User talk:Kinaro

Barnstar
total newb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.95.254 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

South Park
You might want to take a little more care; you reverted an edit by an IP editor, 67.244.131.164, who you warned twice for vandalism, when he was actually providing the correct title, HUMANCENTiPAD to the new South Park (season 15) episode from the season premiere source provided with the date. The vandal was an IP editor just before that, 209.244.187.139, who provided the title "Tiger's Blood". He provided no source with the edit, only a summary that said "episode name. source, Comcast TV guide". The Comcast source does not give that or any other title at the current moment, nor does any other source source other than the South Park website give any title at this time. I've reverted your warnings to this editor, and left him a note explaining edit summaries and sourcing. For what it's worth, I'd be leery in the future of any editor that explains his source in the edit summary without providing it in the actual edit. In my experience, it's usually a vandal's attempt at avoiding reversion. KnownAlias   contact   11:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I will avoid making this error in the future.  Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 04:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What did I do?
Yo what did I do wronG? All I did was take where Jean-Claude Van Damme was born from down under personal life and put it on top as early life, what is the harm? Do not start thraetening to block me unless you valid reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.92.220 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Next time you remove content from an article, please provide an edit summary. This is very important (see WP:FIES).  Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Are we cool, because I don't want a feud and if you want something changed please don't threaten me like that, just ask I will understand. The reason why I changed Jean-Claude Van Damme's personal life is because I don't think that where he was born should be down under personal life it should up top under early life.173.72.92.220 (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand now that your edits were done in good faith, but to avoid future confusion, remember to provide summaries for your edits so that others will know what exactly it is that you are doing, and there is no reason to suspect it may be vandalism. As stated previously, this is especially important when removing content.  Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 21:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, but again if there is a problem with my edits please tell me and i swear that I will do differently. But no hard feelings, right?173.72.92.220 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting my edit about Dick Armey?
And while we're on the same vein, why do you hate the poor and the people who are simply tryiing to help them out? I don't want any of your money, I just want the poor to have as good a life as you undoubtedly do. U say on your profile that you have a heart, but if you do then why do you act with so much malice and apathy???
 * What on Earth are you talking about? First, I hate no one. Second, I never asked you for any money, nor am I interested in pursuing you for it. I reverted your edits because they did not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines, and were either blatant vandalism or an attempt at disrupting neutrality. Whichever is the case, it is not allowed. I don't make the rules, sorry.  Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 01:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

But the Dick Armey fella is a right wing propogandist. Listen I don't want much in life. Hell I don't want anything, I just want to help other people. The GOP will not let that happen so please help me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.27.43 (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV before you edit again.  Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 02:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert
Why did you revert me? How in the world was that vandalism? Please explain, thanks. 174.7.19.170 (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know which edit you're talking about, but, you can't remove shared ISP templates from your talk page, you know, as an IP user.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Why did you revert me? 174.7.19.170 (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Inserting things like :D in random places on other peoples' user pages and comments is vandalism.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. I was just trying to be friendly. I know how to do that now. Someone told me on my talk page. Thank you. Sorry again. 174.7.19.170 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (diff)  Hazard-SJ  ±   05:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 Hello Kinaro, Bwilkins has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thanks!! for reverting vandalism on my userpage from the above user! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong?
I thought I can make a change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.48.19 (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:75.34.179.112
Please consider the seriousness of the offense, rather than just raising the level of the warning by one. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What, exactly, would you prefer me to do?  Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, I want you to think about what those levels mean. See WP:VAN for a few notes. Different levels are for different degrees of vandalism. Besides, there is nothing to suggest that a first-time offense should be a level 1 and that every consecutive act of vandalism should be rewarded with a warning one level higher. Second, look again at that edit. Is saying "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia" enough for such a case? That's what I'm asking you to do. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I use Huggle (an automated tool) to revert most vandalism as well as warn for it and this is how it is done. If a level 1 warning has been issued, a level 2 warning will follow, and so forth. This is the way it was taught to me, and the way I've been doing it for over a year now. You are the first to comment on it. Are you sure you're correct?  Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 02:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm commenting because this was a ridiculously obscene, and you couldn't argue that it should weigh the same as someone adding "I love Lucy" to an article. I use Twinkle. I get to pick the level I wish to apply. I've been here for a bit more than a year (your account dates from 25 April 2011), and yes, I am sure I am correct. Doing this in such an automated fashion doesn't make a lot of sense anyway since it assumes that all acts of vandalism are the same. They're not. If they were, we wouldn't need tools like WP:REVDEL, or administrators making a judgment on whether to block vandals and for how long. I don't know who taught you that this was a simple, semi-automated process of stepping up one level every single time, but I'd like to have a word with that editor: this is not how it works. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I thank you for your input, as it is much appreciated. It's inexcusable for an experienced editor such as myself to be entirely unaware of something so simple. I've been at this since May 2010 (the reason this account dates to less than a month being that I've retired several others) and I should have been more knowledgeable about policy from the get-go.  Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 23:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kinaro, no worries. What happened was perfectly excusable, and it will make you a better editor, since next time you will be more inclined to look more closely at the content of the edit--and that, sometimes, leads to interesting things. For instance, with IP editors with a redlink for a talk page, often I browse their contributions before I let Twinkle loose with a level-1 warning. If an IP regularly vandalizes, and you see that in the history, sometimes the first time is caught by ClueBot but the second time isn't. And if some time had passed between, say, a final warning (a week before?) and ClueBot's level-1 warning today (it 'resets' after an interval), then maybe a level-3 or even higher is validated. Those decisions are made by you, at your discretion. Another thing: we have a lot of 'vandalfighter' (sounds like a pretty boring and restrictive job to me), but not everyone leaves vandalism warnings. If an editor has vandalized an article four, five times in a row and has been reverted but not warned, we can assume that they probably know what they did wasn't kosher, and one doesn't have to start at level 1. So there also the history will tell you something. BTW, I wish some smarty pants would make an easily accessible list of the characteristics of a level-1, 2, etc. offense. I know there's a table, an overview, on one of those help pages, but it's been a while since I was last able to find it. Cause sometimes I wonder too--level 2 or 3, for instance. And what is bad enough for an instant 4im warning? Your call. For me, really blatant BLP violations, racism, homophobia--but editors may differ in what they think is unacceptable. Good luck, and thanks for the conversation. Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jared Farmer
Hello Kinaro. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jared Farmer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance ("Farmer's book On Zion's Mount won the 2009 Francis Parkman Prize). If you feel this should be deleted, please either propose it for deletion or take it to Articles for deletion. Thank you.   Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was an error on my part. Didn't read the article as thoroughly as I should have.  Kinaro (say hello)''' (what's been done) 02:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

If you don't explain to me how my edits are vandalism, I will report you
If you don't explain to me how my edits are vandalism, I will report you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.121.11 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it wasn't vandalism, but it wasn't necessary. Anno Domini does not need to be included in dates.  Kinaro (say hello)''' (what's been done) 04:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Identifying this IP address as a very large educational area
Hey there!

I was just making a few edits, when I noticed I had forgotten to log in (I'm User:Terkaal). In doing so, I made an edit from the IP address I'm writing to you from, which out of curiosity, I figured I'd take a look at it's talk page (noticed it was blue, not red).

It was here I noticed you'd been engaging in warnings with said IP in the past, even going as far to warn that further vandalism would result in a block.

For this reason I feel the need to contact you and inform you that this IP is a shared public address used by "Knowledge Village" which is the educational zone in Dubai of the United Arab Emirates.

Here, there are numerous universities and many smaller single class institutions which all operate on the same campus local area network, providing access to several thousand people. 80.227.117.70 (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You have been removed from Editors willing to make difficult to edits due to inactivity
Hi Kinaro! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Editors willing to make difficult edits, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 2 years.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Editors willing to make difficult edits.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)