User talk:Kinu/Archive 12

Hi. You just blocked and  as socks of. All three of these are very obvious socks of serial vandal Runtshit, and I have retagged them accordingly. RolandR (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing this. I wasn't previously familiar with this case but it definitely appears to be the same troll. -- Kinu  t/c 09:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the User:Asd86d Sock-puppetry case.‎ GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  05:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Another one popped up today, and I'll keep an eye out for others. I'm hoping this troll gets bored soon and stops. -- Kinu  t/c 00:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your number one fan has some things to say. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That was definitely a LOL. Thanks! -- Kinu  t/c 01:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kinu. I just wanted to let you know that has gone right back to the edit warring that you blocked them for last week. They have yet to make a post on an article talk page so it is tough to get through to them about consensus. I did inform them about that on my talk page but they seem to have ignored it. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 16:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, here's the warning I left about 20 minutes before you blocked this account: User talk:Wickedangry; I had declined to block this person at WP:AIV and left this warning.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I felt a block was appropriate here in that the user was clearly aware of the issue here; it looks like McDoobAU93 had left a message indicating the issue (at 16:13), but this editor chose to ignore that and continue the edit war (at 16:19). To me, this smacks of bad faith or possible WP:CIR. I've left a caveat to the block notice on their talk page; if they can show they are willing to cease the edit war, I have no objections to an unblock. -- Kinu  t/c 18:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the subsequent message you left Wickedangry about unblocking -- let's see if he/she responds affirmatively. I hope they do; clearly they have passion but as you note competence and good faith are necessary, too. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My thanks to you both in dealing with this editor. I have been off-wiki since I left my first post. There have been attempts to inform this person about our policies (here is my response to a post they made on my talk page from two days ago User talk:MarnetteD. Regretfully, this person just doesn't seem to be very responsive to any other editor. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are being a little hasty blocking talk page access for this user. Possibly I am assuming too much good faith, but I just left him a message, edit conflicting with your decline. It seems to me that we need if possible to make progress by discussion, rather than just walk away. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC).


 * And this would be helped if you restored his talk page access. Rich Farmbrough, 03:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC).


 * To be frank, I'm not going to do this. This user's behavior and block was discussed at length on his talk page and on Jimbo's talk page and was found to be legitimate. That being said, this user has several remedies at his disposal if he wishes to contest this block and contribute again. He may contact any of the administrators who imposed any of the blocks against his account, either on the basis of sockpuppetry or disruptive editing. He may contact the checkuser who performed the actual sockpuppet investigation. He may also contact ArbCom with a legitimate request to have this block reviewed. I would say that, of these remedies, the last is the most appropriate, because of what I consider the inappropriate repeated e-mails (including at what I consider a "work" address) and calls (yes, on the telephone) from this person; I do not feel that other editors should be subjected to that as well. This borderline harassment by this user is not earning any favor with me, considering I had nothing to do with this user's case other than preventing him from posting additional irrelevant unblock requests.
 * That being said, if you wish to engage with this user, I would ask that you contact one of the other aforementioned administrators involved in this matter; I have my reservations, but would not be unsupportive if another set of eyes felt compelled to restore his talk page access. However, I personally see no reason to do so, and instead recommend that he contact ArbCom. -- Kinu  t/c 16:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a DRV on July 1st - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_July_1 which looks like it went for restore. Opinions varied between AfD it again and it's OK. Personally, I'd go for a delete at AfD. Mention is made of new sources, but no-one has bothered to add them - whatever they are... Peridon (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha... I thought the DRV that said it was from August was the most recent one, but that was from 2011. Obviously the July one from 2012 would be newer... Facepalm3.svg. Anyway, I'm inclined to agree with you. I'll try to see what these alleged sources are and do some WP:BEFORE, and then if I'm not satisfied I might send it to AfD again. Thanks for letting me know. -- Kinu  t/c 17:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Kinu. Is this an open proxy? -- Rrburke (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It probably is, but I'm having trouble connecting to it myself. I've referred it to WP:OPP. -- Kinu  t/c 16:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never done what I did before, and although I looked at the instructions, I didn't put the new template at the "very top", even though the phrase was italicized. I almost asked someone to look at it for me; I'm glad you did so without being asked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment at Talk:James T. Thompson and User talk:Ethanagray; I don't think the user was a vandal; he was a new user, not understanding our collaborative editing process and how it was applied to an article he'd just started. Given our difficulties with editor retention, please consider how we might differentiate between confused newbies (however frustrating their actions may be) and deliberate vandals, and how you can help the former to become productive editors. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kinu. Some time ago you blocked this IP for vandalism on several road signs article. The IP has since continued, and I must now ask you to block it permanently. It's a sock a Jermboy27 (as he is known on Commons).  Fry1989  eh? 01:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This one looks static, but I'm still hesitant to block IPs indefinitely. Nonetheless, I've gone ahead and taken this one out of commission for a year per WP:DUCK. -- Kinu  t/c 02:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, unfortunately Jermboy27 seems to have access to plenty of IPs and doesn't wanna go away. IDK what we can do besides a range block but I know people don't like the idea of that.  Fry1989  eh?   17:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that saved me the trouble of dragging him to ANI again. Cheers for doing the necessary. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 06:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. A couple weeks ago you indeffed. Today, that account spammed their talk page again. Is removing talk page access appropriate in these circumstances? Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 20:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I've gone ahead and done so. Thanks. -- Kinu  t/c 17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you were the original protecting/salting admin, just a heads up that it was re-created at Michael vincent mchugh. I only noticed the previous deletion when I tried to move it to the proper title. I've tagged it as a BLPPROD for now, but feel free to A7 it if you feel it meets that. Legoktm (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done and salted. Thanks. -- Kinu  t/c 17:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

All I remember is that my "IP address" was caught by an open proxy block, as I stated here. It was set to expire on November 30 at 8pm EDT. I appreciate the quick help. Platinum Star (talk)
 * Not a problem... glad to be of assistance. -- Kinu  t/c 03:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am in intrigue as to how confirm whether the information is true or not? Now I did received the ORDER OF ISABELLA THE CATHOLIC and wanted to be reflected on WIKIPEDIA, so what do I need to provide to UPDATE it correctly.

thanks

Milton G. Uribe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milt1074 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that the heading of the section you were editing says "Notable members". You may create an article about yourself and add yourself to that section only if you meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. -- Kinu  t/c 03:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to log your blacklist addition. The log can be found here. If someone challenges a blacklisting in 6 or 12 months time any admin dealing with such a request must be able to find the reason for the listing. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, good call... I've gone ahead and done so. Thank you for the reminder. -- Kinu  t/c 04:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks;)--Hu12 (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In this AfD: 1, you closed it by saying that it was "speedied". Would you mind if I changed it to "speedily deleted" so the AfD vote counter tool will be able to determine the result? Thanks-- Go  Phightins  !  02:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a problem... there might have been one or two others that I closed using the same verbiage, now that I think about it, so if you run across those, feel free to amend those rationales as well. Thanks! -- Kinu  t/c 02:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, just wanted to double check. Go   Phightins  !  03:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not mean to seem unfriendly! Currently you deleted the two mentioned articles. In case or "Verge Game Studio" i can understand because of the speedy deletion and i read and understood your arguments, but i dont think that the article "MaK(Verge Game Studio)" meets with your argumentation! Both articles were under constuction and on Mak was a mark that i have seven days to edit more details. About the advertisement: I tried to make the two sides objective, so i generally took the two sides Mojang and Minecraft as templates and inserted information i could find over the company and the game. I also got the affirmation from Verge Game Studio that they would increase the information by quality and quantity.

If you recognize my argumentation why this sides didn't need to be deleted, is there a way to restore them of do a have to make them in my sandbox first?

thanks

P.S: New account, my old one "Bot91" also got deleted :( Bau912 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already made a new prototype of "VergeGameStudio" which will hopefully meet your taste too:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bau912/VergeGameStudio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bau912 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

SolvedBau912 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that message from my page. That was the second time he'd done that and I'd already reported him to AIV. Thank you ! KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 15:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick unblock. - Akamad (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Per deletion policy, because the subject appears to have some sort of notability, a deletion discussion must occur. If at the end of the deletion discussion there is consensus to delete based on policies and guidelines (or if there is no consensus and the subject provides an indication himself that he wishes to have the article deleted), then this would be the outcome. However, because the subject's article makes a claim of notability and there have been multiple editors working on the article, no one can unilaterally decide on deletion via speedy deletion. If you wish to pursue deletion further, please follow the process at WP:AFD. Thanks. -- Kinu  t/c 20:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You deleted this sub page Kings Island Facts, This page is a subpage for Kings Island to contain lists of facts that do not belong on the main page for GA Staandard reasons. Please undo this.--Nickvet419 (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've recreated the fork article... it's been tagged for speedy again, but I'll leave it be. However, one could make the argument that if such content is relevant to the subject, then it belongs in the article in order to flesh it out for GA standards, but if it isn't, then it really doesn't belong anywhere. -- Kinu  t/c 03:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please help me better understand why the 2nd nomination for deletion is taking place for the wiki page for Joe Pulizzi? Any advice on what can be deleted from the content, added to it for substantive information, etc. would be tremendously helpful. Thank you so much, Kinu! Cmcphillips (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)cmcphillips

Can you tell me what is the serious bug they are talking about? --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I might have seen a topic with a similar title on WP:ANI but I'm not 100% sure. Do you recall where you read about this? I can investigate further. -- Kinu  t/c 05:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean that one which was showing above articles/editbox/watchlist "Admins, do not delete pages, files. Serious bug. Page can not be restored". At the same time I saw you a deleting a page, so thought you have already got the news that it has been fixed! But, they told to wait for further notice. So, is it fixed? --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Turned out it's only on Commons. (see WP:AN). I put it in the notice to be safe, but turns out to be a false alarm. --Rschen7754 05:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, hadn't seen that notice. Thanks for the info and the clarification. -- Kinu  t/c 06:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! Good to see you around USRD nowadays! --Rschen7754 06:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kinu. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of GemSelect, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''not that spammy and claims importance "largest suppliers of precious gems in the world". WP:CORP may not be met though, so it probably needs to go to WP:AFD.''' Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the irrelevant OR/spam. I have sent the article to AfD as suggested. -- Kinu  t/c 17:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy I had started checking wiki through my phone and may have unintentionally hit some buttons by mistake. Sorry about that. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying... I know all too well how much of a pain it can be to edit via phone. I also apologize if my tone sounded condescending... I was just perplexed. I hope things are getting back to normal after Sandy! -- Kinu  t/c 23:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It must be right to delete this page. So you would have done it. But can I get to see the contents of this page so I can try to wikify it? --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The contents of the article were a copyright violation and thus should not be undeleted. -- Kinu  t/c 05:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Could you possibly move Article Incubator/Adamah over the current redirect? Sent to the incubators because I was ban-evading when I created it, but I've just been unbanned. --Claritas § 06:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You deleted my page, with "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." as the reason. Is the author of a published book not sufficient importance? I understand that my page was incomplete - I have much more work to do on it. Can you please tell me how I can improve it so it will not be deleted again? Ipv6freely (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please delete Ramalingam selvanathan as no one has deleted the page from past 2 hrs Thanks Sriharsh1234  09:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already been deleted. I'm not certain why you asked me to do so personally, since I wasn't involved with the article in any way. -- Kinu  t/c 17:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The local IP block exempt worked great. Thank you! --Odie5533 (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, The article I am going to create was the title of a previously deleted article that represented SPAM or promotion. I will not be imitating the article that was previously deleted and my article will not contain any spam and follow all wikipedia policies. It notified me to perhaps talk to you since you deleted the original article.

Thank you, --Bianca 11-8-12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianca Kof1234 Vision (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC) --Bianca Kof1234 Vision (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how you have recreated the article, I have gone through and removed all of the obvious PR fluff. From your username, I am assuming you have a connection to the organization? -- Kinu  t/c 19:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I created that page, but somebody told me it doesn't fit with the Wikipedia's notability standards, because he is still unelected. So, I asked for speedy deletion. Now, he has been elected. Would you please recover the created page, so I can edit it? Elecguy47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the article as written contained almost zero useful content, except for a link to this source. I am hesitant to restore an article that does not show why the subject is notable and cannot be salvaged; however, you are certainly more than welcome to create a new sourced article on the subject. -- Kinu  t/c 21:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kinu.Please visit on this page and tell me how can i remove this tag from my image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jigar_no_jung.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggythakor (talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, but because the image is corrupt, it's been deleted per WP:CSD. -- Kinu  t/c 03:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I found the post to be quite valid, informative , and within context based around the welsh comedian and actor.Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.228.61 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

can you explain why the Dai Ling Ping Wiki was deleted. i have read over various comments that the character is not notable and also that a google search resulted in minimal hits. a recent search has given me 7,120,000 results. although Dai Ling Ping is a fictional character created by Mr LBX Media by the actor and comedian Mr LBX. we feel that the character is almost definately notable and somewhat a well known celebrity in wales.also an in depth search will also reveal that Mr LBX has one of the fastest growing brands in the uk today.thankyou for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.210.243 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted via community consensus. The reasons are discussed at Articles for deletion/Dai Ling Ping. If you have any reliable sources explaining why this subject is notable, you may request a deletion review. -- Kinu  t/c 01:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Please check back at Articles for deletion/Michael Pollack - I found new information that may be relevant WhisperToMe (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even though that discussion had been closed as a delete, after a discussion with the closing administrator I decided to re-write the article with new sources, and I presented it to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Pollack WhisperToMe (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I started Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_9 WhisperToMe (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you blocked User:Jason West Jones's sock. I'm not sure if you're familiar with all of the facts of the case - if you are, I apologize for telling you what you already knew, but if not, you might want to consider extending the block length. Obviously, I present this all for your administrative discretion, but a) quite a few of these IPs were given rather long-term blocks by other admins and b) I'm not sure if a conclusive case has been previously put together to demonstrate that these were all Jason's sockpuppets, though RHaworth is clearly aware of this. I know that I just figured it was a vandal I'd battled with a few days ago, until I saw this latest unblock request, and started looking into things.  — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are diffs of one user on a dynamic IP address vandalizing RHaworth's page, consisting of spurious CSD nominations, false block notices, and a string of deleting random words (lists all IPs, though not all vandalisms):
 * Similar attacks to my own page and talk page from the same IPs:
 * Main page:
 * Talk page:
 * Here, RHaworth presents evidence that Jason had done this in the past (this is one of the main reasons I think the blocks might need to be longer)
 * Here, in response, Jason brags about his ability to do just that.
 * Well, things just took a turn for the worse, believe it or not . — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 07:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You have this editor indef-blocked for disruptive editing, and he has just posted an unblock request; he is, I think, only an occasional editor. I do not see any disruptive edits. He added incorrect information on Richard Nixon and was reverted and warned. He made no edit of any kind after his warning, but you blocked him about one hour later; in the absence of any transgression after his warning, this may be seen as harsh. Also, further to your block message, I do not see any evidence of past disruptive behaviour. Perhaps you see something that I don't, but is it possible that you may have confused two unrelated editors?--Anthony Bradbury"talk"  13:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and unblocked this editor per the rationale given at their talk page. Thanks for letting me know. -- Kinu  t/c 20:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could help adopt this article? I think that if it could be expanded and transformed into an article about the interchange itself, with the reconstruction project as part of the history/future section, that we would have a much better treatment of the subject than the current paragraph which doesn't currently demonstrate notability.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely take a look and see what kind of sources are out there. If this project is of the scope the current article makes itself out to be, it's certainly something that'd be a viable article with some expansion. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Kinu  t/c 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there; you recently blocked this Ip, very reasonably, for repeated vandalism. the site has been blocked before; the interesting thing is that the unblock request is exactly the same as one they posted five years ago, including the same spelling mistake! They must have a macro for unblock requests? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain how you justified this talk page revert? I was trying to convince myself that I could make that same revert but I couldn't come up with a solid reason. The closest I could get was BLP or Personal information, since "bizarre crap that doesn't belong" (your "WTF?" apparently) doesn't usually warrant a revert, at least to me. Meters (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR. The material clearly does not further the goal of building an encyclopedia. A six-paragraph personal letter falls under excessive unrelated content ("[c]ommunications unrelated to Wikipedia, with people uninvolved with the project or its related work") anyway. -- Kinu  t/c 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Meters (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Kinu. I wonder could you take another look here:. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Kinu we are only asking to have the web site address as reference on the kagiso page, we have been working hard gathering local knowledge and have used our past experience to provide proper and correct information about this place. We are developing an information system to make it eay for people to nagivate or find what they want in kagiso. Could you please grant us just the reference http://www.kagisotownship.co.za — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaswiJoy (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! As a member of WP:USRD, you may be interested to know that we are doing the USRD Cup contest again this year! Signups are at the above page and the contest will begin February 1. --Rschen7754 10:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As recently stated on the Rocket Records talk page, I am formally proposing a factually CORRECT move of this article to a page with the Wikipedia URL and proper subject heading of Rocket Record Company. I had already tried to submit the already existing article under that proper heading, but Kinu rejected the submission due to the duplicate article policy. If we as RESPONSIBLE Wikipedia writers/editors/administrators are going to contribute to the Wikipedia record label project in a correct manner, than this MUST be done. It is completely wrong to keep factually incorrect information on Wikipedia when the up-to-date and correct information is readily available for the general public to read.

Even "I am One of Many" agrees that this Rocket Records article about Elton John's old and now defunct Rocket Record Company should be moved under the heading and Wikipedia URL of Rocket Record Company. As for the current Rocket Records in existence that I had written about, we can submit that as a new article, although as I have now stated in great detail and documented to you all, it more than meets the proper notability standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will let everybody chime in on that though before I attempt to take any further action on the matter.

Kinu, do you agree that this version of the Rocket Records article can me moved under the CORRECT Wikipedia URL and subject heading of Rocket Record Company? Your input on this subject is VERY important since you have final control over the Rocket Records page on Wikipedia right now. There will be no more "edit wars" I can assure you, as everbody interested is working toward the right consensus as a collective group. All decisions will firt be made by a consensus group of non-affiliated Wikipedia music editors before any more editing actions occur. All of us are hoping that you will fairly unlock the page for edits soon, as more editors have now started discussing it in detail on the Rocket Records talk page. Thank you.

Eric Gregson (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Eric D. Gregson
 * My only purpose in protecting the article was to prevent the continued edit warring and repeated overwriting of the current content. I have no vested interest in this article beyond "it's a notable subject and should exist here" and feel it is best if I recuse myself from providing an opinion on this requested move. Furthermore, I do not have any sort of "final control" in what happens here; any administrator may currently edit the article and the protection will eventually expire (at which point I hope there will be no further destructive removal/overwriting of content). Please continue to seek a consensus on the article's talk page and/or file a request at Requested moves.
 * As an aside, there is no need to repeat yourself at multiple locations (some of them inappropriate, such as here), especially in such a verbose manner. It ultimately reeks of forum shopping and it is confusing to try to follow the discussion when one reads the same verbose arguments at multiple locations. A simple link to the centralized discussion you have started at the talk page will suffice in the future. Thank you. -- Kinu  t/c 06:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, hello guys. Kinu is right eric, a simple link to the talk page is good enough! For future reference eric, please keep your frequent comments on talk pages to a brief summarization of the issue(s) at hand. However I can understand why eric felt compelled to write so much about the page in question since there were multiple "confusing" issues going on with it to say the least. At least it's good that there is finally some productive discussion going on at the Rocket Records talk page.

Thanks for starting that discussion up kinu! One thing though, I would really like to see this page get tackled right now while it is "hot" and before the quality music contributors out there lose interest in it. I'm sure you know how these projects can go quite often kinu. SLOWWWW!!!! I have been helping to get the WikiProject Record Labels moving along at a decent pace, but it has been moving much slower than we'd like to see it move.

Note to Kinu* - Please unlock the Rocket Records page immediately if you would be gracious enough to do so that I can personally start cleaning up the existing article's awful spelling, grammar, and references. I myself am not a wikipedia administrator anymore because of personal time constraints, so I cannot work on it due to your protection lock (which I understand you had to do). Everybody else be fully warned though that any major changes or controversial overwrites to the existing article will result in it being fully protected again!

I'm sure that in quick time the existing article will be moved to its proper title and wikipedia url address as you are calling for eric, and then you can submit a brand-new article about the new Rocket Records label which I can see through a brief google search is highly active and very newsworthy at this moment as you have stated to us all lately.

Let's keep the positive discussion going on the Rocket Records talk page everybody, and please remember that there are still many other record labels that we need to get quality music contributors working on for the WikiProject Record Labels. Let's really get the project rolling! Thanks again everybody! MusicLoverShawn (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Kinu, please go the Rocket Records talk page as soon as you are able to and read what I have written at the bottom of the page. I'm hoping that this issue is now finally resolved. I would greatly appreciate you commenting on it so we can proceed ahead, as we have many more record labels to log for WikiProject Record Labels. I went ahead and formally completed the process of an official page move request (which was quickly approved) for eric gregson because eric honestly did not know how to follow the proper page moving procedures. Anyway, please go to that page and quickly comment so that we can finalize this process once and for all. Thank you!

P.S. - The existing article about the "old Rocket Records" (The Rocket Record Company) has been properly and officially moved to this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rocket_Record_Company

MusicLoverShawn (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Eric has asked me to let you know that I believe the Elton John label should be at 'Rocket Record Company' and the new label at 'Rocket Records'. Regards, Rothorpe (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Kinu, I am fully aware of the "cut and paste" procedure and making sure it is not done as a practice. However, as I tried to explain, this was for a very rare exemption, and when I submitted the article for the redirect/subsequent move last night, I explained that thoroughly to the administrator that physically granted the page move. He was even fully aware of the duplicate content on both pages, but said it was alright because it literally would be for only 2 days or sooner if you lifted the lock earlier on the Rocket Records page, which I am hopeful that you will now do in good faith.


 * I also provided the full official and legal name of the record label on the existing page, and direct links with multiple sources showing that is 100% the correct title for the article. I can promise you that you won't find any editor on wikipedia that will disagree on that fact as it involves what title the article should be under. The name of the existing article should be The Rocket Record Company after the label's name, there is absolutely nobody who will disagree or raise issue with that I can assure you in full confidence.


 * We are trying very hard to log these record labels correctly for WikiProject Records Labels, so your help and cooperation is EXTREMELY helpful and appreciated by us in expiditing this process. I personally have over 100 more record labels to get done editing/adding by May 1st, so I'm sure you can understand that any lengthy or unnecassary administration red tape is difficult to overcome. I can assure you that in no way am I or any of the other WikiProject Record Labels editors trying to circumvent standard wikipedia procedure.


 * This is for a special exemption, and we now have the right information about The Rocket Record Company. Please allow me keep the existing article up under the new page that was approved and created by administration last night. We can keep it up on the old page too if you would like, although it would definitely be unwise not to correct that with the new Rocket Records label as well.


 * One final thing to note, and that is that the entire point of the WikiProject Record Labels is to accurately list and document the executive staff members and structure of these record labels. We have had to spend countless hours researching and in some cases contacting these record labels to ask them to donate or sign the standard permission forms for things such as music clips, photos, and so forth.


 * You would be doing us (especially me since I'm handling this label) a tremendous deal of help by expiditing this process and allowing us to proceed with the fully accurate work we have started. I will happily keep you fully updated on all action that takes place with the Rocket Records pages (both old and new), and in fact I even would welcome your administrative help when asked for or needed.


 * Can we please proceed without further delay or revocation for this particular record label? I'm keeping all wikipedia editors fully updated on the Rocket Records talk page, but not many editors, adminstrators, or even guests visit there a lot. I eagerly await your response. Thank you! MusicLoverShawn (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please let me know which administrator granted this so-called exemption. One who is following policy knows that a copy-paste move breaks the history of the article and thus is contrary to Wikipedia's licensing requirements. -- Kinu  t/c 18:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe his user name was Lugnuts. I don't believe that he was trying to be malicious or break procedure in anyway at all. Maybe he was even honestly confused as well (which now I think is very likely). Please understand kinu that this was not your typical copy-paste page move to break procedure or create a duplicate and effect page history in a negative way.


 * As I carefully explained in the official request I sent in last night which did get approved, the point of the official request was so that The Rocket Record Label could be under its correct title, thus clearing the way for the current Rocket Records label to be properly documented with consensus and contribution by WikiProject Record Labels editors or any other ethical editor that wants to contribute to it.


 * You can even read what I wrote in the page move submission request I made last night. I had to include the name of the label, reasons for move, sources, unique circumstances, etc.. Remember, you correctly rejected eric gregson's submission because he submitted the existing article as a brand-new article 2 nights ago. I specifically submitted it as a page redirect/subsequent move with UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES that I spelled out in detail on the official request.


 * I honestly believe this entire documentation has gotten way too "involved" because of it uniqueness and confusion, although I promise you that it really is NOT confusing at all. I'm sure you are a very busy person like most these days, but I would even provide you my email address or phone number if it would help clear up and finally move this process forward. MusicLoverShawn (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have asked the user you mentioned above to weigh in on this because I cannot find your conversation with him in your contributions. In the meantime, please continue discussing this on the talk page of the article. I kindly ask that you cease cross-posting here. I will follow the discussion there. -- Kinu  t/c 20:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The protection may be unnecessary now that all those accounts have been blocked. Please consider reducing or removing it. — rybec   03:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The protection should have expired by now, so it should be editable now. Definitely do let me know if you notice any other suspicious activity though. Thanks! -- Kinu  t/c 20:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It did expire. I'll keep an eye on the page. Thank you for answering. — rybec   02:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)