarding that vandal you just reblocked. Nice catch and thanks for the help. People who are not useful contributors are not, well, useful.  :) Take care and thanks again. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sket One
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

I wanted to see what the page looked like without a big warning box at the top. How long does it take for admins to look over a page so it can go away permanently? I have been tweaking that page within an inch of its life at the request of the artist himself. Thanks. --Catxx (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Brontobyte et al.
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Would Brontobit also qualify for speedy deletion and/or protection? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't see it falling under any of the speedy criteria for redirects, but I definitely do agree with your sending it to WP:RFD. And note that the same user who created that redirect also created similar redirects at both Brontobits and Brontobytes. Why oh why... Facepalm --Kinu t/c 09:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Sohaib Athar redirect
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Can you consider to update the "Sohaib Athar" redirect so that it points to Death of Osama Bin Laden#Local accounts? The phrase "of Raid" which currently remains in the redirect has been chopped off the earlier subheading in the article. Rammer (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Thanks for tagging. As User:Vejvančický pointed out, however, that other article isn't a hoax; I had tagged it incorrectly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for fixing that mess. I was also convinced it was a hoax because some of the facts presented just didn't seem to add up... but that might just have been because the articles were pretty poorly written and I had a hard time making much sense of it. I could find any sources either, but that might have been because I was using the incorrect/variant spelling. Glad to see something there now. --Kinu t/c 18:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, one of the drawbacks of an open forum. I thought it was an odd name for a tribe, and more likely a name for a person--and 5 million, that was rather exuberant. So the lesson is, write well if you want to be believed... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi Kinu, I saw that you taged for speedy deletion an article, NK Borac Banovci but why didn't you just delete the article? You are an sysop. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for reminding me? Seriously though... having administrative tools doesn't give one carte blanche to use them when one isn't 100% sure. II see it as lacking a claim of importance, but I don't know the nuances of Croatian football and the league affiliation indicated in the infobox might be one, so I'm leaving it to another administrator to make the call. --Kinu t/c 22:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    I would think that people in that situation would put it in discussion, not putting a speedy deletion tag. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    Then feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag. Not sure what else I can suggest here. I'll probably be sending it to AfD regardless. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 23:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)(edit conflict)I did remove the tag. There were some good references that were added by the author. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 23:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Janos Nyiri
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Would you be willing to verify that this version of the article is sufficiently different than the previous version deleted as a G12? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks different enough... of course, I do agree with your concerns and talk page comments regarding COI, a dearth of citations, etc. Thanks for attempting to fix this one. --Kinu t/c 20:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Wikipedianamepolicysucks block/troll accusation
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

I am concerned that you were quick to call this user a troll despite having constructive edits. The only problems I could see with the user's actions were the poor username choice and WikiLawyering to try to keep the name. I specifically reminded administrators about WP:AGF in my suggestion so that he/she wouldn't be a victim of incivility, either directly or indirectly. I believe this user could contribute in a positive manner if treated civilly. --Tathar (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a two-way street. Given edit summaries such as "gtfo my talk page" and comments such as "Fuck this shit, I'm done.", I fail to see how this account would contribute constructively here. --Kinu t/c 20:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Marta Curro
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

It appears the entry on this person has been deleted, and recently. I cannot find out why. I wanted to read about her and think it is a mistake to delete the entry. It appears that the person who deleted the entry has no experience in the area of this person's life (New York theatre) and perhaps is unaware why she may be of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.169.119 (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:IdentityBruceJenner.jpg
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IdentityBruceJenner.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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. J Milburn (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:IdentityStrangers.jpg
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IdentityStrangers.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:IdentityStrangersCloseup.jpg
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IdentityStrangersCloseup.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Dear kinu,you deleted my page because it does not indicate importance,though it did however be an eligible subject,which was actor,I was just wondering how does it not show importance to an encyclopedia?I know I only had 2 roles but 1 of them WAS directed,produced and I was a supporting character in it too,and im still looking into things like that,where I can get more roles,heck my youtube videos have 100,000 views total!;But then you see people who have pages with 3-4 roles in which they had very small roles,I honestly don't understand this concept,please help.Darkredshdow (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on my talk page
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion on my talk page related to you. It can be found here. Also, I wanted to let you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Nuclear Time Unit. Even if a neologism is self-published, I don't think it can be called a blatant hoax. I think the real issue is notability, and should be decided in the course of the AfD discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.
I hope you enjoy this cupcake as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
GIKI Mathematics Society
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

I am the writer of this article which has been speedy deleted for its notability. I would like to know what reliable resources does the article lacks. If an official and reliable website of an institute is quoting something about GIKI Mathematics Society, isn't it reliable even then??? Tell me so that I can add them and make this page operational of Wikpedia.

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrcpa11 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just an admin question
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hey Kinu. I saw you were an admin, and I'd like your opinion. I've always wanted to be a Wikipedia admin, because I really do enjoy helping Wikipedia. It's such a unique place. So I was wondering, when should I request to be an admin, and what should I work on in between there and now? Thanks. Endofskull (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I would definitely check out Wikipedia:Admin coaching... that page has a list of rough expectations as to what a prospective admin candidate should have worked on here. I'd say that, ultimately, there are no guidelines as to when to have an RfA, so if you feel that you have the experience in applying policies/guidelines and feel that you have participated here enough, a self-nomination wouldn't be taken the wrong way. I hope this helps, and feel free to ask any other questions if you need! --Kinu t/c 02:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Dear Kinu, You deleted my page today for (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I am happy to put up a new article that fits the guidelines, but am not sure what I'm missing. To be short, I posted a page about a lab working in NY that does certain research that is of course published and notable. There's a lot more but wanted to be quick. Please tell me anything I can do better. Thanks, Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.albalah (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

About the block you did on User:NotReallyFactual, I wish to say that he made a subpage of his userpage. The page he made is located here. If you don't mind, can you leave that undeleted? It is just really funny to have that there, with him/her saying that they were intentionally vandalising wikipedia. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind... you already deleted it. LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it was humorous, but we want to avoid glorifying these dime-a-dozen trolls, per WP:DENY and WP:RBI. --Kinu t/c 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Yikes. I thought speedies like Las Palmas Villa would get at least an hour, I've even seen them take a day! Oh well. Ta. --Lexein (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Why did you delete 'Hesham Saleh'. I didn't even finish editing it. I was about to put some sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesham44 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi Kinu, after you declined the speedy, I brought the article to Afd... but I think I did a mistake somewhere as it does not show on the log. Would you mind checking? Thanks, Racconish Tk 20:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Fixed, don't bother.Racconish Tk 20:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wondering about next steps: PRIDE
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hello. I recently tried to do a page that got labeled for speedy deletion because it looked like unambiguous advertising... and when I looked at it again, I realized why. I had not realized that I needed to cite my sources upfront (which was truly silly of me since every paper I have written since middle school has required citations). Anyway, I rewrote it, cleaned it up, and cited my sources, but I was wondering if what I changed was enough. I found reputable sources, but I want to make sure that this time I did everything correctly. Melissaanderson (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hello, could you please undelete Roland Mohrmann to User:Stuartbarnes/Roland Mohrmann? I've had a request from its creator at User talk:Gurt Posh#deletion nomination of Roland Mohrmann, and it seems I flagged it for speedy in haste. Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Gurt Posh (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Concerning this edit, I don't think "In Morse theory,..." sufficiently informs the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. "In number theory,..." is OK, so is "In geometry,..." or "In algebra,..." or "In calculus,...", but non-mathematicians don't generally know what Morse theory is. Sometimes such context-setting phrases are not needed because the title of the article gives that information, but more often they should be there. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Kinu, last year you were a "delete" vote for this article that resulted in no consenus. I don't want to do anything unorthodox or improper, but wanted to invite you to visit the 2nd attempt at an AfD to see if you might want to vote again this year. Just to bring it to your attention, it is located HERE Thanks. Austex • Talk 23:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Would you be kind and re-evaluate the Rudi London article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ole Vidar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was dumb.
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

{{admin help}} Well, while attempting to block another user at AIV, I accidentally ended up blocking myself. Facepalm Facepalm Can another admin fix that for me? --Kinu t/c 20:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done There is actually a way to get around this by yourself should this happen again that I found when I ran into this issue, but I won't post it here due to WP:BEANS. --Rschen7754 20:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Rschen. Yeah, I figured there was, but I'm hoping that this is a one time thing on my part. --Kinu t/c 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-club! Kuru (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You can unblock yourself. :P And welcome to the club! :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Removing nasty comment
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hello. You blocked a IP the other day, and due to his continuing vandalism, I went to his page to warn him. Another editor already did that. While there, the user made a nasty comment related to you. I went ahead and removed, but did want to inform you. Hope I didn't over step any boundaries. Anyway, just wanted to inform you. All the best! America69 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

It's a copyvio of the lyrics, isn't it? --Σ talkcontribs 01:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  • That too... not sure why the software only chose one rationale instead of using the "multiple reasons" rationale, but I suppose it's six one way, half a dozen the other. :D --Kinu t/c 14:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here.

Hi Kinu, Thanks for stepping in to remind User talk:Herbolzheim of his responsibilities. He has chosen to ignore my polite advice and has posted some ridiculous comments on my Talk Page. Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

They are not ridiculous Kinu. I can paste them if you wish - the guy is pompous beyond belief. He has removed his own texts which are insulting. But my main point is that "Lillywhites" is archaic. Nobody sings "We are the Lillywhites!" or "Let's get the Lillywhites!" or "I'm proud to be a Lillywhite." We always say Spurs or Yids. Lillywhites is something older fans who read the Daily Telegraph may say. Ask any Spurs fan. Herbolzheim (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually, you don't seem to be engaging in any constructive discussion yet. Your actions have consisted of edit warring, inappropriately editing editors' talk page archives, and the such... I'm glad you (finally) posted on the talk page of the article after being warned about it (and threatening to report me for who-knows-what, which is beyond ridiculous considering I was doing you a favor and making sure you wouldn't get blocked for edit warring), but your comments have continued to consist of information that doesn't help your case. Ad hominem attacks and posting your biography is no substitute for discussion of any actual sources you might have about this subject and the like. Cross-posting the same content over and over again on multiple users' talk pages isn't useful, either, so please don't paste it here again. Have a discussion on the talk page of the article and go from there. That's all I will say. --Kinu t/c 23:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't posted a biography - I am not conceited or interesting enough. In response to criticism that is high-handed and snobby, I have just pointed out credentials that apply in this case, and asked why Tmo142 thinks he knows more about Spurs than me and the rationale for maintaining what I regard as incorrect information on nicknames. In return I get dismissive rudeness, and threats, and he goes around involving others, saying that I am a vandal and a three strike reverter. It is not a question of sources in this case as it is true that Lillywhites is archaic and that Yids is used far more frequently by fans. Ask any Tottenham fan, or fan of another team. The nickname most frequently used by the press is Spurs - even they don't say "Lillywhites" although they are good at keeping old nicknames alive. I gather that it is a question of the appropriateness of mentioning the words Yids in the nickname section; my contention is that it is because it offends nobody and it is a fact and facts are what encyclopaedias are about. Shall I write to the Board of British Jews and get their opinion? I am serious. Herbolzheim (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK my friend. Herbolzheim (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "[4]"
  2. ^ "[5]"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kinu/Archive_10&oldid=1147947670"