User talk:Kinu/Archive 14

Hello, um...that message on my talk page. I responded there, and I usually don't speak to anybody on their talk pages if they left a message on my talk page but this is urgent, and besides, this is where you told me to talk. Anyway, it's a screenshot. Screenshots have been used on wikipedia. So what's the problem? --IBCPirates (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello! The reason I flagged the image is because it is a copyrighted screenshot, which can only be used if it meets one of the criteria for non-free content. Yes, copyrighted images (such as logos and screenshots) can be used in articles, but only in certain cases, none of which appear to be met in this case. In particular, it appears to violate criterion #8, in that such content should be included "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In other words, the rationale you included says it's there to show "what the character looks like," but there's no clear reason why the image adds to the understanding of what the character looks like; there's nothing in the text describing the character's appearance—and, quite frankly, the character looks pretty much how Penelope Cruz normally looks anyway. We have to be careful with how we use and present copyrighted information, and this policy is the core of that decision. You'll note that there are no other images of characters included in that article; this is the reason why. I hope this information helps. -- Kinu  t/c 19:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, but there are some pages like, Jack Sparrow. There is a picture of him, which is most likely a screenshot. If I was to create a whole new article about Angelica, because she is one of the main characters in On Stranger Tides could I use it there? And I'm still not understanding the logo part. There isn't a logo on the screenshot. I took it while I was watching it by putting the DVD in my computer, not on YouTube or the official website. --IBCPirates (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article Jack Sparrow contains a section on "make-up and costumes," where the creation of the character's wardrobe, etc., is discussed, and the image contains a rationale explaining why it is allowed under fair use. The image also appears to be a publicity still, not a screenshot. If you can create a sourced article about the Angelica character and can provide a similar explanation for why such an image is necessary for the reader's understanding of what the character looks like (similar to the case in the Jack Sparrow article), then it would possibly meet the fair use criteria above. (Also, I mentioned logos as another example of fair use images; screenshots of films/TV shows are not the only images covered by these criteria.) -- Kinu  t/c 18:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's encyclopedic, then why is it still there? It doesn't make sense, because its...well, absurd. --IBCPirates 18:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're referring to or what you mean by this. -- Kinu  t/c 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Kinu Could I make an Angelica webpage? Sorry, but I didn't really understand what you're saying. Could you put it in a little simpler vision? --IBCPirates 18:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBCPirates (talk • contribs)
 * You may create an article about the Angelica character if you can find reliable sources that discuss the character in depth. Your own observations from watching the movie would not be acceptable article content, but information in reputable movie reviews, etc., would be reasonable. -- Kinu  t/c 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir_Trail. I thought Wikipedia wasn't a travel guide. And there is nothing about back country camping on any asseteague island links on Wikipedia, and you are claiming my information can be found on other wiki pages, you are a piece of work.....what's your problem, why can't I give other users this awesome information about what to expect at this awesome park. All u do is hide behind your generic copy and paste protocols, you give no real suggestions. And the way I see it people are making wiki pages about everything and for some reason you are picking on me? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L!0NRAWR (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. -- Kinu  t/c 04:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, because everything that I wrote wasn't original research. Xcept for my comment about having to walk past people who drive in. the rest is verifiable from the state park sources I just hadn't had a chance to link anything, as I have no idea how to use this site, and that I just got home from a 5 day walkabout on the island. All I could think about was how I could share this information with others. There are no photos of little levels online and I wanted to inform people.......and the reason. I copied the definition is because your Wikipedia protocol states "not an encyclopedia article" perhaps you should change that to "not a Wikipedia article" since Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, apparently. Honestly this is F-ing ridiculous and I'm at a loss for words
 * Good Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by L!0NRAWR (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then I don't think there's anything more to discuss here. Good day to you as well. -- Kinu  t/c 18:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You blocked this IP in June for disruptive editing, and I've just now blocked it for a week for the same thing. Could you look quickly through contributions and then offer an opinion regarding whether it's the same person or not? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd guess they are, actually... the interest in May 22 that led up to both blocks suggests that the IP is static. -- Kinu  t/c 21:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, saw your comment on AIV regarding. IPv6 IPs are possible to rangeblock. It's a little complicated to explain so I hope I can. Users who are not using mobile ISPs will usually have anywhere from a /48 or smaller ranges. Mobile ISPs can be as large as /29 from what I've seen. Blocking a range is a bit different. For example, to block a /48 range, just type in AAAA:BBBB:CCCC::/48. Another example is blocking a /64 range which would be something like AAAA:BBBB:CCCC:DDDD::/64. So like 2601:6:6F00:538:10AA:EE25:452C:BFBC would be 2601:6:6F00:538::/64 and a /64 address is usually allocated to one customer. Here's also a helpful site to determine what IP addresses are blocked for each range. Elockid  ( Talk ) 01:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting... I do need to explore this further. Thanks for the pointers! -- Kinu  t/c 18:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kinu,

I saw that you've proposed speedy deletion of a few Movie articles that this user created. He just created another one (here), and I'm having trouble remembering the correct category to file a CSD proposal of this type of article under. None of the guidelines on the Criteria for speedy deletion page (that I can see, at least) explicitly define a section to file for pages lacking the importance or significance of a film or movie. Which category is considered the proper one for this type of article? Thanks in advance :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   11:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm fairly certain the movie doesn't actually exist (the user has taken to creating articles that discuss himself, inserting himself into other articles, etc.), so I've deleted once again per WP:CSD as a blatant hoax. I had warned the user so I've blocked; perhaps that will allow for an explanation. -- Kinu  t/c 16:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! Glad I could help!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

seeing as you like banning people can u ban the user pawak who ahs both threatened and patronized me for no reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk • contribs)
 * Responded on your talk page. -- Kinu  t/c 23:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't make any further contributions to Wikipedia ever again so you have got your own way. That includes the numerous financial ones that have been made by myself over the years, and the reason for that is because of your ongoing threats and bullying. I hope you feel pleased with yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk • contribs)
 * Whatever. -- Kinu  t/c 23:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Kinu, yes I saw your comment on their talk page and also noted it was ignored. Good advice, best thing is to ignore them. Thanks very much my friend. Pawac (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kinu. I just wanted to let you know that I had to change one of your blocks here due to there being a huge number of unrelated registered users on it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kinu. It's me, User:IBCPirates. Somebody sabotaged my ENTIRE account and changed my password. I didn't provide an email address, so, what am I going to do??????? --CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there... I'm sorry to hear that's happened. Unfortunately, if an account is compromised, then it has to be blocked (which I see another administrator did) and it can't be unblocked. That will, at least, prevent whoever stole your password from using it. I don't know what advice to give you other than to use your new account moving forward; it might be a good idea to use a stronger/more secure password and to provide an e-mail address just in case you have to reset the password in the future. I hope this helps... -- Kinu  t/c 16:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I could use your feeback, please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded there. -- Kinu  t/c 08:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:ROPE... oh well. Thanks for blocking. -- Kinu  t/c 09:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Plus talk revoked. Whether it was unflagging account creation or accepting the unblock request, the result would have been the same. She was told loud and clear about posting private info and opinions about men and did it anyway. Oh, well. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Kinu. Recently you've semi-protected Microsoft Surface-series articles from the notorious Zipmagic spammer sockpuppeter. At the 13th of the September protection has expired. No wonder he's back to Wikipedia to promote his crapware.

Protection you did really worked. Please extend it at least to 3 months more.
 * Ridiculous. I've semiprotected all three of those articles for 3 months. I've added the new URL for the product to the spam blacklist as well. Thanks for letting me know! -- Kinu  t/c 20:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kinu! TranslucentCloud (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, a group of specialists have been working to update the Ultrapure water article and I've been helping them with solving some of the issues within the article. I've cleaned up the section headers and helped them add in more inline citations. However, those issues still exist. Would you be able to help clarify some of the comments and let us know how we can remedy the problems that still exist? Also, with regards to the comment about "excessive amount of intricate detail," how can this issue be solved? The authors feel like their contributions add good information to the topic, even if parts of the article are fairly detailed. Thank you for your help! Ks3212 (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as you blocked this user previously, they have returned with the same edit warring as previously. 86.189.5.13 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than changing Jahraldo-Martin and telling tales like some little school child why don't you spend your time finding the source which proves your point. I have supplied the official Hull City page, what have you supplied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm semi-protecting this article to put a stop to this edit warring. (This is not an endorsement of the current version or of any previous version of the article, since I have zero interest in the topic.) Everyone involved needs to take this to the talk page or to the relevant WikiProject. I will not block anyone right now, but consider all parties warned that continued edit warring and incivility will not be tolerated. -- Kinu  t/c 15:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, You deleted my Indie Game Company Wikipedia page and game page Phantasy Quest, as well as my listing on the List_of_indie_game_developers. I created those pages because I am a legitimate Indie Game Studio in Boise, Idaho. I wanted to provide information about the company and the game information as do a lot of other Indie Game Developers and before I got a chance to get to work and start developing the page more it gets deleted. I am not a spammer, or someone who is advertising with Wikipedia. I am just trying to provide information about my company and the games we create. Can you please revert these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monydragon (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's generally considered a bad idea to write about yourself or your company. The articles you submitted also had no content, let alone any claim of importance. Do you have any reliable sources that show why your company and its games are notable?

Do you think that the accounts you're blocking right now could be related? I filed Sockpuppet investigations/Anonbae earlier. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, good idea... I was about to suggest the same myself, since it's highly likely that there's more than just meatpuppetry going on. Checkuser might be more efficient at sorting it all out. Thanks for letting me know! -- Kinu  t/c 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You left "Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Please do not create unnecessary talk pages that only link to the associated article. Kinu t/c 09:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)" in my talk page. Which page exactly are you talking about? -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This was referring to pages such as Talk:Dallas Hodgins, which you created with the text "Return to page Dallas Hodgins", and several similar contributions. Talk pages already link to their article via the toolbar at the top of each page, so creating these with no other content is unnecessary. If you were to create an appropriate talk page, such as with actual discussion about the article, WikiProject banners, etc., then that is fine. -- Kinu  t/c 22:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you have prodded Vagif Ibrahimov Rza oglu. By now, that articles has one rather useless "reference". But more important is the existence of Vagif Ibrahimov, created after your prod-nomination. How to deal with this? The Banner talk 22:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded at the AfD for the new article. Thanks for letting me know! -- Kinu  t/c 22:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, saw your recent block of user BigFuzzyKitten. Found similar content about "TheMysteriousMrEnter" at this user's sandbox and in this diff from an IPv6 editor. I haven't researched the users, so I don't know for sure if it's all pernicious, but my guess is that it might be. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

hello sir why did you remove 'Rajesh Kaji Shrestha' in the article shrestha ? the information is quite right.Jojolpa (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The individual you keep adding does not appear to be notable and is therefore not an appropriate addition to this list. -- Kinu  t/c 15:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I see you have blocked the "Tring Digital" page from creation. Can you unblock it? The page now exists like "Tring-Albania", but I want to be able to place a redirect, or create the "Tring Digital" page and then place the redirect on "Tring-Albania". Junuz Mustafa (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded in second thread below. -- Kinu  t/c 18:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kinu. I tried to send you an email, but I got a message saying delivery had failed. If I correctly understand the error message, it's because your email service declined the message because it said it came from my email service, but really came from the Wikipedia servers. (If that is the correct understanding, then it is going to wreak havoc with Wikipedia's email system.) Cutting the message down to a minimum, missing out much of what was in the email, I have received an email from an editor whose unblock request you declined, as it looked like a compromised account. I promised the editor confidentiality, but I think the explanation he gave is probably true. You didn't need to know that, but I just thought that you might be interested. I am not unblocking though, and won't unless we receive good reason to believe the same kind of problem won't happen again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's odd... I'm not certain why it declined it. I actually did receive an e-mail from that user earlier that was essentially a copy of the e-mail they had sent to you. I haven't responded to it (and most likely won't), but I'm inclined to agree with you and, per the comment you posted at their talk page, what has been done is probably the best that can be done until such an assurance is made. Thanks for letting me know. -- Kinu  t/c 17:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, I was curious about this edit. What other accounts do you suspect are related to this user? I didn't find anything at SPI. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the contributions by the editors in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hayatgm. The significant overlap in the deleted contributions and some of the other editing idiosyncrasies (which I won't go into detail about here per WP:BEANS) make it obvious. -- Kinu  t/c 19:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Good enough for me. Thanks! I noticed that you salted some of the articles he created--did these other accounts try to re-create them today? I didn't happen to notice anything in my watchlist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They did... and the reason you probably missed them is because they're using the old "slight variations of the title" trick (Gurzain, Gurzain (Book), Gurzain (Poetry)...). There's an AfD that I G5ed because it was the same content, just under a different title. I feel like I found all the recreations, but if you happen to run across one in the future, feel free to let me know and I can block/delete/salt. -- Kinu  t/c 20:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, I am curious why you reverted my edits on tired light page. You claim it's fringe. Tired light is a fringe theory itself so why not delete the whole page? My point is that there are different tired light theories. The theory I am referring to overcomes falsifying claims based on the Tolman surface brightness test. Therefore the claim that the Tolman surface brightness test rules out tired light theory is misleading. It does rule out specific tired light theory but not the tired light theory I mention. The reason is that old tired light theories are incomplete, and a complete tired light theory (the one I am referring to) overcomes falsifying claims based on the stretching of supernovae light curves, the luminosity distance versus redshift relationship of supernovae, and the Tolman surface brightness test. Therefore, this tired light theory has it place in this page--2A02:120B:C3FA:9030:85A5:A918:A0E4:9CF8 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC).User:tiredlight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:C3FA:9030:85A5:A918:A0E4:9CF8 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC) --2A02:120B:C3FA:9030:85A5:A918:A0E4:9CF8 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the suggestion in my edit summary, I have started a discussion at the article's talk page. -- Kinu  t/c 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time I write You. Can You please remove the block from creation of the "Tring Digital" page?

Thank You!

Junuz Mustafa (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am hesitant to do so at this time, as the article looks similar to the content that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tring Digital. As such, I have tagged it accordingly. -- Kinu  t/c 18:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I just read WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF, and accordingly I find your message to Davey mentioning me in that context (while deliberately trying to hide it from me) as extremely upsetting. I have nothing personal against Davey (despite what he claims), I am certainly not trying to make him afraid or upset or otherwise miserable. If he tries to claim I am, I will vigorously defend myself against such lies. If anyone has been treated unfairly, it has been me by him - he reported me for being a VANDAL for crying out loud! I assume you know exactly how wrong that was (I sadly only properly realised that after the event). AGF says "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." Well, I have quite a lot of clear evidence now that Davey's lack of care in the subject area of buses/bus transport can only really be explained by him having a motive that is harmful to Wikipedia (to degrade the overall quantity and quality of its content on the subject). How else can you explain the phenomena of someone who claims to be a bus enthusiast and know a lot about buses, not having any clue how or why a list of trolleybus routes would be encyclopedic? Entire books have been written on just that subject! This is just one example. I have many more. If he had never claimed to know a lot about this subject, then yes, I could have assumed that this was just a case of amateurish but entirely innocent intent. But not any more. He clearly has a very specific idea about what Wikipedia should and should not contain on this subject, and it is quite clearly not explicitly supported by any of the rules. So, he is pushing the envelope far beyond the limits, and in some cases there's only one word to describe the things he says - pure lies. I'm sorry he's upset by the fact that I have the subject knowledge to be able to spot when he's not being truthful about certain things he says on this subject, and I'm sorry that he's upset that when he says something here breaks some rule or other, I actually take the time to check if that's true or not. But do not for a second confuse that with someone who is genuinely upset by someone stalking them or questioning their motives for no good reason. I could even go so far to say these might even be crocodile tears, since he doesn't appear to have been this sensitive over other issues where people are disagreeing with him - indeed he seems quite capable of telling people in no uncertain terms what he thinks of them. This is no shrinking violet, that's for sure. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to say here. Have a good day. -- Kinu  t/c 20:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I gather that this is standard procedure on Wikipedia in situations where replying would require the other person to admit they were wrong, or have otherwise not fully thought out their position. It seems to be the Wikipedia version of taking the 5th, albeit deployed in even more cynical ways. I was going to follow up with a specific example of how a few days ago Davey made a massively bad faith assumption about me, but I guess there's no point now. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Logic: if you keep saying you're right, and everyone else disagrees with you, perhaps it's not everyone else who is wrong. See you at WP:ANI. -- Kinu  t/c 20:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Kinu. Recently the term of semi-protection of Surface-series articles, which you set up this fall, is expired and Zipmagic vandal is here again resuming his activities. Please prolong the protection for an half an year more. TranslucentCloud (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! I've semi-protected the pages for 6 months each and blocked/tagged the IPsock. -- Kinu  t/c 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks a lot. TranslucentCloud (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion folks, but this is a legitimate product that accomplishes something very useful and has been covered by neutral third parties multiple times:

http://www.zdnet.com/pictures/six-clicks-my-favorite-windows-storage-utilities/3/

http://tabtimes.com/zipmagic-compression-doubles-storage-windows-8-tablets-15141/

Do you understand the connection between the Surface Pro line of devices and what this tool does and why it is inappropriate to label it crapware? Please post directly here and I will be glad to clarify until the basic ideas have been transferred over to your crania :D

Happy New 2015! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.68.196.159 (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kinu - I'm writing you because the flag that still exists on the said article was originally tagged by you. Let me say that first of all, based on my username, there's obviously no hiding the fact that it's my page (Gregor Collins), however I didn't create it and I haven't been the only one contributing to it, and if I have, I've added facts backed up by sources, written in a neutral manner. I'm not pulling any wool over anyone's eyes, nor have any interest in creating a "false" article. I just think a few things are due to be communicated: Since September 2013, the date of the flag, reliable sources and additional, validated wiki links (including the recently approved article Goodbye Promise, of which I was a well-documented large part, as well as the memoir The Accidental Caregiver, about Maria Altmann, very well documented as a bestselling book on Amazon, and a story that will be performed on stage in New York at the end of this month). All this has been provided since the date of the flag over a year ago. In regards to links: I understand many YouTube links and blogs - this type of thing - aren't worthy sources (and IMDB, to an extent, however at least this provides an "FYI cross-reference" amidst, ideally, more credible sources), and I'd be happy to remove any of them you find dubious, however if you'll notice there exists "top-shelf links" like the LA Times article about Goodbye Promise, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article about the memoir , as well as more "medium shelf" - yet credible - sources like Blip TV , Film Threat , Arizona Sports and Lifestyle Magazine , Filmmaking Stuff , and Cinema Editor Magazine. These are not blogs or "wordpress" sites, they are legitimate, well-sourced publications. Please also note that this YouTube link shouldn't be lumped into just any old video anyone can throw up, it's from a reputable online show (Media Mayhem, TheLip.TV) hosted by writer, lawyer and journalist Allison Hope Weiner (sister of Matthew Weiner, about Maria Altmann, The Accidental Caregiver, and its pending production). Please also note that Gregor Collins has been linked to many other approved Wikipedia articles (including Fred Roos, Maria Altmann, Woman in Gold, and Adele Bloch-Bauer I, and these are all regarding his book The Accidental Caregiver, which should, itself, be a worthy candidate for an article in the next few weeks). If for some reason what I'm writing you today still lacks credibility, or is still flag-worthy, I'd love to know more specifically what you need in order to have it flag-less. I do have a great deal of respect for the fact that you are all volunteers. Thanks for your time, and happy new year. Gregorcollins (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will review this and respond on the article's talk page when I get the chance. Thanks for your note. -- Kinu  t/c 06:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all you didn't reply to my message that I spent a lot of time crafting, and I feel I wrote it with a certain level of respect. And what I get in return is no replies to specific points I set forth in it. In fact it appears now there's been some joy in adding yet ANOTHER flag. I'm at a loss of how to proceed now so you may as well just delete the Gregor Collins article entirely, it now, unfairly, has more flags than content, looks ridiculous, and with all those flags on there does not benefit anyone seeking any "truth." I don't think it's fair to put that "source is close" flag on, there are millions of articles that are edited by "sources close to the subject," yet they don't have flags. It even says in your rules that just because a source close to it is editing it - as long as the words are neutral - it's not necessarily flag worthy. How come for one year no one thought to put up that flag and suddenly - with the passage of time and even more legit sources/links added to the article - you decide it deserves that flag? Anyway, you clearly have the power to write anything you want at any time on any article for any reason. Please do the world a favor and go ahead and delete the whole article entirely. Seriously. It's not doing anyone - you, me, users, wikipedia - any good having all those flags. I think we can agree on that. Gregorcollins (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it frustrating that you seem to acknowledge that we are all volunteers in your last message to me, yet "I will review this and respond on the article's talk page when I get the chance" was not a sufficient response until such a time that I am online for more than a few minutes at a time. I have only done a cursory review of the information you provided me, as well as the article itself and, as indicated, I will do so when I get the chance and raise any concerns on the talk page. In the meantime, as a show of good faith, I have removed the COI template from the article and placed a similar template on the talk page; this is not intended to be a "badge of shame" but simply an acknowledgement of the potential conflict of interest, so that other editors may review the article for neutrality. I'm sorry that you're frustrated, but at the same time you have to recognize that writing and/or editing one's biography does raise eyebrows around here. Also, while I am physically capable of deleting the article, I will not do so because that's not how things work around here; such an action would require community consensus. -- Kinu  t/c 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify something you mentioned in your first message: the term "approved article" only applies, per se, to articles created through the articles for creation process; clearly, not all articles go through that process and the existence of an article does not necessarily mean it belongs in the encyclopedia. Likewise, linking to or being linked from another article is not an indicator of any sort of approval or a justification for existence. (I'm not saying either of those is the case here, but simply wished to clarify how article creation works around here.) -- Kinu  t/c 17:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kinu, thanks for the speedy delete at Talk:Tarzan III: Tale of Two Jungles. Prior to your delete, I opened an ANI request here requesting not only a delete but a salt on both the Article and the Talk pages. Would appreciate your response to that if you have a few moments. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I must have missed the salting part, but it looks like User:The Blade of the Northern Lights beat me to it. Thanks for letting me know! -- Kinu  t/c 17:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I will create an account and block you because you protected all the Microsoft related articles! Please unprotect!!! 216.145.89.170 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A threat (however useless it might be) isn't a good way to get what you want. Translation: no. -- Kinu  t/c 16:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just curious why you chose to block this IP despite their only disruptive activity pertaining to a page that is now deleted. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 18:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd... I could've sworn that the article still existed (and the AfD was open) when I ran across this, but I must be mistaken. Feel free to unblock and revert the talk page notice (I'm stepping out for a bit) and cite this response if needed. Thanks for the double-check. -- Kinu  t/c 19:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've unblocked the IP. Perhaps you also didn't notice that I had already responded to the report at AIV, stating that the page was deleted? &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 19:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please give me so advice. I wanted to add the website links to the names of the pubs that are the destination for the teams vying for the Haxey Hood. One contributor deleted the links because he deemed them advertising. I disagree. The information page for the event also shows phone numbers (http://www.wheewall.com/hood/index.php) for the pubs, and complete addresses. What is appropriate for this Haxey Hood page?24.11.170.191 (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have nothing to add in this matter, I will defer to the discussion on the article's talk page. -- Kinu  t/c 08:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Kino,

I am politely requesting that you review the Samir Becic article at AFC and bring it live. You correctly deleted in 2012. However, literally 50 different new sources are avialable on him from LAT, WashT, and german pubs.

I get it. Some people are legit and not legit. Some people are "Too Early." But this warrants a review. I'm a fellow Ivy Leaguer-- no I didn't go to Yale-- but you're not working with an idiot here. I'm a lot more like you than the rest of the general public. Thanks for handling.2601:E:280:1C00:4D5E:4F3A:560A:36D9 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samir_Becic#Samir_Becic_.28subject_of_a_delete_in_2012._Has_literally_50_sources_independent_of_him_in_major_US_and_German_newspapers_and_fitness_trade_journals.29

I'm concerned over this one - it looks a lot like a GF editor converting an old site to a new site. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern was the addition of the links to other articles that didn't already have the old link, combined with the apparent use of multiple accounts (which was also doing the same thing, not just updating). Given the existing discussion at both talk pages, perhaps the user can explain what was going on... -- Kinu  t/c 08:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A few issues (1) A credible claim of significance was made, that is, that the subject lead Korean-American reform movements in several major cities. (2) The article had not been recreated in nearly a year and a half, and the past two renditions were about different subjects that had the same name. So it is unclear if salting the page was appropriate.To be fair I think this would have gotten deleted either way, so perhaps a little IAR is sensible in that regard. Sorry I'm back here confronting you again... I mean not to quarrel. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 17:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article also says that the subject is a junior in high school taking four AP classes and is in the school's band and choir. Based on that, it's probably a vanity page of some sort, and I fail to see how the "credible" part of the assertion is met without anything to show how he has "empower[ed] the region of Mountlake Terrace and lift[ed] the world to new heights". As for salting, there's never been anything of value there, so why continue to encourage it? If there's a notable Jun Park, it can go through AfC, but so far we've encountered three that aren't and this is nothing more than a junk article target. -- Kinu  t/c 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely a vanity page, and I suppose that should lessen any sense of credibility of other claims made in the article. I was just more curious about your take, which seems logical. Thanks for clarifying :) &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 18:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! :) -- Kinu  t/c 18:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did you do this? New England Cop (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A better question would be to ask why a user with a total of 98 edits felt it desirable to add fuel to a closed gamergate-related discussion at WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's obvious: the discussion is closed. Don't edit it. -- Kinu  t/c 06:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Refractoring an editor's comments is often grounds for sanction. This is a formal warning. New England Cop (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of "the discussion is closed" do you not comprehend? -- Kinu  t/c 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Will you similarly revert []? New England Cop (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I learned on Reddit that an article about Nicholas Edward Alahverdian that you protected (these redditors are apparently so paranoid they are saying that you are him) are planning to spam and bombard it with false edits tomorrow which, it was reported, is when your protecting the page will end. Thought you would like to know. Proof: http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/2vamxv/wikipedia_deleted_letter_to_a_ces_director/ EricJ1074 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I certainly have no vested interest in the content of the article, but I'll certainly keep an eye on it to make sure the appropriate policy is not violated in any subsequent edits, and I'll recommend protecting it for a longer period (or do so myself) if needed. -- Kinu  t/c 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Would it make sense to remove these references and notes from the talk page since users 104.156.100.205, VillageD, and COGDEN have a history of contributing questionable edits to articles about Mormons or the Mormon Church? I'll leave that up to you. Thanks again. EricJ1074 (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * EricJ, what you consider to be questionable, I consider to be good. In fact, a large majority of my edits and suggestions have made their way into the articles.  The community itself thinks I'm making good edits.  As for focusing on LDS issues, I do.  It's a subject I know about.  For the record:  I never posted any of the information about your "legal matters" that others did.  I'm not sure why you keep lumping me in with others.  I guess you see a conspiracy behind every action....  Villaged (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As you can see, the vandalism is starting already from the same anonymous user. EricJ1074 (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's been handled. Thanks for your assistance and diligence. EricJ1074 (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kinu! I noticed the instructions you posted to User talk:Fozzzyyy. After you did, Fozzzyyy followed the instructions, but reverted it, because apparently copy/pasting in that manner without providing attribution is a copyright violation. Maybe you could change the standard message you use so that the user seeking unblock properly attributes the page they copy if they follow the instructions? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken a second look and given what they posted I've unblocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You gave a scolding to the creator of this gem last week. I don't think he heard you. –Fredddie™ 03:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've issued one more warning; I hope that'll be sufficient. -- Kinu  t/c 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kinu for your edit in my talk page. I think they all are one user. You know, its not difficult to change your IP in India. Just shut down the power and turn it on to have a new IP. - T H (here I am) 08:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. It certainly looks like they attempted to do just that, so I decided to rangeblock. I haven't seen any activity since then, so I'm hoping that did the trick. Definitely let me know if you have any other problems. -- Kinu  t/c 08:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, nothing till now. But the rangeblock may affect me, right? Mine is almost similar to theirs now. 117.244.58.187 now. - T H (here I am) 08:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an anon-only block, so any logged-in users (such as you) shouldn't have a problem. (Assuming I did things correctly, of course...) -- Kinu  t/c 08:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's hope. Else I'll have to go to ip-block exept userright.. - T H (here I am) 08:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)