User talk:Kuyabribri/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kuyabribri. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
MLB All-Star Game
According to this advertisement-heavy article taken from the Kansas City Star (that's what it are), the 2012 game will indeed be in K.C.[1] →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to complain if the KC info gets re-added if this article is cited. The only cite I saw on Major League Baseball All-Star Game venues for the KC cause was a dead link, and the one on the Mets had a misleading title and was mostly speculative. KuyaBriBriTalk 07:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously they need proper sourcing, by someone who cares enough. Reporting who's going to host a future event is kind of risky anyway. If the Royals don't play better, for all we know they might have moved to Montreal by then. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I see lots of recent edits by you. Want to work on this with me (for an eventual FAC)? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure how much time I can devote to this, but as always I will contribute when and where I can. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
2009 American League Championship Series
I edited the ALCS page yesterday because the box score at the bottom showing totals was inaccurate. You edited it back. Why? The 4th inning for NYY doesn't add to 10 runs, and the total runs by NYY should be 33...not 35. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.91.130 (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I erred on that one and have corrected it; however, your subsequent edit was still vandalism and I stand behind that revert. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
2009 ALDS edits
Whoever keeps changing the line referring to the blown call by Phil Cuzzi that cost the Twins a run in Game 2 of this year's ALDS--you're wrong with your comments. When someone should have been at second (as Mauer should have been on his double that was called foul) but is only at first (from the hit he got later in the a-bat that only continued because of that missed call), and that missed call is followed by two further hits, it is not "speculation" to say that the missed call cost a team a run. There is no possible way for someone to be on second and fail to score despite two subsequent hits before an out is recorded. The two subsequent Twins hits absolutely made the missed call DIRECTLY cost the Twins a run, there's nothing "speculative" about that. It would be "speculative" to say that the call cost the Twins the entire game, because we don't know if Mijares would have pitched the bottom of the inning if the Twins had been in the lead and what would have happened with someone else on the mound. But there is no legitimate doubt or "speculation" that the missed call cost the Twins AT LEAST one run--and you could speculate that it cost them even more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.184.20 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Living Christmas Tree
Thank you so much for your feedback on this page. Do you have any other suggestions? This page is meant to clarify what living christmas trees are (this year's emerging tree trend), not to sell anything. Thanks so so much! Serena Living Christmas Tree (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Jefferson Community School
I agree that notability favors a high school, but a high school with 25 students? That seems to be a stretch of an otherwise-reasonable guideline. Also, is deleting a speedy template a valid way to contest a speedy? Shouldn't that be done with {{hangon}}? --SquidSK (1MC•log) 20:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:CSD, an editor who is not the creator of the page may remove a CSD template; only the article creator is required to use
{{hangon}}. I've stubbed the article, as the same policy identifies stubbing as a viable alternative to speedy deletion. My goal was to strip out all the advertising and copyright violation material and leave a foundation from which some decent-quality article could be written. If you still question the subject's notability, be my guest and nominate it at AfD. I really have no argument in support of keeping the article beyond my belief that it should not be deleted without a discussion. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)- Well, after reviewing common education-related AfD outcomes, it looks like consensus would be to keep it. Nothing to do now but make it better! Cheers! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Where are you getting your enrollment number? I can't find that anywhere on the official webpage or [the local newspaper. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Student enrollment came from the originator's figure (i.e., unreferenced). KuyaBriBriTalk 21:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Going to revise it with a citation. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Student enrollment came from the originator's figure (i.e., unreferenced). KuyaBriBriTalk 21:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Where are you getting your enrollment number? I can't find that anywhere on the official webpage or [the local newspaper. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, after reviewing common education-related AfD outcomes, it looks like consensus would be to keep it. Nothing to do now but make it better! Cheers! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The local paper has a few references to the school, but they're only in the context of the facility being used for various conferences or activities, none that are actually covering the school itself. I even checked the Seattle PI and [2], but nothing. I'm pretty new at citing/sourcing (I've mostly been RCPing), so I don't know if I'm looking at the right places or not, but I don't know if we're going to find any good teriary sources. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 21:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Middlewich High School Vandalism
Could you explain what my vandalism was please. i was trying to add the deputy head boy and girl top the infobox but it wouldn't work correctly and only added the deputy head boy and removed the outstanding achievement award. I then reverted it to a point that was after I changed grammatical errors and obscene language (real vandalism).
Please don't tarnish me with vandalism when I corrected it myself - it was pointless.
Aventura54
P.S. Sorry if I sound annoyed, its because I am but would like a civil discussion with you about this issue. Do you know anything about Middlewich High School other than what is on wikipedia and the Middlewich High School Website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aventura54 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note your last edit to the page, which undid a vandalism revert: [3]. If it was not your intention to replace the multiple instances of "wank" and variations thereof please let me know. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Message added 10:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you very much Kuyabribri. I have taken your point on board and note the biographical entries information. With this information to hand I am going to remove the last 3 entries on the infobox as all three people are under 18, which as on the page you linked to I read as "shouldn't be there" basically which does make a lot of sense.
None of my edits were intended to vandalise, disrupt or go against wikipedia policy and neither were my comments on your talk page about this issue, I just wanted some explanations as I didn't understand at the time.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aventura54 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Cal Trans Pet Cemetary
- I am a new editor. Please give me guidance. I am still writing the article, gathering more sources from the past 15 years of history on this pollution example.
- The "Cal Trans Pet Cemetery" received international news coverage in 2007, and is no longer news, but 'history.
- In 2003, the president of the the Association of Engineering Geologists as the single biggest example of "junk science" in the courts by its former presdident.
- "Cal Trans Pet Cemetery" is the name given to any government pollution scandal, based on the severity of the pollution problem.
- Cal Trans Pet Cemetary is cited at hearings before Boards of Supervisors around the country.
- Perhaps the entire article should be moved to the Cal Trans article, but compared to Cal Trans itself, it is small, but for major government pollution scandals, it is big. Please let me know what you think is best. I think it should be a small section in Cal Trans, and a big one in its own article.
Thank you . HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Barrington Plaza
I will not contest your deletion, so I deleted the article. You were correct that I was very sloppy, beneath the standards of Wikipedia, for example, saying HUD when I shuold have said FHA. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of semantics, neither you nor I have the authority or ability to delete an article. Only adminstrators may do so. However, according to the deletion policy, if the author and only contributor of content blanks the article or explicitly requests deletion, as you have done, it may be tagged for speedy deletion and deleted by an admin without further discussion. I tagged the article for speedy deletion accordingly, and it looks like it has already been deleted. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I recreated the article with two NYT sources. I suspect this development is notable, but the interesting stuff happened in the 1960s and 1970s so it's not easily seen from a Google search. Feel free to review my work... I'll probably add more later, but I'm not going to be around for the next few hours. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Back in June, you !voted on this to AfD as Muhammad Shaikh. It has reappeared under a new name and was tagged G4; both Schuminweb and I declined the G4 on the grounds that it was substantially different; he changed his mind and deleted it; I also changed my mind but have now changed it back and decided that the best course is to restore it, bring it back to AfD for another look, and notify everyone concerned in the first AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Louis Lesser
Is the basis for your deletion nomination still that Louis Lesser is a "hoax"? If not, I do not know what it is I need to respond to. Does your nomination for deletion mean you voted to delete, or just that you want others to examine things, then you will vote after discussion? HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Going to try and address your questions in order:
- The basis for my deletion nomination was that Mr. Lesser is a hoax. That does not mean that Mr. Lesser does not exist—you clearly proved to me that he does—but that the claims made about him and his accomplishments were unsubstantiated. It appears you removed such claims, and I removed the hoax tag from the article ([4]). I will shortly be posting a comment to that AfD redacting the hoax claim, but I would still question whether the subject qualifies under WP:N. Please respond to my comments there and not on my talk page.
- Unless otherwise stated, nominating an article for deletion means that the nominator wishes the article to be deleted. I will change my position to neutral, but since there are so many outstanding delete !votes, the AfD cannot be closed until the 7-day discussion period lapses.
- As for some of your other behavior,
- DO NOT DELETE your own comments from talk pages. This is a major breach of WP:Etiquette. If you need to withdraw or redact your own comment, please use strikethrough by surrounding the text with <s> and </s>. I'm going to ignore it this time, but please don't test my patience.
- I have not explicitly requested that you not comment on my talk page. You are welcome to comment here as long as you remain civil, refrain from personal attacks, and follow the guidelines in the boxes at the top. Just remember that I reserve the right to ignore and/or outright delete your comment. I do prefer to keep discussions in one place, which is why I have not responded to any of your comments here.
- KuyaBriBriTalk 22:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Water Cure (torture) - Wikipedia article mirrored on another site
Fyi, regarding the auotomated copyright violation tag by CorenSearchBot. The bot found a Wikipedia mirror site, that led straight back to the Wikipedia article I was working on. This was noted by KuyaBriBriTalk, who removed the tag. RegardsWotnow (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow
- Silly me. The message above was meant to go on the bot maintainer's page. I then came to your page to thank you for your prompt action, only to find my message here. D'oh! Sorry about that, and consider yourself thanked.Wotnow (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow
LAA
Hey Kuyabribri
I got Good News for you, and I got Bad News for you.
First the Good News. The Angels will not be referred to as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim for much longer.
The Bad news is when they change their name again, it will likely be changed to... "LOS ANGELS DE MEXICO CITY"
I've been living near Anaheim since 1985. As a fan of the Angels, and my Home Town Bronx Bombers. I knew when MORON"O" bought the team, that was his intent. The name change was just to test how flexible, the lease, and the MLB were. MORON"O" has made it clear that he doesn't like Anaheim, and he doesn't like the stadium. Given the name change there is no way Anaheim will build a new stadium for him, by 2017, when he can walk away from the lease. As well as the fact L.A. is the only major city that has not built any of its teams a new stadium, I don't see that changing any time soon. I am sorry to say this, but the Angels will soon fly away to a new home south of the border. MLB won't stop them either. They have already stated they would like to have a team in Mexico, after the success of the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals home games in San Juan Puerto Rico.--Subman758 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Brookwood American Cemetery and Memorial
I would be happy to discuss your edits to the Brookwood American Cemetery and Memorial article on its Discussion page. Thank you. -- K72ndst (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Help requested...
at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Howard Zimmerman. Maybe some/one of the regular chemistry editors can either write a decent article on Zimmerman, or help explain what he's not getting. LadyofShalott 15:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Why did you relist the above AfD? Yes, it has not been properly listed originally, which is why DumbBOT rectified that on 15th December. This means that the 7 day discussion period will end at 13:25 22 December (i.e. tomorrow afternoon UTC). There are 6 delete !votes, with no other !votes at all, so I feel that this should not have been relisted, but left for an admin to delete the article, as a concensus has been reached. I'd appreciate it if you would reply (here, to keep the conversation together, if that's OK) and explain the relisting, as I feel that this was out-of-process, as AfD says If not enough people have joined in the discussion to judge consensus, the article will be relisted for several more days.: I think 6 editors is enough to judge consensus! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- At the time I had just come across a couple of AfDs that had been left open for nearly a month; specifically, WP:Articles for deletion/DAX Foundation and WP:Articles for deletion/Danyl Johnson (I had the former CSD'd as a duplicate nomination). So I went back through Category:AfD debates and started clicking on random pages. This particular one stood out as having been open 12 days, but I did not see the DumbBOT notice because I usually expect to see it near the top of a discussion that's been open that long. So I relisted it hoping to provide visibility to the admins who watch AfDs. I did see that consensus was leaning toward delete, but I am not an admin either so I could not close the discussion myself as I might have if the discussion was overwhelmingly leaning toward keep or redirect.
- I've never done relisting before, so if I did something that is against policy I apologize. I did ask earlier in the day at WT:AFD if relisting can be construed as canvassing. Another editor responded that relisting can be done "for any sensible reason". I believed at the time that this discussion had fallen off the radar and did not want it to remain open for a month before someone saw it again. If another forum such as WT:AFD or WP:AN is a more appropriate way to do this I'm certainly open to that as well. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, there is no problem in general - and having read your explanation, it makes more sense now! I see that the discussion has been closed by an admin anyway, so it's a moot point now! I wasn't criticising you, I was just genuinely puzzled/curious! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia
After your G6 tag, I have just reverted the discussion to it's original state before it was repurposed, and also removed it from today's logs. I've left a note on the editor's page asking them to open a new discussion properly instead of repurposing the closed one. As such, an AfD tag wasn't even placed on the article. I don't think there's a need right now to split the history and create a new page and transclude it.cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 23:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Seattle Mariners Newsletter
| MARINERS MOJO NEWSLETTER The WikiProject Seattle Mariners Newsletter Issue 3 – January 2010 | ||
The following articles have been promoted past start-class, or included in the task force's scrutiny, since August, 2009:
The following articles were created recently and are under the project scope, they may need to be cleaned-up to meet quality standards:
The article, James Jones (baseball), had a fact featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 December 2009. The fact was, |
| |
--Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I might need help with nominating article for deletion
I tried to see if people think the article" List of dog bite deaths in the United States" should be deleted, but I didn't create a discussion page. Im trying to do this now, but its not exactly working. If you could help, it would be appreciated. i hope this is how one sends a message. Oi. Lollipopfop (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing your input, and I would appreciate your intervention to assist me in preparing the article. Much has changed since I was a contributor years ago.
--Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfox1 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk page discussion notice
Hi!
I got your message and have responded on the Talk:List of people killed by dogs in the United States page. Thanks! Astro$01 (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Open source javanism
Having done Javanese religion and mysticism at university I couldnt believe it when I saw it - I support your prod - it is amazing some of the random stuff we get at the Indonesian project that we see on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/IndonesiaSearchResult - cheers SatuSuro 15:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ramayana sites in Sri Lanka
I speedied this as a copyvio, you may now close the AFD. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
White Serbs
Thank you. I was too busy to nominate it for deletion, and it is better when articles aren't tagged for too long. -- Zz (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on keeping the Chris Arrowsmith article from deletion. Chris (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Stuart Ford
here are some references to Stuart Ford (Footballer)
Scarborough FC list players http://www.seadogsfans.co.uk/X21PlayerDbaseA-K.htm
http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=2595
http://www.gresleyfc.com/players/?id=2
I hope this helps
Stuart Ford history
Notsowiseowl (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, you've demonstrated to me that he exists. There is still the issue of whether he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people). Please opine on that matter at the deletion discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Ford. Other contributors to the deletion discussion may not see the comments you leave here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
article title
Hi Kuyabribri, thanks for making me aware of that deletion. In fact, my ultimate aim is to change the title of Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) to a more neutral one. However, its habitual usage and some users' position on Wikipedia make it almost impossible. I happen to find a sentence in Wikipedia:Article titles (“Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common.”), could you please tell me if it might help me somehow, as I don't know well all wiki rules? Thank you.--LaGrandefr (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I only got involved in this because the original nominator incorrectly created an AfD discussion when RfD was the appropriate venue, and I intend to remain neutral in the discussion. That being said, in response to your question/concern, if you can demonstrate that there is some usage of the term "restoration of Tibet" to refer to this event, you should cite it in your "keep" argument. I've done a quick search on "Chinese restoration of Tibet" and "restoration of Tibet" and have only found this redirect on Wikipedia.
- One comparison point I can think of offhand would be the various names for the American Civil War. Several POV names for this war such as War of Northern Aggression and War of the Rebellion exist as redirects to the fork article Naming the American Civil War, but in each of those cases there is reliable source evidence that each of these terms is used by some group to refer to the American Civil War.
- Another comparison point I can think of would be the POV names for the Iraq War that exist as redirects, such as Iraqnam and Vietnam War II. In both of those cases a Google search shows that some group uses those terms to refer to that conflict.
- I am not as well-versed in RfD as I am in AfD, so I don't really have any indication as to how am admin might judge this debate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've never tried thinking of renaming Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951), knowing that it's practically an impossible mission, though the title is evidently over abiased. Chinese restoration of Tibet is created to balance a little the controversial title, and I don't think it's necessary to apply Wikipedia:OR on a redirect page. However, “Chinese restoration of Tibet” may still find its equivalence in Chinese sources, i.e. “西藏回归中国” or “中国收复西藏”, and we can then find plenty of usage.--LaGrandefr (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
C628 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Its a malformed nomination
I do apologise I am still learning how to use AFD properly but it was an attempt at a nomination for deletion
Dwanyewest (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Bobo (gorilla)
Hello! Your submission of Bobo (gorilla) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Marylanderz (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Woody Woodward
I think your suggestion that Woody Woodward (baseball) be moved to Woody Woodward is an excellent one. I'm sorry that we seem to be working at cross-purposes. I spent far too much time changing internal links from Woody Woodward to Woody Woodward (baseball manager), only to realize that the page had moved to Woody Woodward (baseball). D'oh! Cnilep (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Uninformative deletion summaries
Sorry, I'm trying to be clearer in my summaries these days.
It was a request for a pagemove (to remedy a miscapitalization); that was dealt with. DS (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Snurricane
Hey Kuyabribri--just wanted to thank you for stepping in on Snurricane and providing guidance as to the next step to take on getting the article evaluated... I'd been looking to see how to short-circuit the edit war over the prod tags, but AfD didn't come to mind for some reason. Thanks so much for pointing out the appropriate procedure--I'll be sure to keep it in mind for the future if any cases like this arise again! -- Tehae (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of App Store applications (Science)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of App Store applications (Science), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of App Store applications (Science). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Unblock request
{{unblock-ip|1=130.76.64.16|2=[[WP:Block#Evasion of blocks|Block evasion]]: [[User:Jaredkunz30]] evading block.|3=Jayron32}}
- I've lowered the block so that registered users can still use the ip, you should be ok now but if it didn't work please post another unblock request. Sorry for the inconvenience. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:PROD nomination of Silicone Power Battery
While you make some good points in the nomination, sources not being in English is not considered a valid deletion reason. While English sources are certainly preferred, they are not required. For future reference, Google Translate does a fairly good job with Chinese, you can usually at least get the general idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. I pulled up those two sources and found they only mention the article subject in passing, so I still stand behind my prod. I'll try to remember Google Translate from now on. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
09 WS
Thanks for the Paterson update! As someone who has looked at that article a fair amount, think it's ready for another run at FAC? I addressed the issues raised in the last attempt, but it just sort of petered out, and it's since become a GA. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm okay with going for another FA run. I'm currently in the process of doing some CE on the article. I'll probably have a little more to clean up on the Paterson section when I get back to it. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Doom Troopers
An article that you have been involved in editing, Doom Troopers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doom Troopers. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David C. Hëwitt
Kuyabribri - Thanks for the concern. At the time I relisted the article, I personally did not feel there was consensus, although a delete will probably be the outcome. Trust me, if nothing changes in a day or two, another admin will come along and delete it. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Roger Stritmatter:Backup/Oxfordian Theory
Please proceed with deletion if you have not already done so. The article has been archived through the appropriate means. Sorry for any confusion; I wanted to make sure it would be kept for future reference, but wasn't sure how to do it properly.--BenJonson (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason I had a separate page is because Asha Parekh shouldn't have all of the films on it. Someone added my filmography to her article but I think people with such large filmographies should be separated. gren グレン 05:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I have some information for you
Regarding the recent edits of User:Stan Simmons (contribs)... There is evidence that suggests the user could be a sock of User:Paul Harald Kaspar/Chadbryant.[5]--UnquestionableTruth-- 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Would you like to open an SPI? —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would but I always seem to have a hard time with the format. Could you assist me in the matter? I've also contacted the User:Yamla about this issue. --UnquestionableTruth-- 19:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I can't do it right now but I'll work on it when I have time. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I should also note that Yamla identifies as semi-retired, so he/she may not respond quickly. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Harald Kaspar. Please weigh in as well. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! Much appreciated.--UnquestionableTruth-- 01:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would but I always seem to have a hard time with the format. Could you assist me in the matter? I've also contacted the User:Yamla about this issue. --UnquestionableTruth-- 19:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Edits that people don't agree with aren't vandalism. Your witch hunt will be exposed for what it is. Stan Simmons (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've started attempting to merge Walt Disney Animation Studios and Disney Renaissance, and revise the content, at Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios/rewrite. I have little scribbles mentioning what needs to go where (I didn't comment them out, mostly because I don't want anyone to read it at first glance and get comfortable with much of the info there - a lot of it is flat-out wrong) -- FuriousFreddy (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Added by 76.178.251.201
Hi, you reverted my post of Soccer Hall of Famer Shannon Higgins Civorski as being a native of Kent Wa. Please note I did originally spell her married name incorrectly (Civorsky s/b Civorski). I have since corrected my error and my information is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.251.201 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
About TW and on being reported for Vandalism
Hi there, just saw the TW sign on your edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&action=history I have been trying to figure out what actually it is and why my every edit is being reported as Vandalism. I noticed your latest edit has no TW sign. How did you get rid of it. Can you please help me in this.
Tej smiles (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:TW for what the "TW" means. The reason my most recent edit to WP:RFPP was not flagged with "TW" was because I manually edited it instead of using Twinkle. I have reason to believe your account has been compromised. Please see WP:ANI. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Clarification
Hi There, just saw your post on the noticeboard. I now get it. i had added several tools in preferences without actually knowing wot actually they were. intended to know them and use them in future. i also added the Cryptographic hash today to secure my page. i now realise that all the trouble was caused by my adding TW. i've hence unchecked it and other tools. initially suspected it to be because of the hostility shown by some members. Sorry for bothering you.
Tej smiles (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
about Cryptographic Hash
i am not exactly sure if the hash i've entered is right. wots your take? any error in it?
Tej smiles (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Playstation 3 is already pending protected.
That means any edits made to the page by a new account or random IP literally don't even make it to the page unless an autoconfirmed user 'clears' it. They're accomplishing nothing; nobody will ever see it. HalfShadow 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you think we should do? --mboverload@ 05:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've warned him with {{uw-advert3}}. If it persists escalate it to level 4 and then report at WP:AIV. Meanwhile tag all the pages with {{db-spam}}. —KuyaBriBriTalk 05:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know
Hello Kuyabribri. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question - A7 doesn't cover books. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry - ignore the above. Looking at the history I see that yours was a perfectly reasonable G11; then the author took out the promotional stuff and another editor changed it to A7. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
July 2010
Hello Kuyabribri. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding Yann Lewandowski, that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 18:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Roger that. It's been several months since I've done CSD tagging in earnest and was unaware of this development. I'll try to keep that in mind from now on. Thanks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
OMG I'm really trying to get this page finished before work...
Can u please tell me why I keep getting messages not allowing my page to get posted properly (orange revolution film). Im very very new at this so any advice is very appreciated as I do not want to get booted for doing something wrong. Please not Ive been trying to post this for a very very long time as Im still getting familiar with wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superzusgw (talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are adding copyrighted text from another website. Generally speaking, you may never simply copy and paste text from another website. And even if you did have the copyright owner's permission, the text you insist on adding is not written in an encyclopedic tone. There's nothing wrong with leaving the article in its present state, so when you have more time, please try to come up with your own words. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
OK Ill try to finish this up later tonight. Thank u for your help. --superzus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superzusgw (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kuyabribri. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |