User talk:Kinu/Archive 13

Why do you remove my message? --Gajolen (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Without any sort of context, I have no idea what you're talking about. -- Kinu  t/c 20:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the person who declined the Petro River Oil AfC submission. How were you able to block the offending user so quickly, out of curiosity? ❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 20:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I ran across the submission while looking at recent changes (the submitter's username was quite a red flag) and was on my way to decline and block. It appears you'd already taken care of the first part, though, so thank you. :) -- Kinu  t/c 20:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi - you previously protected the above article on 21 March 2013 - I see that it's under attack again. Can you re-protect? Regards Denisarona (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That was quick work on CFrenchie1823 - I'd only just blocked him! Peridon (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey 02:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start a discussion about having my admin privileges revoked. -- Kinu  t/c 04:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan Vesey 04:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whomp whomp whommmmmp! -- Kinu  t/c 04:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Kinu.

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TapkaJohnD

You rejected my article because Wiki is "an encylopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook." I've read the page that links to, and see the first and most relevant item on it, which includes the sentence, "Describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use something is not."

I submit that my article is precisely the first, a collection of ways that other people have dealt with this problem. It is emphaticly not an instruction manual, but a discussion of possible causes and solutions that other people have used. Thus it should be within the "encyclopedic reference" heading, but may need rewriting to bring it into Wiki-style.

I know this is an open question, but is it possible to rewrite the article into acceptability by going into the causes in more detail? I note the item on FAQs, to which my article may be compared, and which suggests the author "format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article" that might do the same thing. Or is classic car maintenance just beyond the Pale?

best wishes John

TapkaJohnD (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, being an admin on Commons I'm contacting you, as you IMO correctly blocked image-vandal User:Iphone1998, after it was refused to me on COM:AIV. I would ask you to consider blocking who has 4 times added unrelated images into 3 :en articles. Thanks to the WMF-invented, but not thought-through mobile web/app upload facility, the number of dangerous image vandals, who insert images of identifiable people into :en articles in order to slander them, is currently increasing. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked this user. Thanks for letting me know! -- Kinu  t/c 01:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think it was you who asked me to keep an eye on this. A second article has been created and there's been another copy-paste move [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Rocket_Record_Company&diff=549222020&oldid=541892537] that left the history in a confusing state (the new article has the history of the old one). — rybec   21:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes... I can see the history issues but I'm editing via mobile at the moment so fixing things will be difficult. Would you mind making a report at WP:SPLICE? Thanks! -- Kinu  t/c 16:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering if there's anywhere we could file a report about a rude editor? User: Politsi has always been rude to new people, i.e. the ones who haven't edited this particular article, for example here. That is not the first incident of him acting aggressive and insult other editors (see the rest of that talk page and the archives if you want to see for yourself) and I'm certain won't be the last time either. That thread, and especially the latest homophobic comment was the last straw I think he should get at least a warning.--  Krystaleen  12:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that you were the protecting admin for the page title Seryn. This is the name of band that seems to satisfy Project:Notability that I'd like to create a sourced page for. Will you consider lifting this title protection? Thanks! -SeiADP (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We seemed to have edit conflicted on both the block and the user talk page. Feel free to restore your block or your edit - either way is fine with me. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries... I misread your 1 year block as a previous block, but it appears to be the correct length given the block history, so we'll go with that. :) -- Kinu  t/c 17:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The entry for HAMS was deleted on 14 May 2008. The deleting editor is assigned as your user ID, and that is why I am contacting you. The entry was self-promoting and the group has since written a new article, on PsychologyWiki, that is based solely on information and not in anyway promoting of the group, its ideas, or anything else associated with it. HAMS would like to get an article back onto Wikipedia, using this entry as a template.

What would have to be done for the block to be removed?

Rexyphi (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/HAMS_Harm_Reduction_Network

I see that you were a contestant on Jeopardy. That's enough for a congratulations in its own right, so congrats! How'd you do? Ryan Vesey 06:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It taped a while back but finally aired today, so I can be open about it now. :D I came in a distant third place (ha!), but the experience was good and I feel that I can nonetheless remove that from my bucket list and move it over to my list of accomplishments. :) -- Kinu  t/c 06:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, I reverted your redirect of this page to the user page. The editor may not have seen the notice of how to appeal when TPA is revoked, + it makes it harder for other admins to see the history of this farrago. It's true that he was fairly insulting (to me too!), but I don't think such drastic action is required. Sometimes simply leaving stuff like and letting it speak for itself, is far more damning than hiding it. It speaks volumes, in fact. If you feel really strongly about it, though, I'd suggest archiving everything but the last two block notices, rather than simply removing everything. Voceditenore (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see that Bbb23 had previously removed this appalling screed/threat. Needless to say, I left that deleted. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually had not noticed that the most egregious of the WP:NPA-violating trash had already been culled, so thank you for pointing that out. I don't see this editor getting any sort of second chance, quite frankly. However, given that many of the scathing comments were directed toward me, I might not be the most objective person to choose what to archive (hence why I picked the "all-or-nothing" approach), so I'll leave it to someone else. Thanks. -- Kinu  t/c 13:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrator, you just told me that my feelings of harassment are unfounded. Please see these comments below that were written on an AFD page for Rocket Records a short while ago during the middle of a productive discussion I was having with another editor. Here were the comments that came out of nowhere by this editor:

''Per nomination and PeterWesco. Most importantly, an article was previously created by a bunch of socks (see Talk:The Rocket Record Company collapsed section). They were all blocked and about a month later the Zachtron account was created and their only purpose appears to be to recreate this non-notable, self-promotional article.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)''

I don't know if you can be objective or not because you seem to have had some recent interactions with this editor judging by his history, but it is not right to be accused by this editor on a public AFD page. That is not criticizing my contributions, that is a personal attack. I can't do anything about it because I'm not an administrator like you, but it's simply not right. It is stuff like this that makes honest editors leave Wikipedia all together. I even agreed with consensus deletion of articles (you proposed AfD for Diverse and Ryan Prescott) that I personally contributed because I respect the community's opinion, but I'm pretty much done with this. First PeterWesco and now this I am One of Many individual attacking me (not my work) personally with harmful accusations because he had a problem with the article eons ago which had nothing at all to do with me. I'm over it Administrator, and Rybec or somebody else can work on Rocket Records (which should not be deleted/vandalized) and other similar articles for a while. Anyway, I appreciate your reliable reference tips the other day on my Talk page. Regards. Zachtron (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The comments by IAOOM are, in my opinion, statements of facts about and a timeline of the history of article. There was a previous version of this article that was a sockpuppet fiesta, and you have edited primarily in this area, as most (if not all) of you edits are related to this collection of articles. There is no reason to hide those facts; anyone can see them. Furthermore, in all fairness, I see no statement by IAOOM saying "Zachtron is a sockpuppet" anywhere, so I fail to see how any of this constitutes a personal attack. (However, your retaliatory nomination of several articles is disruptive; I honestly don't know what you were thinking there.) Likewise, a piece of advice: how you choose to respond to every single thing written about this article (be it at the AfD, the COI noticeboard, or here) with a diatribe about how you feel harassed isn't useful. Don't take this the wrong way, but the long diatribe was the calling card of the sockpuppets that were involved with this article a few months ago. Perhaps now you can see why some eyebrows have been raised. -- Kinu  t/c 13:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not an intended diatribe. I was made vaguely aware of some past issues with the article (though sock puppets were never mentioned to me) by Rybec and a few other editors at the time I first worked on the article about Rocket Records for WikiProject Music and its various sub projects. I had originally been contributing to Elton John-related and other music articles when I was made aware of the Rocket Records in America, as well as the one in Finland. I looked at numerous past versions of the article, and tried my best to decipher what was factual/notable/current and what was not. I created (along with productive editing help from Rybec and a few other editors) an article about the American record label Rocket Records, while Elton's old label was moved by consensus over to The Rocket Record Company, its rightful page. I then created some other articles a short time later about some of the company's key figures as well as some indirectly related historical pop music figures from the limited references available. The articles were surely not SPA or promotional, and were fully neutral in tone/facts stated. I was just trying to contribute solid articles for WikiProject Music and its various sub projects. If those articles indeed fail WP:GNG (you nominated some of them for deletion), than I fully respect the community's consensus to delete them. I'm sorry for the mix up/some of my responses, I will heed your helpful advice/words going forward, and I surely do not wish to get into a heated dispute with anybody else again. Best regards.    Zachtron (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrator Kinu (not a diatribe, rather your opinion(s) asked for), I am going to be making an official proposal to the community at-large for WikiProject Music regarding community updated WP:MUSIC guidelines (including WP:GNG and WP:CORP guidelines specifically for music) for the project and its sub projects, which includes the subject of record labels under WikiProject Record Labels. The Wikipedia community at-large recently updated WP:GNG guidelines for the specific music category of producers, composers, and songwriters, yet no WP:MUSIC update (although it was discussed by the community at-large) was followed through upon as it directly relates to record labels. The article for Rocket Records is an interesting test case, because it is an RIAA certified record label in the United States with some highly notable commercial music releases (Howie Dorough, Nick Carter, etc.), yet "online press coverage" for it (as well as for 95% of all record labels, both Majors and Indies) is difficult to come by the majority of the time. The Wikipedia article for Horizon Records (this is just one example of hundreds) has the same issue, being an RIAA certified record label with highly notable commercial music releases, yet limited online press coverage. Obviously WP:GNG and WP:CORP are indeed never inherited, but record labels are a very unique subject matter, and their direct attachment to the notable music industry accomplishments of their key individuals/entities (artists, producers, songwriters, etc.) is an extremely important part of what makes them notable, even though the record labels themselves rarely receive significant coverage, both online or in print media. This even goes for some of the world's largest record labels. For WikiProject Record Labels, a good majority of project members currently feel that RIAA certification (which is THE top standard for record labels) with notable WP:MUSIC accomplishment guidelines similar to the new ones for music producers, composers, and songwriters would indeed be appropriate for record labels as it relates to their inclusion in Wikipedia. Record labels, though "companies", fall much more in line with music artists, producers, songwriters, and composers as opposed to "everyday" companies subject to common WP:CORP guidelines. Would you personally object to the "Stubbing" or "Starter" classification of Rocket Records, Horizon Records, and some other notable (precise WP:GNG record label guidelines TBD) record label articles like them that can be included or deleted dependent upon newly proposed WP:MUSIC guidelines for record labels, as opposed to just fully deleting them right now (which is detrimental to WikiProject Record Labels) before those new guidelines are set? We are trying to complete the project as best as possible for the general community of Wikipedia readers, so that is why I am asking you these specific questions. Zachtron (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR. But yes, I would object to the closing of the deletion discussion of Rocket Records as you suggest. The AfD process is designed to determine whether an article merits inclusion and in this case no convincing case has been made that sources exist; therefore, the article should be deleted. I have no opinion on any matter outside those on which I have already voiced one, but I will say that attempting to convince other editors that record companies should be an "exception" to WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:RS, etc., will be a futile uphill battle. -- Kinu  t/c 17:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Understood. I have asked the WikiProject Music community to help find and contribute sources for Rocket Records as well as the many other record label articles (there are indeed many) that critically need such. 7 days is the minimum length required before an article can be deleted, but AfD's can productively remain open longer with no harm whatsoever. I had zero objections of your deletion of some of the articles that I contributed to for the valid reasons that you stated, but I do kindly request that the AfD for Rocket Records remain open for a reasonable bit past 7 days so that the WikiProject Music team members and I can try to find/include some proper reliable references for the article. Keeping an article which has merit is better than deleting it if reliable references establishing guidelines for the article's continued inclusion can indeed be found, so to that at least you will hopefully not object. Kind regards.    Zachtron (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You and I have very different definitions of "an article which has merit" then. Not to be harsh, but a discussion about an article that has exactly zero reliable sources about the company, essentially violating the verifiability policy, and for which zero reliable sources have been found by multiple editors, does not warrant a relist. I'm fairly certain whichever administrator acts on the discussion (it's not going to be me, since I've !voted and am involved) will most likely see it the same way. If you manage to find a source later, whenever that may be, feel free to request undeletion. Until then, I don't have much else to say on this matter and will let the AfD and my comments therein speak for themselves. -- Kinu  t/c 18:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright. The WikiProject Music team and I will try and find reliable sources in the allotted time, or before/after another administrator makes a decision about the article. In the meantime, I saw your recent edit to/concern about the article, and went ahead and made yet another edit deleting as much biographical information as possible regarding the record label's personnel. I understand your "shoehorning" concern which is certainly not a purposeful intention at all, and I left only the bare bones minimum biographical information taken directly from the article's references under the article's History section in order to make it a tangible read. Regards.    Zachtron (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Gogo Dodo told me that you deleted a page regarding to Playa Fly's album Movin' On. He directed me to simply contact you so the page could be restored. Just trying to keep information on Playa Fly alive on the internet.

Thanks,

Shane SFleming93 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC -4)


 * SFleming93 arrived before I could leave you a courtesy note. He asked me to restore several albums that were deleted per CSD A9 for Playa Fly. Since the artist's article was restored, I restored the album articles that I deleted.  You did the deletion to Movin' On (Playa Fly album), so I . -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and restored the album article. I would suggest updating it with references as soon as possible! -- Kinu  t/c 17:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw your name on the Template:TxDOT talk page. An error has been introduced in the template probably by a change at the TxDOT website that affects FM 500 to FM 999, but not others. An example is the citation here, Farm to Market Road 640. I write lots of articles but I confess that editing the template defeats me. Can you help? Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Old path: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/FM500/FM640.htm
 * New path: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/FM0500/FM0640.htm


 * The problem appears to be resolved. If you fixed it, thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ShuttlesworthStatue.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, I know you are quite familiar with them and they are back. I filed a sock report here: Sockpuppet investigations/Professional Music Blogger. I am One of Many (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch... some people just don't know when to quit, do they? Ha. Thanks for letting me know. -- Kinu  t/c 00:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They sure don't and I don't expect that it will be the last we will see of them! I am One of Many (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

...this was not badly written. It is correct info that belongs on this page and you didn't include it. I demand you either put my input back or put something into the article related. and it had a source...it also was related to pure water....which is what the article was about. Dddash107 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "source" provided was a link to another Wikipedia article. Statements such as "Drinking water, which we usually think of as pure, really contains a whole mess of salts and sugars" and sentences written in the second person do not belong in an encyclopedia article. I stand by my assessment of the content and its relevance. -- Kinu  t/c 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kinu

"HistoryofIran" user vandalism in Lurs and Luristan page. He remove All Historical images and "Lur people of iran" map no valid reason. I ask you to stop doing this "HistoryofIran" user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HistoryofIran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorestan_Province

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurs

Thank youSetenlyacc (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I was considering taking both of them to ANI. The articles they are edit-warring on are a mess. However, I discovered that Setenlyacc ignored my warnings about copyvio and, as I did earlier with HistoryofIran, I have blocked him indefinitely which means he is blocked until we can be sure he understands our copyvio policy and can edit it without breaking it. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Daisy Blue Groff Deletion I was looking to write a page on Daisy Blue Groff, however, when I went to create it, noticed that one had been previously written (twice, once in 2012 and once in 2013), both for self-promotion. I didn't write these two previous articles but am now not allowed to post since the other two have been deleted and recreated. I'm a relatively new user and have a new article (complete with great outside references like CBC and the Edmonton Journal (an Albertan newspaper), so just checking in to see what my options are. So I go through you for the request? Thanks! 02:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Keystonetext (talk)

All of them have been nominated for deletion, including La Salle County, Texas Highways, which you created. Please feel free to participate in the discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 26.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating on your reasoning behind ? --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The hatnote linked to a non-existent article, which serves no purpose. (See WP:NOARTICLE.) -- Kinu  t/c 19:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ethics Unwrapped
Hello I was hoping to understand why the page Ethics Unwrapped was deleted. I know that we referenced materials outside of wikipedia but isn't that normal? Sorry new to this! Any help would be appreciated before I try to create another page! Thank you Soniamelendez (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please revert the deletion of the Project Page Wikipedia Club Excel.

The Club already had a Project page in Tamil Wikipedia and it was from there it was translated to English in English Wikipedia. And this was cited from leading newspapers from India - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw zero citations to any third-party sources. As I stated at the ANI, the only content was a lot of text about the history and structure of a school club and a link to the Tamil Wikipedia (which counts as self-published content). In my opinion, this is not an assertion of importance, and I stand by the speedy deletion under WP:CSD. -- Kinu  t/c 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article had been moved from project space three days earlier, and I think reverting that move would have been better than deleting as an article. I won't just revert your deletion, but I suggest that this should go to WP:MFD as the correct venue for a project-space page. —Kusma (t·c) 11:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied at the ANI thread. Thanks for your note, Kusma. -- Kinu  t/c 20:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know why the article was deleted and it needs to be restored as it is an important event that happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenazm (talk • contribs) 13:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own film. The content of the article was unsourced and was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Kinu  t/c 17:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know why the article was deleted. My article was on a new dental technology that's being used in the field of oral design that many people are researchign and is beign lecutred on around the country! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnaRyan (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was not encyclopedic in tone; it appeared promotional and merited deletion per speedy deletion. Furthermore, much of the content appeared copied from other sources; for example, the biography of the individual mentioned in the article was a direct copy of his biography on his website. Wikipedia cannot accept content copied from other websites; see WP:COPYRIGHT. If the subject of the article is notable, you are welcome to create an article in your own words using reliable sources. -- Kinu  t/c 17:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This user is BLOCKED for being a sockpupper of a panda! JK! Just wanted to give you a heads up I am going to return to a partially active status!

Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 22:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! -- Kinu  t/c 22:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kinu! Thank you for helping me geting the David Strassman page fixed. I am new at the Wiki edits and am learning as I go. When I say "we", I am also including my partner who is just as new at Wiki edits as I am. Can you please explain to me which references are not valid and why. I appreciate your input, it has been helpful! Thank you! Pqmcmahon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pqmcmahon (talk • contribs) 01:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Thanks for uploading File:VIA Metropolitan Transit logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VIA Metropolitan Transit logo.svg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help. Mark Chung (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, please do note that there are other users posting under my header for other issues. I hope it doesn't get overlooked.
 * I've closed that section, seeing as how the crux of the matter has been dealt with and the discussion appears to be veering off-topic. Glad I could help. -- Kinu  t/c 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VIA Metropolitan Transit logo.svg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Kinu. Would you please tell me where or who I can find a third party to fix my page? The "Neutral Third party" was a stranger hired on Odesk to fix the issues you have outlined. This "third party", has no motive but to do the job correctly and satisfy Wiki Guidelines, not mine. How is that a "conflict of interest"? This is getting tiresome and I'm sure you have better things to do... Again... I ask you, Kinu, I plead with you, my overlord, overseer of my Wiki page... Who can fix my page if I'm not allowed to contact someone to do so? Will your weiner dog help? Your advice is greatly appreciated. 13:32, March 23, 2014 (AET) Cchuckwood (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kinu. It's been some time and you haven't responded. Can you please help me resolve my citations? I want a better Wikipedia just as you do. Please help? Thanks, 10:52, May 14, 2014 (PST) Cchuckwood
 * Please post the reliable sources that would substantiate the content of the article. -- Kinu  t/c 05:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, could you take a look at this, please; does it constitute a G11? Thanks,  It Is Me Here  t /  c  14:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get a chance to look at this sooner, but I agree with the deletion as G11. The tone was definitely promotional and, when combined with the username of the creator, it was likely intended to be spam. Thanks for the note. -- Kinu  t/c 19:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for looking into it!  It Is Me Here  t /  c  19:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I created an article (ok, not much more than a stub) this morning using the correct spelling of the business name, as opposed to the stylized version. I based some of the text on the vesion from the French Wikipedia.

After creating the article, I then searched through Wikipedia for instances of the spelling in order to update "what links here". I surprisingly found that an article had been deleted 3 previous times based on the stylized spelling - and you're one of the deleters!

I have reviewed the 2009 AFD, and agree with the deletion at that time. However, I feel even the "stub-like" thing I created this morning beats the original AFD delete, and any A7's since.

I have decided NOT to login to my admin account to review the contents of the previously-deleted articles (yet). I will do so later to see if there's anything salvageable ... which of course will require some form of selective histmerge...unless of course, you (in your infinite wisdom) care to review those deleted versions first :-)

Note: I'm leaving this same message on all 3 admins who deleted the article in the past the panda ɛˢˡ”  13:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

FYI

There is an ongoing campaign at that talk page. Admin David Eppstein is being targeted for whatever. It has been going on for some time.

I wrote there, asking why they use the talk page as a poster. This was, of course, promptly reverted. There are a number of ip-addresses ripe for blocking. Perhaps best if someone else than david does this. Just a thought. YohanN7 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The nonsense appears related to some previous shenanigans on the talk page. I've reverted to what is essentially the last good version and semi-protected. Thanks for the note. -- Kinu  t/c 20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you, for paying attention to this. (I agree that I shouldn't be the one to block any of them at this point.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please look at Carl Hewitt. User Untalker is a long term sockpuppet of Hewitt. According to his user page Untalker is topic banned from articles on Hewitt. 10.68.16.7 (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kinu. I have just seen this edit. The decline was, of course, inevitable, but I thought I would just mention that in such cases I usually deliberately say only vague things such as "how many ways you give yourself away", rather than mentioning specific examples (unless the examples have already been discussed, or there seems a real need to mention them), to avoid helping the sockpuppeteer to know what mistakes to avoid with their future sockpuppets. It seems almost incredible that he/she didn't realise that this was such a total give away that no unblock request would ever stand any chance of success, but since apparently he/she didn't, I wouldn't have pointed it out to him/her. Of course, this is not a criticism of you for doing so, but I just thought it might be worth mentioning why I hadn't mentioned it myself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes... good call. And you're right, I do tend to be similarly vague in such situations, for precisely the reason you cite. I figure I opted to post the diffs just in case there is scrutiny of the decline (say, by another admin) in the future, but I suppose that likely wouldn't have happened here anyway, since the sockpuppetry is grossly obvious to anyone and it would take only one minute to go through the history of it all. Oh well... I'd like to think this won't come back to bite us in the ass; if this person is really that dense, he's apt to screw up anyway if they make the choice to sockpuppet again. -- Kinu  t/c 21:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, "just in case there is scrutiny ... (say, by another admin) in the future" is exactly why I often do, in fact, give much longer explanations to blocked editors about blocks than I think they need. It's obviously a question of making a decision in each case about where the balance of advantage lies, and you and I made different judgements about that. Very occasionally, in cases where I can foresee a reasonable likelihood of my decision being questioned, and where the reasons involve complicated searching through history, I make a note offline of the reasons, so I can easily provide them to another admin if necessary, but it is only very rarely that I think it worth bothering to do that, and certainly the present case is too glaringly obvious to need anything of the sort. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sir, thanks for your message on my talk page, I am request you to float the pages on Wikipedia for at least a month or as you think fit because it is becoming a topic of great discussion in India. or you may guide/ suggest me the required changes and deletion of pages discourage the person who creates pages on Wikipedia and this is not advertisement in any manner. Changes or giving time for a short period will encourage the author. Profound Thanks Kinu Rajsector3 (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did do what I think fit by nominating them for deletion. As written, the articles have little to no context, are extremely poorly sourced (indeed, a majority of each article is simply providing links to other somewhat tangentially-related articles and sites), and appear to contravene our policy on original research as they are essentially essays. If you can figure out how to clean up the articles to where they are more appropriate and encyclopedic articles, then by all means do so... however, as written, I do not believe they are appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Kinu  t/c 16:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kineu,

I am trying to post a Spinal cord injury and a non-profit organization and people who are dealing with it. But you blocked the post as well as the user name 'user:spinalindia' and blocked the ip address as well. can you pls unblock all of them plss... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmarycmc (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How were you able to create this account if your IP is blocked? Why not just use this one? -- Kinu  t/c 16:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that you proposed this article for deletion. I rather feel that this was premature, and have therefore removed the relevant template. I agree wholeheartedly with you that as it stands the article has weaknesses of both sourcing and (possibly) soapboxing, but the subject itself - the increasing misuse of marriage and other laws against married men in India - has been widely reported in the international press (I'm in England, and even we have heard about it, despite the immense parochiality of our press!), and merits coverage in Wikipedia. There is certainly a risk that the article will focus too much on current events, but I think this can be better handled by disposing of inappropriate edits as they arise, rather than getting rid of the whole article. In any case, I'll try to do a little article clean-up over the next few days.

By the way, I notice that the editor who created this article also created Reasons of increase in divorces in India, which you have also tagged for deletion. I agree with you that it should go: the topic can be covered in Demographics of India. RomanSpa (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

May I know why it is put on Speedy deletion Nomination. It is about a charity. If this has been deleted, what happens to these foundations 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charitable_foundations'. What difference it makes from these foundations. May I know the reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmarycmc (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded below. -- Kinu  t/c 20:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi Kinu,

I have mailed you twice but you didn't reply. I have found many foundation in Wikipedia I have also mailed you those links. I badly want to create a article about this foundation as ppl must be knowing about this.

So I am recreating the article. Pls don't delete it anymore. If you have any problem. Pls let me know before deleting. It is not a brand or anything. It is like any other foundation in Wikipedia. It helps the spinal cord injured ppl so I want to post an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmarycmc (talk • contribs) 08:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The content was blatantly promotional; the fact that other articles about organizations exist does not mean this article was suitable. Furthermore, it was clearly a copyright violation, as the content was essentially lifted from the organization's website. You are welcome to create a sourced article in your own words that clearly demonstrates the notability of this organization. -- Kinu  t/c 20:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kinu, I saw you had (in my opinion, rightly) semi'd ANI. I think you might have made an error though: the protection log now says that the (previously indefinite) move protection will expire tomorrow, while the semi protection is indefinite. If that was in error you might want to change it. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That should fix it. Thanks for letting me know. -- Kinu  t/c 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi you are invited to vote for the image to be used on the LG G2 infobox page at Talk:LG G2. Thanks! GadgetsGuy (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have had no input or interest in this matter to date. Posting this identical message to dozens of users' talk pages might also be considered disruptive. -- Kinu  t/c 20:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to inform you that your edit to the template, while fixing problems on the iOS now causes issues on Internet Explorer. I had previously tried that edit and got it reverted by PensRule11385. I was looking for a solution when I came across the other template and thought that the new one was therefore unneeded. Since there is currently no good way to render the brackets useful with the template under discussion, I plan to switch the template on the ECAC tournament pages. Please let me know if doing so would be considered a bad idea. Hydra88 (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all a bad idea, and definitely what I encouraged someone to do at the discussion, so thank you for taking the initiative! It certainly shows that the generic template is good enough and that this one can go. I'll add to my recommendation there accordingly. Thanks again. -- Kinu  t/c 19:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with replacing the bracket with something that works better in all formats, but as it is currently situated (edited by Kinu) it isn't formatted correctly for either Internet Explorer or Firefox (different problems with both). I cobbled it together from various other brackets so I don't know what the issue is but if anyone could solve the problem (either fixing this bracket or replacing it with another) I would appreciate it. PensRule11385 (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. You blocked some time ago for evading an indef block set on his original account,. It looks like the user is back again as. So far edits are OK, but they're still block-evading. It's definitely them, since they posted the same "post no messages" notice on their user and talk pages. They've waited this long, so I'm wondering if they're taking advantage of a defacto WP:OFFER, though. I left a similar message with, who blocked Wickedangry originally. Let me know if you need additional information. -- McDoob AU93  16:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've been a little busy lately (sorry about that), but I'm glad to see this was taken care of. Thanks for letting me know. -- Kinu  t/c 05:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. They tried again with but it too has already been taken care of.  -- McDoob  AU93  19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

From the linked policy: ''Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.''

Thank you, – xeno talk 18:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -- Kinu  t/c 19:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly one CIR too far. Incredible that he'd go there, after all the trouble snatching him from the jaws of indef the first time. I wonder if he doesn't know what "only" means, or doesn't know how long "a year" is? Also, I've just noticed there was an earlier one, Amita Pathak, created 12 July. Anyway, thanks for taking care of it, good block. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC).
 * I hadn't noticed that other article, but yes... I fail to understand what the motivation was for creating these articles outside of the process to which he agreed. (I've added some tags to the other extremely terrible article.) I figured that an indefinitely block might beget an explanation, but who knows. Thanks for the nod of support. -- Kinu  t/c 22:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've had a discussion with the person whose username was "PathOfExile"; a careful examination of the edit history shows that this is not a troll. Rather, this is is a sincere user who had become quite upset after what he/she perceived as a completely baseless username block (plus a page being protected in the 'wrong version'). Overreactions can be quite annoying.

I've unblocked the user, on the condition that the username be changed -- and, of course, that there be no misbehavior. DS (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , I strongly disagree with the unblock. You do understand that after being blocked for his user name, his behavior on his talk page was beyond the pale, not just the usual anger from what a user perceives as an unjust block, either. Worse, when he lost access to his talk page, he simply created a sock account, User:I really need that username. Why? Because, in his arrogance, it was the only way to change the article to reflect "the truth". Whether his version is "correct" or not has to do with a content dispute, and the "opponent" in that dispute had a colorable argument regardless of who you think is "right". Yet, this user whom you've unblocked labeled the other user's edits vandalism over and over and refused to accept that they were not vandalism. The blocking here had to do with misconduct and a user name, and it was well deserved. I personally wouldn't use the word "troll" to describe his misconduct, but that doesn't change the fact that he deserved to be blocked, and when he requested an unblock of the sock account, it was clear that he had learned nothing from the incident. Before you unblock editors, it's customary to check with the blocking administrator first, not simply let one of the administrators (I was the blocking admin) know what you've done after the fact. And if the admin disagrees, I think you need a consensus to unblock the user after discussion. You should act unilaterally only in obvious and egregious cases, and this was not one of them. I'm sorry to be harsh here, but this is not the first time in the last several months I've seen admins unblock without consultation. We're supposed to work together here. We don't, of course, have to agree, but we are not islands.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded there. -- Kinu  t/c 01:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking. He's now back as an IP:. Hairhorn (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for letting me know. I saw he's posted on your talk page; I'll let you revert that yourself if you so desire. -- Kinu  t/c 18:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hairhorn (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Is it not a bit harsh to block this editor indefinitely. He's only been on WP less than 4 weeks. Seems a bit unfair. scope_creep talk 15:25  14 August  2014 (UTC)
 * Considering the incompetence, likely sockpuppetry, and now the absolute bullshit he is posting via block evasion (such as death threats), I think it's pretty fair. -- Kinu  t/c 15:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)