User talk:Kusma/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Spider-Man 4
Did you read the rationale I provided for this (i.e., it was previously protected several times, and undone accidentally several times), or did you just put a template response up in declining it? The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did read the rationale. The redirect has been unprotected for two months and only reverted to an article twice since then. The situation seems to be sufficiently under control to not require heavy handed measures such as full protection. Kusma (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alright. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year
|
Hello Kusma, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! Hope you haven't frozen yet! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
Thank you for your help. I have redone my edits and request, going by your suggestions. Sean-O (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind
You are write in saying that the IP edits are in GF, but we have reached a final decision on the talk page which most new users will not bother to look at, leading me to believe that temporary protection might help.--The Dominator (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody seems to have tried to talk to the IPs first and to invite them to the talk page. Such steps should come before locking out some users. Kusma (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The block of my article
Dear Kusma,
My article on the company XDC has been blocked because I've been accused of spamming (in fact I didn't know what I did wasn't allowed). I've done this article as a trainee of XDC. I've seen my account has been blocked for 24hours... But at the moment, it is still impossible to have access to the article on XDC... It's just as it doesn't exist... I'd like to know if I have to do something to solve the problem or if things will be fixed by themselves?
(Sorry for my English, I hope everything is clear)
Thank you for your reply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xdc-evs (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Article on XDC
OK! I would like to re-write an article (and let me precise that the first two ones weren't written by me!). So, could you please tell me which paragraphs were wrong? How can I improve my article? And if it's possible to send you the new version before posting it on Wikipedia just to be sure it's ok?
Thank you for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xdc-evs (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Mon STate
Wow -never occurred to me you can move templates like you can to articles. I know you can't do it with categories -I naturally assumed the same with templates. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ Talk? 13:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of User talk:Wikinger/recovered
hmm, twinkle was rather aggressive there!!
Given that the /recovered version of User talk:Wikinger was only a temporary holding page to recover from vandalism, it can go too. Thanks for your help on this Mayalld (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter much either way, but I have deleted the redirect. Happy editing, and be careful with Twinkle's templated messages, Kusma (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Declined AIV report
Hi :-)
I just noticed, that you declined the AIV report for 69.116.26.75; saying that the IP did not conduct vandalism for two days. The IP's contribs show something else. He just vandalized an article here and I issued a 4im warning. Is it possible to take another look at the IP?
Thanks :-)
LightAnkhC|MSG 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- That happened right after I declined your report. Anyway, as I don't want to decide whether I think his interpretation is vandalism or not, I just gave another (non-templated) warning. I feel dialogue might work better than blocks, but I may be wrong. Kusma (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Violation of 3RR
User:Sethie has violated the Three Revert Policy at Liite Buddhism. I request that he be banned immediately pending an investigation. Also note that he has performed mass deletions of sources on the same page. Castanea dentata (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which of the external links he removed were related to Liite Buddhism? Kusma (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Der ganze Haufen. Er hat auch gesagt daß er nichts des Beitrags gelesen hat. Es ist tut mir leid. Aber 3RR sind 3RR. Es geht nicht so. Castanea dentata (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the links seem to be relevant to Witness Lee or the Living Stream Ministry (link list seems to be copied from there). Actually, I haven't found single one so far that is explicitly related to "Liite Buddhism". I don't apply punitive blocks, and Sethie appears to have agreed to stop reverting. There's no clear 3RR visible anyway (some silly tag reverting was ended by the AFD nomination). Kusma (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Der ganze Haufen. Er hat auch gesagt daß er nichts des Beitrags gelesen hat. Es ist tut mir leid. Aber 3RR sind 3RR. Es geht nicht so. Castanea dentata (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Liite Buddhism
Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_10#Liite_Buddhism, the author of the article has edited after your deletion claiming to have written the article from scratch. I'm not sure, but when I read both pieces I don't remember seeing the same material, just the same subject matter. May I therefore request that you take a second look? Many thanks for your time, and apologies in advance if I am mistaken. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was the same text, copied from several posts at the blog http://liites.blogspot.com/ We already cover this group in the articles Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee, none of which mention any connection to Buddhism. Kusma (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Fair enough. Thanks anyway. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Having to highlight and delete the message from the box takes up time; so I think that if it can't be a useful deletion message, I think it should be short (a single punctuation character like "-" worked perfectly) so the deletion reason can simply be typed after it. —Random832 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The assumption behind not using "content was $1" (which I would prefer) is that apparently hundreds of admins don't use deletion summaries. "-" is completely useless to anyone reading the logs. Perhaps we should try to add a "clear" button to the page that empties the summary? Kusma (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
Hi Kusma - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Demote admin User:Y
I posted the notice in the wrong board. It should have been posted here. It's too late to move the discussion now. So I post a link here. I do not forum shop. Thank you. --Koreanjason (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Please see my response.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the rollback bit
Now all I need is a valid excuse to test it... :-)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is yet another edit I had to revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Columbia_Pictures_films&diff=185277200&oldid=185127812
Something needs to be done. FMAFan1990 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes: references have to be provided for the claims in the article, making it possible to decide whether your version or the IP's is correct. Or, perhaps simpler: all unreferenced future films should be removed per WP:CRYSTAL. Kusma (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Church of Witness Lee
I think another afd in a week or so will see it gone.
While I honor your idea of merging, given that the ENTIRE article is cut and pasted from a blog... I don't see the need for a merge.
Let me know your thoughts. Sethie (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have just turned the whole thing into a redirect (whith no objection from the admin who closed the AFD). I don't see much that can be merged either, but am too wikitired to start a WP:DRV at this moment. For another AFD, you should wait at least a month, or it could be speedily closed. Kusma (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deo Volente
Hi Kusma, I see your name in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. I think you are Indonesian. Because I live in Indonesia. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
mass invitations
what do you think of this? Agathoclea (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the invitations seem to be poorly targeted (for instance, Zeitgeist invented some people who were already project members and some who had not shown interest in Germany-related editing) but essentially harmless. Try to talk to him about his motivations and discuss the best way to get active members (instead of guys who just sign up on a list and never do anything)? I'd like to see someone revitalise the project... Kusma (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet of our fav friend?
Came across this article and it sounds a lot like an S-U article. The same contributor has some other articles, too. Sorry to start off the new year with this type of message. -Yupik (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- And another lovely article, this time actually under S-U's nick from 2006. -Yupik (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fortunately the article was very old, and there is no evidence that S-U has returned to editing after his Vienna and Austrian edits last summer. Perhaps we can just clean up and expand the articles a little to become real stubs, and try to forget about S-U. Kusma (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
While I was preparing the RFD, I found this log: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/June_2006#Wikilawyering_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, so it's a clear G4, if a bit old. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am opposed to G4 deleting an essentially harmless redirect with more than 100 incoming links. That new links are created shows demand for this redirect, and there has been no sign of people searching anything else but Wikipedia:Wikilawyering under this title. Kusma (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Page protection
I think those pages should be unprotected, if only to allow good-faith IP editors to contribute... I have seen a fair few good-faith IP edits on various articles over the last few days! --Solumeiras (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I try to generally avoid semiprotecting pages if at all possible, but I don't see the point in unprotecting a page that will need protection again a couple of hours later. Kusma (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I saw your post on WP:RFPP regarding the archived talk page - my mistake for suggesting it should be protected. --Solumeiras (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thank you
thank you for my talk page, at least i can reply there. i have been editing from two different locations and that seems to be creating a buzz about sockpuppets and tagging. should i only edit from one location? is there a rule against editing from different locations. i have offered to help. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no rule against editing from different locations. However, it is best to make it as clear as possible if you edit from several IPs that they all belong to the same editor. It is probably easiest if you just sign up for an account and edit with that. Kusma (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
how do i make it clear that i am the same person. i also noticed that my contribution list has stuff i never wrote going back a year. i am not allowed to sign up for a wikipedia account so that will not happen. thank you --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Notes on your talk pages can help to clarify that you are the same person. Your IP address is not currently prevented from account creation as far as I can tell. Kusma (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Ababdeh people
I did give a rationale for the deletion: Speedy_delete#Redirects because the page was the result of a merge not a move. The page *was* in fact deleted, but in an act of disruptiveness by user JohnReeves (sp?), he undid it without the courtesy of a redirect. We had a discussion about it on his talk page. I am going to leave it as a redirect instead because I don't think it's worth the time having a discussion about an empty page, though I have no doubt it will be deleted sooner or later because most Talk: redirects are speedied anyway. — Zerida ☥ 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- As Talk redirects are harmless and talk redirects for existing pages do not fall under WP:CSD#R1, WP:CSD#R2 or WP:CSD#R3, I don't see an actual reason to delete them. I know that some people do, but they are acting outside of policy. Remember that deleting pages does not save any disk space, so useless redirects should be left alone, and only harmful redirects need to be deleted. Anyway, once somebody disagrees with you about a speedy deletion, it is usually faster and less hassle to use a discussion-based forum such as WP:RFD or WP:MFD than to user a speedy deletion tag. Kusma (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- they are acting outside of policy. The problem however is that the policy states that speedy-deletion candidates include: "Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space." This therefore seems be a disagreement on policy rather than a procedural issue. — Zerida ☥ 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Er, Talk:Ababdeh people is in the Talk: namespace, not in article space. Kusma (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, now I see where I erred, thanks for the explanation, which would've cleared things up early on. However, did you mean that it's in the *article* space not namespace since Ababdeh people is an article? Perhaps other admins are making the same mistake because the wording is not very clear. — Zerida ☥ 20:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Article space" is just a shorthand for "article namespace" (also known as "mainspace"). See e.g. Help:Namespace (we might have a better explanation somewhere, but I don't have time to search it right now). Kusma (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I hope I am not bothering you with my questions (I can ask at the Help Desk). I read Wikipedia:Namespace which seems to suggest that it's a cover term for non-article namespace. Also, the way the deletion policy is worded suggests that article space is distinct from namespace. Could you envision a situation where, as the policy states, there is a redirect to Talk: namespace from the article space--in other words, what would be an example? — Zerida ☥ 20:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Typical examples for WP:CSD#R2 are stuff like the following. Imagine that I create a page called Kusma's user page. That is in article space, so somebody comes along and moves it to User:Kusma (where it belongs). The page Kusma's user page will now be a redirect from article space to the User: space and can be deleted. Or somebody might be looking for Wikipedia's discussion about Muhammad images and then creates a redirect from Wikipedia Muhammad image discussion to Talk:Muhammad/images. This will be a redirect from article space to the Talk: namespace and should be deleted per WP:CSD#R2. Hope that helps, Kusma (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I hope I am not bothering you with my questions (I can ask at the Help Desk). I read Wikipedia:Namespace which seems to suggest that it's a cover term for non-article namespace. Also, the way the deletion policy is worded suggests that article space is distinct from namespace. Could you envision a situation where, as the policy states, there is a redirect to Talk: namespace from the article space--in other words, what would be an example? — Zerida ☥ 20:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Article space" is just a shorthand for "article namespace" (also known as "mainspace"). See e.g. Help:Namespace (we might have a better explanation somewhere, but I don't have time to search it right now). Kusma (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, now I see where I erred, thanks for the explanation, which would've cleared things up early on. However, did you mean that it's in the *article* space not namespace since Ababdeh people is an article? Perhaps other admins are making the same mistake because the wording is not very clear. — Zerida ☥ 20:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Er, Talk:Ababdeh people is in the Talk: namespace, not in article space. Kusma (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- they are acting outside of policy. The problem however is that the policy states that speedy-deletion candidates include: "Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space." This therefore seems be a disagreement on policy rather than a procedural issue. — Zerida ☥ 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Robyn and Kleerup's "With Every Heartbeat"
Think someone needs to look at [[1]] as it looks like someone has made some strange edits on there. i have corrected what I could but name above albumart still needs sorting.
However, I was looking to make a link from LyricWiki to Kleerup who collaborated and composed this song..He DID have a page..once..but you deleted it in 2006...
Could you tell me why please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redxx (talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The page's only content was
Kleerup is a Swedish Pop/Disco artist. He has worked with [[Robyn]], another Swedish artist, on a song called "With Every Hearthbeat".
and a Myspace link. As we didn't even have a page on With Every Heartbeat and there was no indication that this was a notable song, I deleted the page for failing to assert notability. I expect that the more recent chart positions of the single are sufficient to pass our notability criteria WP:MUSIC. If you want, just write a new article at Andreas Kleerup or at Kleerup (and be sure to create a redirect at the other page). Hope that helps, and happy editing! Kusma (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The rollback function
Could you grant me the rollback function? A lot of my favorite pages have been being vandalized lately. T.T Ooops. Forgot to sign. BrianGo28 (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Kusma
It is very nice to meet you. I would like to inqurer of how much a German Shrunk cost. It has been a dream and a pray of mine to own one. My number is (removed). Deborah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.39.149 (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)