User:Kuru/archive-2017

Happy New Year, Kuru!


Happy New Year! Kuru, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

 Class 455 ( talk  | stand clear of the doors!)''' 18:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Kuru!


Happy New Year! Kuru, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Train Wi-Fi
Thanks for unblocking. Worked fine on the train in this morning. Smylers (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank You
Hi Kuru,

Appreciate you reaching out to clarify terms. I have put in a request to personalize the username. I will also add to my profile a disclosure of my professional role with Dell. Will make sure these changes are in place before making any new edits.

Best, Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pprwiki (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC) (Notification per WP:CAN.)

citizendium


I don't see how citing citizendium is worse than citing some random person's personal website or blog - something which I have done hundreds of times in the 10 years I've been editing wikipedia, and nobody has ever complained about it on principle. (People have complained that specific sources should not be cited for specific reasons, but I've never heard anyone say that a random person's personal website or blog cannot be cited on principle.)

Now, Ampere's force law is a reasonably well-known theorem, and it is written in two different ways (both ways can be found in different textbooks). I'm looking for a proof that the two forms are equivalent. The proof hard to find online - I looked. Citizendium has a nicely explained proof of this, and I can verify for myself (as a professional physicist) that it is sound (of course I could have overlooked a subtle mistake, but I judge it about as likely to be correct as anything I read in a typical book or article). Is there an explicit policy somewhere that bans citizendium? Otherwise, I'm putting it back.

If it helps, I'm happy to cite a permalink version like http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Ampere%27s_equation&oldid=100768147 instead of the latest version (though the article hasn't been touched in 6 years). --Steve (talk)


 * It's an open wiki, like any other WP:SPS. In this instance, the site's own quality control labels the article as "under development and not meant to be cited." Further, the disclaimer on the page "All unapproved Citizendium articles may contain errors of fact, bias, grammar etc. ... The participants in the Citizendium project make no representations about the reliability of Citizendium articles or, generally, their suitability for any purpose." This does not meet our standard at WP:RS and it should not be used as a reference. I have no objection to using the site in the "external links" section; I'm not sure why you would simply not use one of the published references you allude to in your commentary above - offline sources are obviously acceptable. Kuru   (talk)  00:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "why you would simply not use one of the published references you allude to" - I found several textbooks that wrote the law in Form A, several textbooks that wrote the law in Form B, and even one textbook that (IIRC) wrote the law in both forms and stated that the two forms were equivalent. What I'm missing is the proof that they are equivalent. --Steve (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I still disagree about citizendium, but it's a moot point now. I found a journal article reference. :-P  --Steve (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you were able to resolve the issue. Kuru   (talk)  17:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Peter Thiel
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel and a Run for governor of California.

Gotcha on confirmation.

What is considered a proper validation for the accounts? Currently Twitter indicates that https://twitter.com/peterthiel is a verified account Steelhoof (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Steelhoof
 * It's not clear what your point is. The verified account is not the one making the tweets. Indeed, the account you are sourcing information from specifically notes that it is not associated with Peter Thiel. Kuru   (talk)  01:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That clarification of the account not being legit has been added following my tweet that ownership needed to be clarified. Your call for clarification was valid. And you did clarify how the validation occurs.
 * Thank you. (please, no snarks, I am human) Steelhoof (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Steelhoof

Wikipedia blacklist
Dear Kuru, I have seen that you have marked techved.com as blacklist.However, i would like to tell you that Techved.com is a Reputed UX agency and has not intention of spamming the web in any case.Infact, we help in contributing the web.You can check techved.com's website ,it is a genuine website.If you want any more evidences then we are ready to provide that we are not spammers but genuine.So,i request you to help us come out of the blacklist.I assure you that we will not create any more links from wikipedia until and unless it is a genuine content.Please help us be removed from the blacklist.

Regards, Roshan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan060 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The site was indeed spammed to multiple articles by multiple single-purpose accounts, despite your "intent." All warnings were ignored. The site is not, in any way, a reliable source by our standards and I have no doubt you and your team would return to the exact same pattern of amateurish content marketing. So, no thank you. Kuru   (talk)  12:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Rectrix Aviation
Hey in December you've deleted a page that I was working on, but gave up. And I want to continue working on it in my sandbox. But it's been long deleted and i remember I was told it was in an archive. Im not too familiar with that is. Would you be able to help me get the page so i can bring it to my sandbox. YeahImaBoss (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)YeahImaBoss
 * I'm really sorry, I'm usually happy to restore material that was deleted as promotional or non-notable to a sandbox, but I cannot restore copyright violations. That will likely have to be re-created from scratch. You can also look for a site that mirrors deleted Wikipedia content, but be very careful if you use the material and make sure the copyright issue is not repeated. Kuru   (talk)  00:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Blacklist Removal


Dear kuru, I sincerely apologize for one link i created for conversion rate optimization page.I am completely fine with the removal of the link.But please remove techved's website from wikipedia blacklist.I assure you that hence forth we will not create any links from wikipedia unless and until we have a genuine content which is worth linking to.This is my pledge.We want to contribute to the web.Our site has been listed on Colorado state university's website. We have been listed on many UX related websites.If you want the links then i can provide you the same just send me your mail id.Please note that Techved is a genuine Company.We are not involved in any spamming.We want to contribute to the ux community that's it.Please have mercy and remove us from the wikipedia blacklist.Hence forth you wont find us linking to wikipedia.

Regards, Roshan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan060 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I responded to you above. The issue was not with "one link". Kuru   (talk)  12:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Kuru, As a moderator we respect you a lot.But if one person does a mistake unintentionally should his whole website suffer ? See, how we are legit.Visit the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface_design ,Go to References 2 and click on the text "6 Tips for Designing an optimal User interface for your digital event".The link is a 404 error page.So what i did is researched the article and published the original article on (put techved in place of ourdomain) http://www.ourdomain.com/blog/6-Tips-for-Designing-an-Optimal-User-Interface-for-Your-Digital-Event which will serve the visitors of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface_design. But since we have been blacklisted we cannot save the link.We indeed want to contribute to the web.But please remove us from the blacklist.I swear ,we will not promote ourself on wikipedia.Please consider our request

Regards, Roshan
 * I think that a more reasonable replacement is www.isi.edu/~szekely/contents/papers/1992/humanoid-CHI-1992.pdf .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's an unintentional mistake here, frankly. Re-hosting someone else's horrible reference and layering your own promotional material in is exactly the kind of amateurish content marketing I alluded to in my first reply. if you're at all serious, please look at Mr. Beetstra's example above. We're always looking for new volunteers to help repair or add new reliable sources. I understand you have a job to do, but please do that job elsewhere. Kuru   (talk)  14:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kuru, Please remove us from the wikipedia blacklist.I ensure you that i will not link in any way shape or form from wikipedia henceforth.Are you happy now.So,please remove us from the blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan060 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear that. You should not be impacted by the blacklist, then. Kuru   (talk)  16:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, look. Another brand new account just attempted to add the same link in the same format to your target page. Amazing coincidence, that. Kuru   (talk)  16:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Kuru, You had removed us from the blacklist and so to verify the same.one of my friend tried to add the same link ,just to confirm that we have been removed from the blacklist.It was not meant to insert a link to Techved's website.If we wanted to put the link and we would have kept techved's link as it is but we reverted back to http://web.inxpo.com/casting-calls/bid/105506/6-Tips-for-Designing-an-Optimal-User-Interface-for-Your-Digital-Event. That's the only thing we had done to check whether we have been removed from the blacklist.We will not do this again and not even verify the blacklist removal.But please remove us from the blacklist.Regards,Roshan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan060 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Spam elsewhere. Kuru  (talk)  12:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Kuru, where is the question of Spamming.Does checking that we got removed from wikipedia's blacklist is called spamming.I told you my friend reverted the link to original link http://web.inxpo.com/casting-calls/bid/105506/6-Tips-for-Designing-an-Optimal-User-Interface-for-Your-Digital-Event so as to confirm whether we indeed are removed from wikipedia's black list.If we were spammer's then we would have kept the link to techved's website but we reverted to the original link which is actually a 404 error page.I went to archive.org and put the link http://web.inxpo.com/casting-calls/bid/105506/6-Tips-for-Designing-an-Optimal-User-Interface-for-Your-Digital-Event and found the original content.That content is now published on techved's blog.Even though we have the original content we are fine that we don't get a link from wikipedia.But Please understand us.Please be kind.You can monitor that page for the entire year and if you find us linking then you can tag us a spam.If we were spam then how we are listed on this relevant sites http://uxmovement.com/resources/choosing-the-right-tool-for-remote-user-testing/ ,check at the end of the article we have a link to techved's website.Check one more link on a very authority site https://uxmag.com/contributors/techved ,we are listed there.We are also listed on Colorado university's website.Check this link http://www.siliconindia.com/ux-ui-companies/Techved-catid-50-cid-648.html where we are listed as top 5 UX Companies. How much more evidence can i give that we indeed are a UX agency and have worked with fortune 500 clients like Dell.So,Please be kind to us and remove us from the blacklist.If you find any of us or any team member trying to get a link from wikipedia,then surely you can tag us a spammer.But please for now have mercy on us and remove us from blacklist.You also know our ip address.If someone is found creating an account with this ip address then also tag us as spam but for now please remove us from the blacklist.I hope this explains all.Please be kind.Regards,Roshan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan060 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Kuru,after giving so much evidence also you are counting as a spammers.One More evidence https://medium.com/@Techved/iphone-7-a-giant-leap-towards-technologically-augmented-future-6ca1729a1812#.s4f4ecgo9. Techved has been since 10 years and no body has blacklisted us till now.We contribute to the web for user experience design topic.Here is one more list on Dmoz.https://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Human-Computer_Interaction/Companies_and_Consultants/Usability_Testing/. After giving so much evidence,you are still doubting us.We do not require a link from wikipedia.But atleast remove techved's website from the blacklist.I assure you that you monitor the user interface design page for one year and if you find us linking from wikipedia then blacklist US.But please remove us from the blacklist as of now.Also please tell me how to test whether we have been indeed removed from the blacklist.Also giving list of evidences of our genuineness http://www.siliconindia.com/ux-ui-companies/Techved-catid-50-cid-648.html, http://www.businessinsider.in/Indian-Mothers-Who-Work-And-Have-Made-It-Big/Neha-Modgil-Techved-Consulting/slideshow/34911642.cms, http://www.finduxevents.com/organizer/techved-consulting/, http://www.theuxploration.com/, https://biz.prlog.org/usability-technology/. Link from One of the reputed UX design sites :http://usabilitygeek.com/7-user-interface-guidelines-for-designing-watch-apps/. How much more evidence can i give you.Please remove us from the blacklist.I assure you that i or any of my team member will not link from wikipedia.You also know our ipaddress.I hope that you show kindness to our website and remove us from the blacklist.For the mistake of one person entire website should not suffer.You last comment was your site would not be affected by blacklist so show some kindness don't be so cruel.Please be kind.I hope this explains all. All the evidences which i had given are not from fraud websites but from genuine websites.I hope you understand Regards,Roshan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan060 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you've lied to me once already. I have no intention of doing anything to assist you. Please take your SEO operations to another website. Kuru   (talk)  17:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Joseph A. Tunzi
Hello Kuru,

Could you please explain why you removed the reference to ranker.com on the wikipedia page for Joseph A. Tunzi? Thank you. Daryl77 Daryl77 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The site is not a reliable source in any way. It is basically a user-created blog published with no editorial oversight. Even worse, much of the material is lifted from Wikipedia; note the disclaimer at the bottom of the page: "Information and media on this page and throughout Ranker is supplied by Wikipedia, Ranker users, and other sources." Even the concept is silly - "ranked by their popularity"? What would that even mean? Kuru   (talk)  04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

213.32.28.165 (213.32.0.0/17)
Hi Kuru,

Just wanted to let you know that this IP is within the range which is registered to a dedicated OVH SAS server. I know you do a lot of proxy blocks/range blocks, so I thought that I'd let you know about this in case if you wanted to take action. Thanks. 172.58.41.30 (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I can see other IPs he's used in that range. Very low collateral traffic, so I've placed the usual webhost block. Kuru   (talk)  04:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

R M Dumuje page
you recently left me a message re: violations. could you tell what the violations are exactly? thanks Arnolddumuje (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Please stop using "wikiwand" as a source. The site is a very cearly attrributed copy of material on Wikipedia and it cannot be used. Kuru   (talk)  15:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Policy question: Proxy blocking VPN providers
Hi Kuru,

Hope you don't mind me asking a question related to our proxy policy since you seem to be the most involved editor with those. What is our current policy towards VPN providers? My own assumption would be that paid VPN providers would likely get a pass whereas VPN providers with free trials or other open access would qualify as being open proxies?

The specific case i am looking at is the range. It is part of one sockpuppeteers set of abusive IP addresses and is registered to SumRando, a VPN provider that seems to offer a free trial of its software. Do we consider this an open proxy range that should be blocked pre-emptively akin to ProcseeBot's rangeblocks, or do we only block these when there is a specific cause? Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 23:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I consider any proxy/vpn/webhost service that has a trial or free use policy to be no different than an open proxy and will block on sight. Be aware that the policy actually states open or anonymizing, which covers any of the above services, open or not. Most of the time we're only aware of them when they're used abusively, so it's a distinction without a difference. In the example above, that's obviously a VPN/webhost and it's been used recently for vandalism. I would block the range for a year with a proxy or "Colocationwebhost" tag. We probably need a block template with language specific to VPNs.  Kuru   (talk)  00:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Crystal clear. Good to know that the "or anonymizing" part is a blanket cover that applies to all services that hide a users IP and not merely to dedicated proxy services. Thanks for the info! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 01:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Bric Update on Timesheet
Kuru, Was the issue with the links in the body of the content? Or was the issue that Bric should not be included?

Thank you, Grant — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantJStanley (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The link in the body of the content was not a reliable source by our standards; it's essentially a blog. It's also simple adcopy for your product. You may want to read WP:COI as well. Kuru   (talk)  00:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Mistake
Hello, Kuru!

Please accept my apologies for spam in the article of technical analysis. I just checked the work of service.

I noticed a slight discrepancy in the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent_accounts/ Instaforex is not one of the first companies to start promoting cent accounts. In the past this company was a subsidiary of lite forex, thats why function "cent accounts" was possible in Instaforex. At the moment even article refers to archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20100301055807/http:/instaforex.com/account_types.php) and named: "Lite Forex Cent Accounts". Archived from the original on March 1, 2010. Retrieved 3 July 2015. Thats not true, because Instaforex is not Lite Forex.

Please, if its possible, deleate this link from article. 5.29.212.249 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Adcopy!
Hi Kuru

Can you please explain your reasoning. Thanks --Tarawneh (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems self-explanatory. "Guests enjoy private access", "a wide variety of restaurants for your culinary cravings", "These boast modern furnishings", "nestled amongst lush gardens." This kind of gushing prose is completely inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia and looks like it was simply copied from a brochure. In fact, as I look at your "references", it seems you've done just that. Many of those sentences are directly cut&pasted from the hotel's promotional material. I've hidden the revisions as copyright violations; please do not do that again. Kuru   (talk)  16:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I simply collected the content from different Wikipedia articles. WP:AGF. --Tarawneh (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are responsible for the content of your edits, especially those which are clearly inappropriate. Be accountable, and adjust your future actions accordingly. Kuru   (talk)  02:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

unclaimedmoneyaustralia.com.au/moneycatch.com.au
I see that you reverted some links in the past couple of weeks from user:182.75.113.74. Anyway, they have been back today adding spamlinks, domains now added to revertlist, and set COIBot to monitor. I have whacked in a short block, and also left a blunt Strine message for the user. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Customer Data Platform
Kuru, removal was completely justified.. this content was copied over from an older sandbox and there was a completely revised version that should have been posted. I have the rewritten version, how should I proceed? Thanks so much for your work Adtwiki
 * Adtwiki; aside from the blatant copyright violation, that looked pretty promotional as well, as have many of your past edits. Are you currently working a paid task? I cannot find your required disclosures.  Kuru   (talk)  22:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Kuru; no, I'm not paid to do this, I don't believe in that sort of thing. Much of my contributions have followed many of the other existing pages format, tone and layout which are on good standing. I'm certainly an occasional contributor and not aware of the disclosures. Customer data platform is a growing and relevant field and deserving of a wikipedia page dedicated to it.  How should I proceed to restore this page and place my revised version?
 * The link between your firm and worksoft is pretty clear. I can't find an immediate link to anything CDP related. I would suggest using the "DRAFT:" namespace to start with, so that the promotional material can be handled first. Please don't include the link directory. Kuru   (talk)  23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was my first page to create to speak to a company that operates in the testing automation space. I used WinRunner as a template and worksoft was clearly up for a while even before deletion... I kept following up and learning to ensure it was not promotional avoiding terms like best in class and other bs terms. And regardless of your thoughts, I was not paid nor associated with the company. If it was deleted, something else must have happened or edited. You've been doing this for a long time and seen your share of false pretenses and perhaps this falls under a pattern you see, so I'm not going to argue with you about my apparent being pwned as a newbie. The CDP copyright issue was clearly a poor error on my part.  However, I am willing to take necessary steps to introduce Customer Data Platform as a legit resource on Wikipedia.  I'll start with a draft, keep the link directory out, and keep it simple.  Thank you for working with me on this.
 * You mentioned the disclosure, Let's make sure I get that covered as well. Again, I'm not paid to do this, but do know people, companies and institutions associated with Customer Data Platform. Is this what I should use in that case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adtwiki (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, if this is not a paid task as an employee or as a freelancer, then you're not required to disclose anything. Your assessment is correct; this is pattern recognition from years of jaded experience. I'm happy to take your word for it that this is not PR and work with you. Throw the draft out there and we'll clean it up and move it back into production. Kuru   (talk)  02:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your consideration, apologize again for my poor attention to detail on this and thank you so very much in advance for your help. I recognize this isn't easy work. Nor would I say you're jaded...just chugging through a slew of contributors to ensure wikipedia maintains its credibility.  I'll get working on the revised Draft and have something in the next couple of days.
 * Okay, started a draft page with a first but minimal cut. We can move the talk there. Draft:Customer Data Platform  LMK what you think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adtwiki (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I've got a great start. LMK, if you're good with moving it live or any feedback you might have. Adtwiki (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

we seem to be good with the page, but it's no longer showing up on Google. if it's a matter of time as the page was taken down, lmk.

Regarding the recent block of an unregistered user
Good Evening! This is with regards to the recent block of the this user. I'm a relatively new Wikipedian, having made just over 600 edits, and I was curious to know about the reason for the block. I'm quite active as an anti-vandal and most blocks that I see are after 4 "vandalism" warnings are given. But I'm not quite familiar with all the policies of Wikipedia, so I assumed the same 4 step warning would be applied in this case as well. But since that was not the case, I couldn't understand it properly. Of course, I ask this purely out of curiosity, so its not an urgent matter at all. Thanks for your contributions as an administrator and hope our edits lead us to cross paths again! Jiten Dhandha •  talk  •  contributions  • 19:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In that particular instance, it is a banned editor and blocked on site. I usually link to the case in the block notice, but I was on mobile earlier. Here's the link: Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. If you need more specifics, please e-mail me. Kuru   (talk)  00:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information! Wasnt aware of this before now. Jiten Dhandha  •  talk  •  contributions  • 12:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lucy Verasamy DOB
Hi,

I noticed you removed the DOB I added to the Lucy Verasamy article because of a circular ref. I don't really understand this as I'm fairly new to Wikipedia - the reference I gave was from Companies House (which takes info directly from the individuals involved and not from anywhere on the web). Here's the link I had: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/dzhtDUUlb22rqaJiro9CJx06WQE/appointments

I appreciate that the other link was potentially just copying info from Wikipedia and could be inaccurate.

Thanks, Loweredtone (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As you note, the link I tracked to that page was the "omicsgroup" mirror, which is a simple copy of the Wikipedia page and cannot be used as a reference. The other link did not include the day, and it was unclear that it referred to the subject of the article (despite the uncommon name). I'd be fine if you restored that one with just month and year, but it might be best to find one of those registry pulls that links her explicitly to that defunct firm. Apologies if the removal was clumsy; I tend to error on the side of caution for WP:BLPs. Kuru   (talk)  18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem, I was just wondering - I wasn't sure how to format the date in the infobox without a 'day' so I'll try to find that first. Understood on the companies house things too - it also mentions that she's a meterologist so I didn't think it would be another person but you never know so I'll try to find something else referring to that. Thanks, Loweredtone (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Queries Regarding A Wikipedia Article
Hi,

Whenever we are editing the wiki article of Hemant_Kanoria - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemant_Kanoria, We are getting a message from you that the sources are unreferenced or poorly referenced information. Can you please mention us which source are unreferenced or poorly referenced information so that we can improve them and update the article.

Thanks NilankaG (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)NilankaG
 * There are many issues with the proposed changes. First, though, will you please read WP:PAID and verify that all of you have complied with our terms of use? Thank you. Kuru   (talk)  14:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have verified myself on the talk page of the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemant_Kanoria and also done some updates on the article, please review the changes and please specify that anything thing needs to be updated or not.

NilankaG (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Strange accounts
We have a number of strange accounts here. Started an SPI at Sockpuppet_investigations/EAC_tester.

Also a strange IP in the mix here and making racial slurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am wondering if this is an effort to hide vandalism under an number of edits in the hope of the vandalism sticking? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure - really odd. I responded at the SPI. Maybe a shit-bot test run? Will dig back through all the reverts as soon as I finish another task.  Kuru   (talk)  02:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup your assumptions have been confirmed. Maybe a good faith newbie programmer. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit on Mark Cuban
Thank you for removing the non-notable content from the lead - you beat me to it. I had previously removed it but the editor who added it reverted my edit and then you got it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just trying to say PR refers to many aspects, and thank you for editing that and I improve my statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yantingzou (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Search engine marketing revision
Hi Kuru, Can you please tell me what was wrong with my contribution or what copywriting violation have you found? I have tried to go through all rules but probably I missed something and I can't really deduce it from your note "rmv copyvio from given source". Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psdab2016 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Update: I already found the explanation on my talk page, so please ignore the question, I know what the problem was now and will create a modified version. Thanks!

Copy-paste unblock request decline
Perhaps you would like to revise this edit, since "We already have a User:Pooja Gupta and your requested name without the space is too similar" refers to the new user name offered in the previous unblock request, not the one that you declined. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. That's what I get for trying to be cute; I've revised to indicate that the second part was the issue. Kuru   (talk)  13:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Bharat Ke Veer
As an administrator who can view deleted content. Can you please copy paste the content on my talk page? -- Marvellous Spider-Man  12:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm usually happy to, but on quick review it looks like large parts of the material were also copied from other sites, in addition to the original deletion reason. Primarily "bharatkeveer.gov.in". I'm not familiar with Indian copyright law (i.e. is it similar to public domian use with products of the US Federal government). I really can't restore potential copyright violations. The material is pretty bad, I'm not sure how useful it would be.  Kuru   (talk)  12:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Reid Stowe odd addition
You might not think this addition so odd if you knew the story behind it. I started using Wikiwand a while ago. Shortly after Reid Stowe's birthday (Jan 6 2017), I went to the Reid Stowe website and found that the Wikiwand version did not update his age correctly. I tried to refresh the page, and that did not work. My only solution was to create a link to a Purge page through the old Wikipedia view of the page, and hit that purge function in the Wikiwand version. It worked, and refreshed the cached page on the server for Wikiwand. My mistake was to leave the Purge link on the page for you to discover as an "odd addition". Thanks for noting the oddity :). Skol fir (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha - yes, still odd but explainable. :)   Kuru   (talk)  17:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)I
 * I am a good explainer. :) I realize now that once I performed the purge successfully, meaning that the cached version of the page was reloaded on the server at Wikiwand, the 'purge' function was no longer required. At the time, I was just happy that it worked. Skol fir (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Rabbit Fenceboi
The odd thing is, I partly agree with him: I think the part about the Great Wall is acceptable, but just barely, and I think that, while the fence itself is clearly not visible from space, the effects from differences in land usage, flora, fauna, and so forth clearly are. The same is true of some small dirt roads in dry ranch country, where the drainage ditching creates more verdant grass, and the fencing keeps the cattle from eating it. Anmccaff (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no position on the content change; if you agree with it, make the change. My experience is that he's right about 95% of the time. I only block/revert when he repeats the behavior that lead to his community ban - dogmatic edit warring and vitriolic confrontation with those that disagree with him. Kuru   (talk)  19:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect the fellow is now at 86.137.42.57, but there is no rabbitizing going on, so no herm, no fowl. I dunno if I want to be changing anything, especially something that's on the edge rather than a blatant problem, based on borderline vandalism. Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Tay Bridge disaster
Thanks (I clicked on the thanks button for your edit, but there were no obvious signs anything happened as a consequence). The chap in question looked suspiciously like other numerical addresses that had done previous deletes, including one reverted as by a sock of a banned user, but I wasn't entirely sure. Rjccumbria (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Go set a watchman
Thank you for intervening on the article Go Set a Watchman. I thought you should know that the same individual is somehow also editing with this IP address. I write "somehow" because although their locations in the UK are not adjacent, the similarity of posts/edit summaries is so obvious. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones, The Welsh Buzzard (Talk) 13:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Gareth Griffith-Jones, The Welsh Buzzard (Talk) 13:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Si. He's settled in to a few UK ranges at this point and seems to be slowly running down his list of old grudges. Presumably he'll rotate to a new IP; the next step will be to semi-protect the page. Sorry you've had to deal with him.  Kuru   (talk)  13:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assistance is much appreciated. Cheers!

Removing original attribution of User intent article.
I understand your objective of removing spam. However, please note that this article was contributed by the author of the link you have been removing: https://www.twinword.com/blog/understanding-different-types-user-intent/. Compare the similarity of the article structure, wording, and phrasing of this wiki page with the article at the link. Furthermore, looking at the bottom of the original article, you can see the license the author gave: "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." The author contributed the content under the license of attribution. By removing the author's link, you have violated his copyright. Altering or "paraphrasing" does not change the fact of the original source as you can see via the View Edit History. Please reconsider putting the attribution back. Thank you for your reconsideration. 203.233.111.21 (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be more clear. You've added the link as a reference, not as an attribution. The link may not be used as a reference since it is in no way a reliable source. My suggestion would be to remove any material that you've copied - I've already removed the material you've claimed previously. If you're unable to write without copying someone else's material, then please consider leaving it to other editors.  Kuru   (talk)  03:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Holy Cross
Thanks. Have you seen the discussion at User talk:MelanieN? Doug Weller talk 05:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Missed that; I've replied there now. Thanks for watching that article! Kuru   (talk)  11:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Need Guidence
I am new to Wikipedia, and my only sole aim is to provide correct and authentic information. I know Rais Anis Sabri as a person and aware about his achievements. The only problem with me, is I am unable to Cite good references and links.

If proper guidance could be offered, I could be a good asset for Wikipedia. Kindly guide.

Feedback
I need a feedback about this. The admin is offline and idk when he comes. Can you review the block? You are also admin and online now. 91.235.143.231 (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The range block is valid; as you note, that is a simple VPN service used to obfuscate an IP address. Those are blocked frequently, especially when they are abused. I would not be in favor of removing the block. You can apply for WP:IPBE, but you'll need to register an account for that. Kuru   (talk)  13:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But it is not forbidden. And as i explained, it was not my choose to use it. I simply have no option because of accession problems. On the other hand, i did not abusively used it. 91.235.143.231 (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it was you or not. It does appear someone has been using that proxy to edit war recently, which may have triggered the block. I have no intention of removing the block. I noted an option for you above. Kuru   (talk)  13:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

re Wikipedia article Kathleen Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington
re Kathleen Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington article, description of airplane disaster in which passengers and crew perish.

In first reading the description of the terrible disaster I noted the detail given yet there were no survivors from whom such description could be obtained.

I thought to edit a to the end of the paragraph. But I google searched part of a paragraph and found the text coincided with the republication by Gutenberg project of a World Heritage Encyclopedia entry. It was also republished on another site in addition to the Gutenberg but I could not find the original World Heritage Encyclopedia entry. I added an external reference link in the Wikipedia article to the Gutenberg page.

You undid that edit and added a. And gave in your summary that it was a mirror to the Wikipedia article. I cannot see that it is a mirror in comparing the texts of the full and complete articles.

In your most recent summary you say "the "World Heritage Encyclopedia" is a mirror, and wikipedia is credited at the citational source on that page".

Well, I cannot find a Wikipedia accreditation on the Gutenberg page or within the reproduced World Heritage Encyclopedia entry.

The matter concerns the manner of death of a member each of the British and American aristocracies.

The present page rests in its current condition and has a to indicate the publisher's doubt of proper verification of the details of the incident which are, as they are, presented by a Wikipedia article.

regards, --Laurencebeck (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to help you find a valid citation. The "self" domain at gutenberg.org is administered by the "World Library Foundation," which does little more than host about 100 random domains with a cheap mirror of Wikipedia. The site claims the material is sourced from the "World Heritage Encyclopedia," a known mirror. If you visit their site at worldheritage.org, the material is attributed clearly at the top of the page with "Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source, sourced from Wikipedia." Even on the gutenberg article, a similar attribution appears at the bottom of the page: "Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source", with the "citation source" an active link back the specific article here. You'll also note the article itself is an exact copy of our article as it existed in 2013/2014, right down to to the standard closing sections and navigation templates. To be fair, that family of mirrors feels more like a scam that deliberately tries to hide attribution, but it's there. If it helps, I keep a shorter list of the most common mirrors here.  Kuru   (talk)  11:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ty. --Laurencebeck (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Copy advice
Hi, you recently deleted a section I created on the Marketing page about the History of Marketing, specifying "rmv copyvio from given source". I checked and saw that the source does mention Copyright in the footer, thanks for being so prompt. How do you suggest I should go about it, ask for written permission? I think the History section is so important that it should be even above the Definition section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.32.5 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Invalid ip address
Does it mean that the ip is likely a proxy/webhost? 111.221.44.13 (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on the context for this. Where are you seeing "Invalid IP addess"? Kuru   (talk)  18:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

New IP but same edits
Hello Kuru. Earlier today you blocked for their edit warring on. I wanted to let you know that a new IP has shown up to make the same edit. I have already filed a RFPP but I wanted to let you know about this block evasion. Thanks for your time and enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was offline for the evening. It looks like the page has been semi-protected for now. I've also added it to my watchlist for when the protection expires. Kuru   (talk)  13:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Everybody needs time away from their computer/tablet/phone :-) Thanks for adding the article to your watchlist. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN/B courtesy notice
Hey, Kuru! I hope all is well with you. Just FYI, I mentioned your name in a post (Administrators' noticeboard) regarding a block I made. You gave the editor their final warning over 2 years ago and they just showed back up with their continued spamming. Nothing too exciting! Thanks, -- auburn pilot  talk  22:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember him. I don't want to out him, but when I looked into it there was a significant COI with that main link, and the rest of the other links were just spam for an SEO business on the side. No problems with the block. Kuru   (talk)  11:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

About a recent article
Hello sir, I am an Engineering student living in Bangalore.I recently came across the article of Janarthanan Kesavan written by you.I was wondering if You could send me his contact number.Immediate response would be appreciated.Thanking you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.20.154 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not the author of that article, nor do I have any information about him. The article's history is here. Kuru   (talk)  11:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know
The edit made by that you reverted at List of fictional horses easily shows that she's the same single-purpose sockpuppeteering vandal whose incessant vandalisms of the page lead to its being page-protected.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I remember now. Thanks for the reminder!  Kuru   (talk)  18:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Pepe sock
I'm sure there's a sock here - both the names beginning with Pepe and attacking Morty, but I don't remember where I saw it. Do you? Ping me please if you do. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, see Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive. Doug Weller  talk 13:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, was not aware. That's a lovely person. Kuru   (talk)  14:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding external link
Hey Kuru,

I had added an external for the online reputation management. Strange to know that you have removed that, please review it again I think it is totally relevant to that page. External link has all the useful information about reputation management.

Kindly reconsider the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhir.vipra (talk • contribs) 06:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a poorly written pitch page for a specific firm that I presume you have conflict of interest with. Please do not add it again, and read WP:PAID. Kuru   (talk)  10:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleeng
Hello Kuru,

I recently updated the draft article Draft:Cleeng with info and sources. I'd like to move the article to the main space. Zaynha (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with disruptions on World in Conflict
Hey, thanks for handling that. That IP User really was being quite disruptive there. It's unfortunate that the one who reported him was an admin and had to drop out because he was too involved in the matter. Could you do me a favour and put the article in semi-protection as well? I have this nagging feeling he may try to continue reverting it when he's unblocked. Don't know if it might happen, but could you still do so, please? :-) GUtt01 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I really hate to do that after placing an edit warring block; I don't want to pick sides in a content dispute and semi-protection would do just that. If it becomes a pattern, or if you think this is a logged-out editor from one of the previous disputes, I'm happy to do so. Kuru   (talk)  22:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As info, I blocked a second IP from the user shortly after your block. I have not seen anything further though. Either way I agree that semi-prot is not necessary at this time. -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Animech.79
Hi, you recently blocked for 1 day. This does not appear to have gotten the message across as they're persisting with the same behaviour. Please take a look when you get the chance.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 06:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

user Sonal Maheshwari
I noticed has been adding unsourced and poorly sourced information, often with a promotional slant. I see you redacted some edits, but didn't leave the editor a notice of any kind. Minimally, could you identify what source was used, as I suspect there's spamming going on between Sonal Maheshwari and a related account,. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor added material lifted directly from "intellipaat.com/blog/what-is-apache-spark". It's not really clear why I did not leave him a warning; I may have gone down a rabbit hole and then forgot to circle back. I can see he's been editing since then - will poke around some. Kuru   (talk)  15:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , as you probably suspected, the material added by was the same material and source as the previous edit from  on Apache Spark. I've redacted those edits as well. I know that makes it harder for you to research the links; sorry. Let me know if I can look at anything for you. Will look at the rest of the edits in a sec.  Kuru   (talk)  15:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not a problem. It looks more like students spamming sources then outright promotion. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it looked more like students until I ran across . --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I am a contributor who edits the wikipedia pages for adding more information. Whatever sources I add are certainly credible and pass the important knowledge about the subject. I dont have any connection with any other profile. I read the complete article and then only add it as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonal Maheshwari (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever sources I add are certainly credible I wouldn't call intellipaat.com "credible". Please be more careful with what sources you use, so you don't appear to be a spammer. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Shafi Inamdar‎
Thanks for contributing to the article Shafi Inamdar. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru  (talk)  03:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree there, didn't note that it was mirroring the Wikipedia content. It's difficult to find content on Internet on a celebrity who was house hold name once due to his TV character (I can vouch for that because I was a kid myself then and know this first hand from the earlier days of TV in India), but has deceased since 12-15 years. Debashish (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

sir, it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetnnya (talk • contribs) 12:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Topal osman
Thanks Kuru,I am still learning. Regards, Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Request
It would be great if you please let me know what kind of websites are very 'appropriate' to be specified as references for business topics, since government websites have very limited or no content related to new terminologies. Are International bank websites considered trustworthy? since everything they do is authorised by the government.HarishMP (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A brief commercial pitch page is not in any way acceptable. You can read through our guidelines at WP:RS. If you are unable to find reliable sources, then the material is likely not worthy of inclusion. Kuru   (talk)  13:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this. Clearly one revert wasn't enough xD   Dr Strauss   talk   17:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem - happens sometimes! Kuru   (talk)  17:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Kuru: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  North America1000 15:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Question about Formsbank
Dear Kuru, It has come to the attention of our analytics team that our domain name is currently blacklisted on Wikipedia.org. After a thorough investigation we have found out that our hired SEO team had been posting spam-like links to parts of our website in the reference section of Wikipedia’s articles. This kind of approach is not something our company practices: the responsible employees have been suspended and as of today we have taken the necessary steps to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.

We value our brand name - our goal being to provide genuinely good content - and we accept full responsibility for this mistake.

I've read that generally WikiPedia doesn't de-list sites based on requests from site owners or representatives. But are there any steps we can take in order to be delisted?

Thank you in advance, Igor, Formsbank team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.180.68 (talk • contribs)


 * As you note, we remove blacklisted domains only when there is a reason to do so. Most spammed domains are unlikely to have a legitimate use here, so they are seldom removed. I can't dig into this at the moment, but would be happy to look at this later today. Kuru   (talk)  14:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would personally like to thank you for taking the time to look into our situation.
 * Formsbank is an up-and-coming project with a goal to help users make their paperwork easier and we take pride in doing our best to provide quality content and good service.
 * We try our best to be a people-oriented and genuinely useful resource - launching our blog several weeks ago - and do hope that our efforts can help people out in some way or another. Igor, Formsbank team.

Hello again, Kuru. I'm sorry for disturbing You again. Still looking for your answer. Thanks in advance. 74.117.180.68 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Igor.
 * i have some free time today, will look at it. Kuru   (talk)  14:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At your request, I've reviewed the activity related to this link. The link was spammed thirty-odd times from IPs in Russia, Czechoslovakia and Germany over a period of four months. The additions were intentionally deceptive; pretending in many cases to be "references" when there was nothing at the link to even support the material. Since the spamming occurred across many articles and across several IPs and warnings were ignored, the only choice was to blacklist the link. If there is something at the site which can be used as a legitimate reference, then you can request whitelisting of a specific URL at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Kuru   (talk)  15:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

BKFIP
He's currently editing as Special:Contributions/95.97.85.50. I honestly don't know how to respond to his personal attacks so I thought I'd alert you. Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed,blocked - his last five IPs have been in the Netherlands. Presumably another trip. Kuru   (talk)  17:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Answer to your message
Thanks for your message. I have no problem at all with what you have done. You got there by following up an old edit that I didn't take much notice of, since isolated IP edits from a long time ago are often irrelevant, but on this occasion it clearly wasn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Why does a new topic need to occur for a listing that is unique in the dataset?
GoSale is the only price comparison website in the dataset to include Price Alerts, Extensions for 4 browsers, price history with graphs. No other combination exists. Why do you suppress this information, Sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.2.229.88 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what it offers. I do care that the list has been spammed many times. Please only include additions that have existing articles and reliable sourcing. Thanks. Kuru   (talk)  02:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion by ViamarisBalbi
Hi Kuru. Since SPI is moving at a rather slow pace, this is to let you know that has been evading his block with two other socks. , one of the socks, has all but confessed. Please see also Sockpuppet investigations/ViamarisBalbi. Thank you. Dr.  K.  17:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look when I get a block of time. On a quick glance, that looks pretty suspicious, but I'm not sure if it's a meatpuppet or a sock without digging through all the diffs. Kuru   (talk)  02:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Block of time. That was a pretty good turn of phrase. :) No problem Kuru. We still have time, and in any case, there is no pressure. I just wanted to let you know because with the slow-moving SPIs this could fall under the radar. If you don't have time, don't bother. All the best. Dr.   K.  03:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I dug through all the histories earlier; I'm pretty convinced. I added another example from commons and here that's pretty clearly sock behavior. Since you've done the bureaucratic heavy lifting of filing a check-user, I think it's best to let one look at it. I saw at least one other account that's likely the same farm and may pre-date the others. Dental metaphor incoming: I can fill the cavity, but I suspect the checkuser will be needed to do the root canal. Kuru   (talk)  15:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much again Kuru for your advice and for taking the time to dig up the additional info about the action at Commons and also the additional sock. Thank you also for the funny metaphor, although, no warning was needed about its incoming introduction. After the block of time, I was almost certain more may be coming. Take care. :) Dr.   K.  17:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I have nothing else to offer from a CU perspective, but that's just for the en-wiki of course. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , no need. The suspicious older account I was alluding to above was Hughesshots, which you've taken care of. Thank you for the pixie dust. Kuru   (talk)  03:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Plastic Beach
Hi. That user is continuing to change genres without discussion or sources when saying "generalizing genres". 183.171.180.234 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what conversation this is following up from. The idiosyncrasies of modern pop genres is something I usually seek to avoid. Kuru   (talk)  15:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Mobile payment
Hello, Kuru. Thanks for pointing out the issue with external links I’ve added to the Mobile payment page. The video I reference was made in collaboration with Discover, while the content about EMV liability shift was created by Visa. I think we can both agree that those are two very credible voices in the payment industry, including on the topic of mobile payment. I believe removing those sources was a mistake, since they are both unbiased and used purely for the purpose of informing general public about recent shifts in the payment industry, which, by extension, is applicable to the subject of mobile payment. The current message above the article asks to "update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information,” and my brief update provides that. Given that circumstance, my edits are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thank you.​ Payments123 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Payments123
 * You've linked to a puffy youtube video uploaded by "Transnational" to pitch a product. You then linked to a corporate content marketing blog at "Transnational". You then decided that, somehow, Theroadislong's removal of you material was an invitation to link directly to the pitch page at "Transnational". I'll be more clear: do not add any more material that is not supported directly by third-part sources that meet our threshold for reliable sources. Especially cease adding links to anything to do with "Transnational." Thanks.  Kuru   (talk)  18:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Attack page
Just thought I'd let you know that I've tagged their userpage for speedy deletion as an attack page. Hastiness (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I've deleted it. Kuru   (talk)  15:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Orix Marketing
Please do guide me to add that information to Wikipedia and I'm sorry you have thought that I'm doing paid contents as I am free mind never want to spam any media.

Please do review it and add that company if you find that is informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakeer101 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I do not find it informative. Please stop adding material related to that firm. Kuru   (talk)  17:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

change.org
The question I am trying to source became the subject of a petition. The statement in the article was that Kyle Kulinski was a Left-Libertarian and it is getting criticized because it was sourced to a youtube video posted by the subject, a primary source. The premise of the petition was that he was the best at representing that point of view. . . obviously meaning he has it as supported by the signators. change.org/p/joe-rogan-get-kyle-kulinski-from-secular-talk-on-the-joe-rogan-experience-podcast-8cef24d7-6b13-417d-8efe-cc22c0aa3637 How do we use that as a source? Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't. A user-created petition is not in any way a suitable source for a contested claim on a WP:BLP. Kuru   (talk)  05:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ajit Pai
So, you took my edit of the Ajit Pai page away, please explain why. Nothing untruthful was included. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenWaldorfian (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't, as it turns out. I agree fully with the reversions. Your edit was garden-variety trolling. 21:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing
Dear Kuru,

Thank you very much for your remark. I understand your concern regarding a mirror citation from an article in wikipedia published in another language. Information/article from wikipedia published in English is defined by. Unfortunately, a link to unique, reliable article published in German is not recommended. In some cases, however, it is practically impossible to find such a unique (and exact) information in pages published in English. Such a difficult situation occured in two cases: (1) for individuals who passed away several years ago. Thus, the only available information is published in German, e.g. an article about prof. Werner Koster exists in German wikipedia, only. (2) for modest scientists who are still active in the field. Frequently, they do not reveal personal information and it is too early for obituary and/or rememberances. This is why it was considered that an independent information from German widikepia is the best solution.

I would be grateful if you could advice how to obey the general rules and allow a precise/direct citation of unique information available in German wikipedia. In the case of scientists, the number of availabe citations is limited (a scientific paper cannot be cited here).

Thank you in advance for your help and suggestions

OmegaMS — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaMS (talk • contribs) 12:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources in German are perfectly acceptable. Any source German or English must still meet our requirements for reliable sources, however. Using French and German mirrors of Wikipedia is never acceptable. Kuru   (talk)  14:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)