User talk:Kiteinthewind/Archive (2009.1)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kiteinthewind. 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.

I accidentally blocked you for a moment. I meant to click the block link for 218.186.12.202 (talk · contribs) on the history page of Honour and Passion, but I clicked the wrong link. I immediately unblocked you and left a note in the block log. If that note is not to your liking, let me know and I'll annotate it. Very sorry for any inconvenience. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This show is based in Singapore. For a guy who is based in Arizona, who doesn't watch the drama, update himself on the news regarding the drama, you sure are doing a lot of editing on the wrong page.

I blocked him again because he went right back and did it again, this time for 28 hours as I had suggested before. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though your block was back in September, that may very well be too soon for most of the RfA crowd to take well to you running. That aside, I did take a look at your contributions through this thingie; you've got a lot of article edits, which is good, but only about an eighth or so of your edits have been to Project space, which may throw off some of the die-hard people. Your activity looks pretty good. As for your contributions themselves, I took a look at your recent edits to the Wikipedia: namespace to try and get a feeling for your understanding of policy. The problems I noticed include: This RFPP request will probably be declined; you're the only user who appears to have substantially edited the article in the last day or so, and not all of IP edits are unconstructive. Be careful about what you say when referring to legal action; I know you said "I don't intend to", but it's usually best to avoid saying it in the first place. Within the last 50 edits, those are the only problems I noticed.

So, basically what I'm saying is that I would probably support you. Unfortunately, I can almost guarantee you that most of the RfA crowd will probably look at your block log, and then look no further. I know of at least one user who automatically opposes any RfA candidate who has had a block in the last year. If they do continue looking, some of them maybe turned back by some of the older discussions on your talk page; I notice you were having some misunderstandings about the username policy back in August. You also seem to have had some other problems with reports and working with other users throughout your current talk page. Because of all that, I don't believe you would be able to succeed at RfA at this time.

Now, don't get me wrong. I would love to see you run, if only because I'm part of a group that really really really wants to see more admins. I would strongly recommend you look into Wikipedia:Admin coaching - this should be a good way for you to sort out any policy problems you may still have, get a better concept of what adminship entails, and should give you the time you need to "recover" from the block. When you do go for RfA, please be sure to drop me a note - it's not canvassing if I specifically ask you to. Best of luck with it, and let me know if you have any questions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arbiteroftruth, I noticed you hadn't replied to Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica#Propose that we Delete this again in a few months. I was interested in seeing your replies to xeno and Jaysweet, if you have a chance.

Specifically, this from xeno: "The existence of an (properly sourced and encyclopedic) article on ED no more glorifies vandals than a properly sourced and encyclopedia entry on 9/11 glorifies terrorists."

And this from Jaysweet: "It's a glorified WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, disguised as WP:DENY. WP:DENY is about original Wikipedia content (i.e. meta pages and talk pages) glorifying vandals. It is not about external media glorifying vandals."

Thanks! :) --Alexc3 ^(talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I finally put the barnstar you gave me a couple of weeks ago on my userpage. So it's time to say thank you (You are the first person to have given me the same type of barnstar twice). 00:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The original article went though quite a few changes and had major sourcing after it was nominated. Unfortunately the final improvements were too late... only 25 minutes before its deletion and before those who thought the original unworthy could comment or respond inre the improved and sourced version. I seek your input, concerning the unsourced version you sent to AfD (above) and the one that was deleted after the improvement. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind a bit and appreciate your getting back to me. There's a lot about the article that I myself find unencyclopedic. And many things it in that were gratuitous and unsourced. However, I had it userfied to a workspace and will be spending some time with a sandblaster. When I am through, it will be a much cleaner article, listing of what he has done, what he has recieved recognition for, and why, with suitable sources. It will not be the overpadded it currently is when I am through. It has no need to tell of his mother and father or all the many places he worked. I was just not able to get to it before it was axed. I hope I might ask your opinion when it is finished. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

EC. Toward your last post on my page, thank you very much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we seem to have friends in the same IP range. Can you look over Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis and Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis to see if there are any similarities? I can't tell after a quick glance what CW's MO is, but Yasis likes to edit war over Carroll Quigley, has a thing for William Engdahl, and occasionally tries to pump up the fringy Abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis. Also, they now are obsessed with vandalizing my talk and user pages. Let me know if you think there's a chance these are the same person, or you think they're totally different. NJGW (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As a recent contributor to Deaths in 2009, you may be able to help decide on a proposed new policy. It is proposed that:

A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends.

Please opine at Talk:Deaths_in_2009#Proposed new policy. Don't just say

• Support.

or

• Oppose.

Also state your reasons and participate in the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

May want to check out Special:Contributions/Chandra Gupta II —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:VAND so that you are clear on what constitutes vandalism and what constitutes a content dispute. AIAV is only for reporting vandalism. Your previous report of User:Syjytg was removed yesterday. Please pursue dispute resolution. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this warning, can you examine things a bit further and confirm you intended to issue it and intend for it to remain? The editor was blocked earlier today (for 3RR unrelated to that article)...perhaps a warning 8+ hours after the edit in question and while the user is already blocked is really not necessary? Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am looking into what is going on at Derek Kale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which you tagged with WP:CSD#G4. Could you provide me a link to the prior deletion discussion as I can't find it. When the article went to AfD did it have a different title perhaps? CIreland (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I have declined the speedy deletion because G4 is only for pages deleted at WP:XfD. I have decided not to delete it for no assertion of importance as the importance of the subject is unclear. I have instead sent the article to WP:CP pending clarification of the copyright status from the author. CIreland (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer your two questions:

• A person can confirm ownership of text or other material either by adding a note to the source website that the text is under a free license or by email exchange with the OTRS.
• I agree that the subject of the article in question may not meet our notability criteria, but that is not a valid reason for speedy deletion.

CIreland (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you may have been doing this with the best of intentions, but you also look like you are involved in an edit war and may be in breach of WP:3RR. In adition, one of you reverts removed clearly useful edits. Please atempt to find consensus on the articles talk page. Pedro :  Chat  15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that when one party is taking out a definition of the article subject and replacing it with text in a different script (never mind language), that's clear vandalism, and fixing it isn't a 3RR violation. YMMV.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, hopefully this investigation and block calms the situation down. Thanks for the Barnstar, I'm going to move it to my user page. Camw (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Already blocked the new sock, thanks for the note though. Camw (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think I'll leave the indefinite block decision on that account to another admin, but yes it will probably happen well before his current block of a month is up. I'm seeing more socks popping up so I'll keep blocking as I see them. Camw (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pointers toward the new sock puppets. Camw (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about who is available in regards to admin coaching sorry, I only became one last week so I'm not quite up to speed on everything! I see you've put your name down on the coach request page, if I see someone available then I'll let you know. Camw (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your taggin of Attayampalayam for speedy deletion under criterion A1, this criterion is meant to apply to articles with so little information provided that you have no idea what the article is about. This article, however, identified that the article was about a village and specified its location. I should also note that articles on towns are rarely deleted even at AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The contents are corroborated if you care to read the links embedded in this newly created Wikipedia page to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the Strata Titles Board Circular, the High Court written judgement. The author of this Wikipedia page (SIN Pariah) has disclosed e-mail address <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com> for you to contact the author if you would like to verify the statistical charts of Urban Redevelopment Authority and Jones Lang LaSalle Research and article page extract from the Singapore Academy of Law Journal. It is only because of non-technie skills and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's tools that these statistical charts and journal extract are displayed as rectangular blobs.
(SINPariah (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

I have pleaded my case and sent my emails to where they were suppose to be. They never got back to me. I dont know why you have it out for me. I also dont understand how it can be a copyright infringement if i created the website and then use it on here.--ProcupPosse (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of a fact i have made my case but you still dont believe me. I Josh Stuckey at stuckeymotorsports created derekkale.com i have created 7 to 8 sites and just maybe a few more will have material i have used to create there site will end up on here. I dont know what else you want me to tell you.--ProcupPosse (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

http://derekkale.com/TermsofUse.html --ProcupPosse (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously you dont have it out for me? I proved who i was and that i created his site yet you go and make it so i need to make changes in the article. Instead of wanting my creation page deleted why dont you help me? --ProcupPosse (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please would you stop adding speedy deletion tags to Derek Kale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Speedy deletion is for clear cases only and the tags should not be re-added once speedy deletion has been declined. The copyright issues will we dealt with at WP:CP and there is no need to re-add a G12 tag as the page is currently replaced with the copyright notice.

If, when the copyright issues have been resolved and if the author chooses to release the text under a free license, you wish to challenge the notability of the subject, you will need to do so using proposed deletion or WP:AFD. CIreland (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

24 hours, but would be much longer for sockpuppetry if you could get me the exact edits by the banned user that match. Otherwise the correlation is there, but very loose at this point. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the type of evidence I was looking for. Thanks. Not saying it'll be the end of it, but the block is now much, much longer. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you struck another user's comment at WP:EAR. I've removed your striking of it per WP:REDACT. Please do not strike or otherwise modify the comments of others. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's generally poor form to even modify your own comments after making them (unless it's a minor typo and it's pretty soon after making the comment). If you want Pariah to redact his comment you can ask him to, and he may. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm not the Arbcom nor did I bother with an RfC, but this MfD is really going too far. As an editor, can I please ask you not to interact with him any longer? If we can reform an uncouth POV-pushing newbie into a civilised non-POV pushing newbie, we should strive to do that, instead of driving them away using a bog of SSP, MfD, AfD and what have you. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll still stick to my above advice. This user has not been showing the typical ColorWolf modus operandi. Some admins (e.g. User:NawlinWiki) are specialists on tackling Grawp, who is much much more prolific than CW, and they haven't become as jaded to clueless newbies as you.

I'm not downplaying your anti-CW work - you're probably the only editor active who's watching out for his sabotage, and that is commendable. You mention vandals who refuse to reform themselves. But if you do not give them time to edit according to suggestion, how can you tell they "refuse to reform"? Monitor them by webcam? I say, give Pariah time and he'll show whether he truly wants to comply with rules, which he has difficulty comprehending. It's still too early to tell. Kimchi.sg (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you create user Abbiteroftruth (talk · contribs)? If not, please report at UAA or ANI. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one: Abbiter ofthetruth (talk · contribs). This one has been protected as a doppelganger. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated DICK Cheney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 20:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. I did not try for that to happen. You just got caught in Twinkle's fluff lol. It sent it to you because you wer an editor in it, I believe. But, please be reassured that I WP:AGF. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 22:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		You deserve it. --Abce2|Howdy! 02:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)