Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lapadite (talk | contribs) at 03:42, 28 October 2014 (→Re to Edit Warring nb decision: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Guess who?

Yep, as soon as the block ended, he's right back at it. Guess a week wasn't long enough to get the point across that we have rules here, and they aren't to be ignored. Maybe a month this time? Oh, and you might as well preemptively slap the same block on User:Steve Taneyhill, because he'll just use the sock to revert as soon as you block the IP. I didn't bother templating for the edit warring this time, because the warnings obviously aren't having any effect. Thanks again for your help! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much going to be the pattern, it seems. I've blocked the account until he speaks and applied a similar block to the IP. I'm sorry; I know that can be frustrating. Kuru (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit War at Largest Organisms is Still Ongoing

Now that the page protection has expired at Largest organisms, User:Irishfrisian is back to its old schtick of edit-warring to protect its favorite version of the page while making excuses to justify its own edits, and shift blame on to other editors.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

at least I've given justifications for my edits and i'm not blaming anyone for anything it was caused by a simple misunderstanding of wikipedia: consensus and your constant belittling of me and refusal to address my concerns is not appreciated Irishfrisian (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not blaming anyone? What about when you and your sockpuppet threatened to have User:Op47 banned for vandalism or when you threatened me when I undid your attacks on Op47's talkpage? What about your claim that "it takes two to editwar"? And your only justification is a really crude bout of wiki-lawyering where you state that if consensus doesn't agree with you, it doesn't count. Irishfrisian, if you are really serious about improving Largest organisms, you would have made an effort to collaborate with the other users, like, say, giving actual suggestions for improving and rewriting the page, rather than simply waiting until the page protection expired so you can continue editwarring while blaming everyone else.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have also given my justification for edits and also my reasons for opposing Irishfrisian. Re no blame: ], ],],],]. Of more concern is the fact that immediately after writing his comment above, he reverted Largest organisms again. This has all started because I read the concensus of a discussion as concensus to split. Can someone please, please review that decision and if I got it wrong then fine I will hold up my hands. This attitude of Irishfrisian of just saying it is wrong and reverting really needs to stop. Op47 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, the page protection did not work. I've left a warning; if the back and forth continues, there's not going to be any option other than to start blocking. Kuru (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My Blocking

Hi, thank you for telling me my block has expired. But as a matter of principle, I really don't think I deserve to have that block on my otherwise unblemished record as a contributing editor for six years who has never received so much as a warning. It really made me feel disvalued as an editor who has worked really hard to improve Misplaced Pages. Can you or another admin please just re-evaluate the case, read the details I wrote in my last unblock request and consider removing the block from my record. I would just really appreciate it. Thanks. :) Inqvisitor (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

IndusInd Bank

Thanks for the edits. I originally started the page but noticed recently that it had gone down to a mere promotion of the bank with too many copyright violations. I was planning to do a cleanup. Thanks for doing that. -- Xrie (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

BizRP

Please add the page again. Here isthe reference. http://karitkarma.com/bizrp/. I don't know how to add references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrnirjhar (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be nothing at that link. We need multiple reliable sources that cover the entity in some detail. Kuru (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Management Information Systems page

Hey, just saw that you've been watching (or would 'patrolling' be more accurate?) the MIS page because it gets a lot of spam - thanks for what you're doing! Wanted to throw you a note that I came across the page a bit randomly, but tried to make some improvements to it and added multiple sources. It doesn't address all of the issues on the page, but hopefully it'll help you and other editors who know more in this area than I do - and maybe one of those links has some information vital to another section on the page that I wouldn't understand? Anyway, wanted to have someone give it a look-see and hopefully continue the momentum.

Best of luck. GRUcrule (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, will take a look. Yes, many of the pages I watch are ones that attract an undue amount of spam and other more subtle forms of promotional editing. Good luck! Kuru (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, just wanted to swing by and see if you had an opinion on the article now that I've done a bit more editing/attempting to tidy it up to a decent status. Do you think some of the unsourced material/original research tags can be removed? Thanks again! GRUcrule (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

How many languages does an article need to have to be included in the death section on 2014? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea, sorry. Kuru (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

bimeanalytics.com

Hi Kuru, I noticed that bimeanalytics.com was removed some time back because of spam of multiple IPs that tried to add promotional links. I wonder if this domain name could be unblocked because today there are numerous recognition appearances in the press. For example : "BIME Analytics nabs 4m to simplify business intelligence". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2013-11-21. ; "French Cloud Computing firm picks KC". Business Journal. Retrieved 2013-10-30.. Thanks in advance --User:Nephelai13

The blacklist impacts your ability to add a link to the site, it does not prevent you from creating an article. As this link was used by a coordinated group of sockpuppets to spam the encyclopedia, and it is highly unlikely to be used as a reference, I'm not in favor of removing it from the blacklist. If you need specific links to be used as a reference for an article on the topic, then we can whitelist the specific deep links. It is preferable to simply link to thrid party reliable sources. Kuru (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"super team"

Super-team had no copy right infringements and was deleted before the seven day review.Stmullin (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It was lifted word for word from that first cite. There is no "seven day review" for this type of deletion. Kuru (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC

You are not correct . . . and have violate wikipedia guidelines. Stmullin (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over. (See Editing under the influence!)174.99.59.109 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is now at ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Stmullin. I'm sorry to say that you appear to be in the wrong. SmartSE (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I am not available during and could not contribute in a timely fashion. Other administrators appear to have correctly sussed out the reasoning for my actions. They should not have needed to do so, and I'll take responsibility for that. At this point, the discussion has progressed beyond any additional information I can add, and it would be less than productive for me to add fuel to the fire by reiterating my thought process while others appear to be making very good progress with the editor in question. Kuru (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Texas Wikimedians user group and meetups

Hi Kuru! I'd like to let you know about, and invite you to join the proposed Texas Wikimedians user group. Also, on more of a national scale, perhaps you would like to participate at WikiConference USA.--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Crisply Post Removed

Hi! I added Crisply to the "Comparison of timesheet software" page, and it was removed. What was the reason for that?

Here's the information that I originally put in:

| Crisply | Web-based | Automatic Timesheets without Time Tracking. Using machine learning, Crisply continuously gathers work activity from the systems that you use and automatically tells you and your team where your effort goes. | Integrated with Mac Desktop, Windows Desktop, Google Apps, Microsoft 365, Microsoft Exchange, Salesforce, Dropbox, Box, Google Drive, Evernote, Zapier, Chrome, Firefox and others. Plus an open API. | SaaS

Let me know whatever I can change so that the post can be kept in. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrichardson256 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As noted in the comments when you edit the page "Only place entries here that are links to actual Misplaced Pages articles about notable time tracking software. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not time tracking software will be removed. If you have questions, use the talk page. Please try to keep entries in alphabetical order. Adding unnecessary links or text to any other section (such as the "References" section) will also be removed. Thanks."

In this instance, there is no article for the software, nor an indication of the notability for the entry. You also added a link to the pricing page, which makes this appear to be promotional. Kuru (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Allowed to appeal for another blocked user?

Am I allowed to appeal for a user you've recently blocked? Would that be allowed or not? Tutelary (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's for the one I just blocked, the appeal should be spectacular. Kuru (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

:: I'm not sure I want to, but he seemed to have good intentions, just seemed to have a mentality of The disruptive and oppressive editors were reverting his good and valid reliably sourced information about how this Youtuber is gay! HOMOPHOBES I'm not saying the actions were warranted, but to my eyes, it seemed he was just largely ignorant of the policies at hand, especially WP:3RR, WP:BLP, WP:RS among others. The malicious intent was only vaguely implied. (Don't consider this an appeal, just a comment to the block.) Tutelary (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (See lower response)

Are you certain? Read his edit history. His username was Exposed101 and his edits were almost exclusively concerned with the intention of outing (supposedly) closeted homosexuals Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Ignore my earlier concern. His talk page observes that he's not interested in learning. Tutelary (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

3RR/Andrews

Was I correct to remove the personal remark? Or should I have left it there for someone else to remove as it was directed at me? Murry1975 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to remove it or redact it right after I closed the request, so no problems clearly. Kuru (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Higo1

He/she is just vandalism for music genre page, and attacking me. 183.171.178.153 (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That just seems to be the latest sock of Andrewbf. I've resolved. Kuru (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)

may please join .--Md iet (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of companies of Italy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fila and Bertone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

James Roday

Hi, I work for Taco Bueno who's HQ is located in Farmers Branch, Texas and at a recent General Manager Conference we were introduced to James Roday dad, Jim Rodriquez, who was recently hired on to run our catering leg of the company business. I looked up James Roday to confirm for myself about his dad and it said the following "His father, Jaime "Jim" Rodriguez, is of Mexican descent and his mother is of English, Irish, and Scottish ancestry. Roday's father worked for Boardwalk Auto Group. Rodriguez is now the regional caterer manager of Taco Cabana." I just wanted to correct the fact that his dad now works for Taco Bueno. If you call the corporate office I'm pretty sure you can verify this. I thought it was relevant since the information given is not accurate and I expect a certain level of accuracy whenever I read Misplaced Pages.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFE8:AF10:D8B5:34EA:3B5D:8B83 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we can only use published, reliable sources for articles - this is how we meet your expectations of accuracy. My suggestion would be to simply omit the material on his father's employment - I'm not sure how we'd ever keep that accurate, and it's not material to his son's page. No objections if you want to remove it altogether. Kuru (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/201.102.146.21

Andrewbf's IP address 201.102.146.21 is still free. Would you please block him/her extended one or two years? 183.171.178.44 (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Andrewbf

I've had an IP address show up on my talk page (apropo of nothing as far as I know this second), saying that they think this person is using another IP address to continue their edits.

As you said that they were abusing multiple accounts, could you please let me know where the sock puppet investigation is? I find that section of WP to be like a bad filing cabinet. If there isn't one, could you let me know what the account names were so I can double-check with checkusers?

Thank you! Now I'm going to go find out why the heck I've been tagged. Panyd 14:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Found it! Now I'm not sure what to do and my loving checkuser husband is asleep. The discussion only had two accounts on it. Do you resubmit with IP addresses or just assume? Panyd 17:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another account Special:Contributions/Laratadelaciudad is made its genre warring.183.171.178.92 (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies - was travelling yesterday and unable to look at this. I'll take a look in a minute or this afternoon. Kuru (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Rivers of Texas

Hello Kuru, I have noticed that in the past you have done a number of very nice looking watershed maps for the rivers of Texas, such as, e.g., File:Llano Watershed.png. If you still remember how to do this, would it be possible to ask you to make another one, for Pedernales River, which can be seen at the bottom of the mentioned figure? Thanks and regards, — Adavyd (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for missing this question. I'd be happy to do this; I'll be out of town this weekend, but can likely do in the new few weeks (it may take a bit to recompile all the layers). Kuru (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Of course, whenever you have time. It also looks like the source elevation in the article Pedernales River was wrong (funny enough, it was the mouth elevation translated into feet), I removed it. — Adavyd (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo

Should the article come back to the pre EW version? To the consensus version? Coltsfan (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As a rule, I don't ever revert an article when I'm resolving a ANEW issue unless there's a really strong reason to do so (BLP problem, simple vandalism, copyright). Editorial decisions are up to you, but if it places you over the 1RR then it's a bad idea. Kuru (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/187.211.106.72

Can you please block him/her? He/she did edit and genre warring recently. 183.171.179.176 (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

And of course it was User:Andrewbf's IP address. 183.171.178.212 (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. User:Paul Erik blocked him/her already. 183.171.179.199 (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made an entry at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf. Let me know if there's something I have overlooked or misunderstood. Thanks. Paul Erik 03:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Expedia

Hi Kuru,

I highly value your contributions to Misplaced Pages, and your copy-editing skills are very accurate. I would like to ask you if you could make edits to the page of Expedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/Expedia), as there is some information missing from the page. Would you be willing to make edits to the page so that it's complete? The main areas that I think needs more information are the infobox on the top right, and external links.

To be specific, I think the infobox at top right needs more information, and fields more in line with other global travel brands like http://en.wikipedia.org/TripAdvisor, http://en.wikipedia.org/Trivago or and http://en.wikipedia.org/Vodafone_Hutchison_Australia. The infobox also needs to change URLs to be within 'website' (at the bottom) rather than 'Web address' (at the top), and it needs to include links to Expedia ccTLD: US, CA, UK, AU & NZ (in that order) in the same shape as http://en.wikipedia.org/Trivago In regards to external Links, I think it should link to Expedia ccTLD in the same shape as http://en.wikipedia.org/TripAdvisor with the same links as on #3.

Let me know, I would highly appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Erexkiss (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request you may be interested in

See User talk:Intoronto1125. I don't know enough about that user's backstory to feel confident unblocking him on my own, and Qwyrxian seems to be on wiki-break. I'm not sure how much of that case's details you know and remember, but you may want to take a look. Personally I'd tend to assume good faith and give him WP:ROPE, but others may well believe he's had plenty of that already. Huon (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look. Kuru (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You might find this funny...

Or completely enraging. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted your edit because 1Password is notable (just do a google news search), and is likely to have an article in the future. Per WP:REDYES, we should leave the red link to encourage users to make that article. Tutelary (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've responded at the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just I Give a link releted to the business. So if it is inappropriate then in future i i will not do like this

Hello Karu,

Sorry for this if this is inappropriate content then sorry for this editing in future i will not edit like this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.119.201.194 (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

- swot_analysis

Why have you removed link describing strategy building use of SWOT and haven't removed whole paragraph describing it? This section was informative and had link to resource explaining process more deeply - it is also referring to product, but so do other links which you haven't removed (such as Mind Tools which is company which profits from their products related to SWOT). In your opinion what is the purpose of wiki - share knowledge with its users or provide useless information with no practical application? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.220.39.15 (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please stop using your blog as a source. There are many published works on the topic you can use to source your additions which would meet our policy on reliable sources. If there is other material you find objectionable in the article, and I'm sure there is, please feel free to improve the article accordingly. Kuru (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Thewatertribe

It seems like Andrewbf, can you sockpuppet him/her? 183.171.165.238 (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems painfully clear; exact same edits to the same articles, same editing pattern in general, and supporting reverts while logged out from a Mexican IP. I've blocked and tagged. Also blocked the IP. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

user:12З МАТЕ

Thank you for your prompt action. May I suggest his contributions be nuked too. He has created numerous user pages as evidenced here. LRD NO (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ignore my previous post as those edits do not seem to do any harm. Thanks again for your action. LRD NO (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up most of them before I saw this. Looks like everything is cleared up; please let me know if I missed anything. Kuru (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up for the good work. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit to List of concept- and mind-mapping software page

Hi, I noticed that you removed my edit from the page called "List of concept- and mind mapping software". Your comment says "rmv addition with no article", is this because I didn't link to an internal Misplaced Pages page? I would like to learn more about editing Misplaced Pages so that I can contribute more and in the correct way. I would be really grateful if you could help me.

Sarahmcgarr (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Sarah, 18 July 2014

Talk:House music

Special:Contributions/Inidian maninian wrote "electronic influence genres in this music genre", which was the same as User:Thewatertribe wrote "Electronic genres influences in this genre" on talk page. 183.171.168.4 (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company

Thanks for the prompt update to the list of CEOs page.

I was wondering if you had any interest in getting involved in the McKinsey & Company page as well. It started as an attack piece about a year ago and has slowly started to shape up into an encyclopedic article. Following COI best practices, I mostly just make suggestions and offer content on the Talk page, but that means I have to find willing volunteers to collaborate with me. We've mostly just had various editors swinging by to review a section or two of draft content I put together. For example, next up I need to find someone to review a first draft of a "Notable works" section here CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello Kuru, User: Jusgtr has returned to reverting on Run the Jewels (album) (not even an edit summary this time), along with reverting on other articles. Maybe this user is just lacking the competence. STATic message me! 15:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I blocked him a few days ago and neglected to respond to you here. Please let me know if he pops back in and resumes the same disruptive behavior. Kuru (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Question on Revision

Sorry, I am new here and it looks like you took down a post of mine. You stated "rmv addition with no article." I google searched (and searched on wikipedia) for RMV addition and I could not find a definition. Could you describe what you mean?

Also you stated no article - which I see on many other posts as well. As far as I can tell an article is not required. I apologize if I am mistaken, but I would be happy to fix whatever I am doing wrong. I am just looking for some direction on what you feel is missing or needs to be revised. Based on your comments I could am not sure what to correct.

I appreciate your time and look forward to your reply.

- Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etczerwonka (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Eric. Apologies for using abbreviations in my edit comments. I watch a large number of articles and my mobile browser refuses to remember edit summaries I've used in the past. In this case, 'rmv' is simply shorthand for 'removed'. As you surmised, I've removed the entry for your software as the criteria for inclusion on that page is that there is an existing article in place. This inclusion criteria is shown clearly in edit comments when you edit the page, and are summarized on the article's talk page. If you feel there is something special about your addition, or you feel the inclusion criteria is invalid and would like to change the consensus on that, please start a discussion there. Kuru (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Appealing Topic Ban

I requested your help several days ago with filing an appeal for a topic ban. Please advise me of the appropriate forum for doing so as it is still unclear to me after reading the ban notice. Wikieditorpro (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In your topic ban notice, there is a link to the appeal process. As noted, your options are 1) to appeal directly to the administrator who placed the restriction, 2) post an appeal at the AE Noticeboard, or 3) appeal directly to the arbitration committee. I'm not sure on what is unclear. Can you be more specific on where you are confused? Kuru (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the appeals notice it was my understanding that I needed to use the administrator's noticeboard as the next step in the appeals process. Thank you for the clarification. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A final question: Does the 500 word limit at AE Noticeboard apply to appeals too? And if so, where would I request permission to exceed the limit? Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Simon Gutierrez

Simon Gutierrez still works for KSAT. --66.69.70.111 (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Please find a reliable source, and be careful not to use false sources. Kuru (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

But I'm not sure. --66.69.70.111 (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Run the Jewels

There is probably no reason to protect the page for that long, cause I think we just about solved it. Koala15 (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dance-pop

Can you keep an eye for the page? (which who add genre on Stylistic field similar as Andrewbf) 115.164.217.253 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing on-sir staff

Corky removed the on-air staff for KSAT, WOAI and KENS. We need to reverted it back. --24.170.75.206 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because it violates WP:LISTPEOPLE. Here is a quote from another user:

If you would like more proof that it has been discussed, I'll be glad to provide them to you. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 03:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you the security? --24.170.75.206 (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the history of those embedded lists, I don't disagree with Corky's position. They've been abused significantly in the past and are a bit of a WP:BLP nightmare when some of the unsourced crap in them goes un-noticed on low traffic pages. Instead of reverting, it may be helpful for you to state your position on why you disagree on the article's talk page so that you can lay out a counter position. Kuru (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

On-air staff is not unsourced. --24.170.75.206 (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rishabkv

You might have hit the wrong button; instead of disabling talk page access, you disabled email. He re-blanked, but I fixed it. Origamite 15:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Totally hit the wrong button; my bad. I'm adjusting to mobile technology slowly... :) Thanks! Kuru (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrewbf's new sock

Indiaman2223 and Special:Contributions/187.211.100.157 seems likely Andrewbf's pattern, recently disrupting defended Binksternet on house music, Stay the Night (Zedd song) and Clarity (song). Another account is Inidian maninian, named instead of Indian man, he/she posted on talk page for house music, similar with first diff. 183.171.167.215 (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP is clearly the same problematic editor, and I've blocked the account as well. Since he's mixing accounts and IPs, you may want to file an WP:SPI to see if there are other accounts. Kuru (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Public relations editing of Misplaced Pages articles

I noticed you weighed in at Wiki-PR editing of Misplaced Pages and maybe you are the person to talk to about this. I suspect there is much editing of Misplaced Pages by public relations people wanting to tout their companies. My local Craigslist often has ads from companies soliciting people to write articles on Misplaced Pages. Anyhow, I think I found a clear violation of this at Nextdoor. Editor User ACD27 has contributed only to articles about Nextdoor and has also proposed an article called Draft:National Good Neighbor Day. Not coincidentally, the Nextdoor company has started a campaign to make "National Good Neighbor Day" part of its company promotion. See, for example, "Nextdoor Launches Campaign to Celebrate National Good Neighbor Day." Or see Nextdoor's in-company blog, which has several posts about "National Good Neighbor Day.", most written by the company's head of PR, Anne Dreshfield (ACD27?) This could very well be an example of someone using Misplaced Pages to promote a company. Does Misplaced Pages have a means to call attention to people using the encyclopedia for PR? I bet it happens a lot. Chisme (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, my reporting Juno for edit-warring was NOT retaliatory

HI Kuru,

Just FYI, my reporting User:Juno for edit-warring was not retaliatory, as you suggested. If you go to the TALK page of the UNITED STATES PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT page, and search for the word "occasionally", you will see that Juno repeatedly reverted my edits, that I tried to engage in compromise/dialog with him/her, and that I warned him/her that I would report him/her for edit warring if he/she reverted my edit again. The fact that she/he reported me had nothing to do with my reporting him/her.

Also, I am finding it very difficult to learn how to report users properly, and generally to use Misplaced Pages's templates. The DIFF page is very confusing (I see no "radio buttons", whatever those may be) and the template page for notifying editors that they have been reported for edit-warring ("an3-notice") is less than useless--what data is one supposed to put onto that page, and where??? How does one actually send the notification to the reported user? In the end I had to warn USER: Juno that I had reported him/her by leaving a hand-typed note on his/her TALK page.

Best wishes, Goblinshark17 (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

hello kuru

Hello kuru i am new to wikepedia and i was wondering how i edit pages without vadalizing them i want to upload my own page but i'm not sure how to get the 10 edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berndern (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Virtual" range block

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Virtual" range block. Thank you. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Re to Edit Warring nb decision

Kuru- Hi, I was advised to first voice my disagreement on your page. My response to your decision on my report of a user blatantly edit warring due to bias (against the content especially, evidence by what I'd included under comments), and ignoring requests to discuss is here, under your comment. To quote it:

@Kuru, the genres aren't the primary concern here. The recent album diffs that were first linked above (and expounded on in the second paragraph under Comments here) are. Why are those not mentioned? Why is the blatant edit warring (2 reverts of same information currently), rooted in cherry-picking and tendentious editing (as mentioned above), NOT a violation? Please explain directly. "Your best bet would be to continue your content dispute in the existing discussions on the article's talk pages" - there is none of that, as the reported user does not need that since he feels he can just revert what he disagrees with even if it's accurate and cited (as in the album page), clearly enabled by a post like yours. He has not bothered to consider the discussion created, and especially won't now, and in removing the noticeboard temp on his talk page, said: "That was quick.". I'd suggested he use a Request for Comment (as I'd used before on another page), and he has not bothered. So, please elaborate, as what your response currently does is enable this WP:OWN-inspired edit warring, and suggests to other editors with his inclinations, and editors on the other end like myself, that it can just keep happening without any consequence. If you don't consider this blatant edit warring behavior, then I'd like another admin opinion here on the diffs presented.

Adding to that: As I mentioned in the report, this user has a history of such, and has no intention of pursuing any discussion. The only thing he's done is twice revert the Wiki-adhereing, accurate copy edit (which would make two negative quotes he agrees with contextually less severe), and will continue to revert if the edit is made again. I'd already started a discussion on the talk page prior to making the report. Again, he has no intention of listening, evidenced by his inaction and his edit summaries on the NYKOP album page (first two diffs provided). I repeat, he will revert again if the useful copy edit is added again. Why is this being ignored and such behavior, by a lack of consequence and direct commentary, vindicated and enabled? Please see WP:COMPETENCE (under "bias-based"), plus, I quote the definition of edit warring directly from the noticeboard project page: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute." - which is exactly what this is -, and I quote from the Admin instructions page: "Users may be blocked for continued edit warring to prevent further disruption to Misplaced Pages. A violation of the 3RR rule (see below) is not a requisite for an editor to be blocked for edit warring." --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be having a very minor content dispute, where another editor has reverted you twice. In no way would I personally block someone for such unless this was a continuation of a previous edit war, there was egregious policy violation (BLP, copyvio, etc), or if there were mitigating sanctions on the topic. None of these seem to be the case. I would suggest reviewing WP:DR and bringing other opinions to the article if you feel he will revert you in the future; you may want to also leave him a message directly on his talk page - something that discusses the content. As always, you are free to take this to ANI if you feel there is something more to this that I am missing, but the edit warring issue does not appear to be significant enough for a block. Kuru (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The magnitude of the content dispute is irrelevant here. The fact that edit warring ("Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".) is taking place without discussion, and will continue to take place when the copy edit is made again, is notable, and, with no disrespect, what you are willfully ignoring and validating. Essentially telling this user and anyone else reading (such as the user he pinged) that this behavior is laissez faire and not given warning or consequence is a complete detriment to Wiki-abiding users like myself and Misplaced Pages editing community as a whole. Need I link to the history page again (most recent edits);, it is evident the user's only intention is to edit war, and need I repeat he's done this many times before. Take a look at his contribution history and see that it's full of reverts of other editor's contributions, with little to no evidence of participation in discussions related to the disputed content. (And here, his last revert of an edit of mine (before this); see that what I did was remove a genre that is not at all sourced, yet look at what he laughably claimed in his edit summary (what he actually did); I didn't bother with it again). Again, as I linked, there is such thing as a topic ban ("The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive"). Again, this user is clearly biased against this page (the linked album page), and will not allow anything that accurately makes text appear less than strictly negative, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:AGF, WP:ONLYREVERT. The fact so much Wiki-policy violation clearly inspires his edit warring is notable, and that he has no care to partake in discussion, and especially won't now, and stunning that you personally do not deem it such. How in the world is this minor and not of consequence? Are you letting me know I can just do what the user freely engages in without any problem? I can just keep readding the copy edit and he automatically reverting without bothering to engage in the discussion, without consequence? As I've said, this isn't about a personal dispute with the user, this is about the user's edit warring being strictly against Wiki-policy and it being a detriment to the progress of this article, hence my report in the appropriate noticeboard. Do you really consider this insignificant and not worth your trouble (e.g., a simple, strongly needed topic ban?) --Lpdte77 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You have my response above; you seem to be confusing policies, guidelines, and user-created essays. We don't seem to agree with your interpretation of the edit warring policy, and I am unpersuaded by your tirade above. I will not be blocking the editor in question, nor will I be unilaterally applying sanctions to the account based on your request. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

All linked pages are directly from Misplaced Pages, the Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, all created through consensus; what everyone at Wiki goes by including admins. If you wish to interpret them your own way and/or apply them arbitrarily, and too refuse to acknowledge the specific quotes from those being blatantly violated in the diffs, than that is up to you, and reflects on you, not on me (as you seemed to imply). Thanks. --Lpdte77 (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Don't think you're interesting anymore in the matter, but just to follow up: the reported user decided to let the copy edit pass, so such dispute is settled.--Lpdte77 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)