User talk:KoshVorlon/Archive 2

Organised crime, unreferenced
I put up the tag on the page for organised crime, and allthough organised crime does not want to be written about, every article in Wikipedia needs sourcing, in complience with the verifiability policy. If you haven't already, it's a good read, and it shows how articles in Wikipedia should be sourced, and also what information should be included. Throughout your editing in the future, realise that this is a core policy of Wikipedia, and all aritcles should adhere to it. Especialy the first line there is something to remember! Martijn Hoekstra 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It would be appreciated if you would not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Mexico City Airport People Mover. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see where this article is a stub? It's redacted with capital letters and seems to be a joke. Please excuse me if it is not, but afd templates mustn't be removed as you did. Martial BACQUET 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) As you wish. But for me, this article meet criteria for speedy deletion. Maybe it could reach a good article but it won't if it's written in capital letters. I'm not a native speaker of English no more but I don't write in capital letters. So do what you wanna do with this article, I'm just going to remove capital letters into to. Martial BACQUET 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

C H A P T E R 3 "Dude, check you signature ".

signature
Please don't take this as a criticism or a slight, but I would recommend you remove the line breaks from your signature. It's generally considered undesirable per WP:SIG. Thanks, and happy wiki'ing. - Che Neuvara 18:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

C H A P T E R 4 " Deletion blues ".

Deletion problems
Hi KoshVorlon!

You've recently tried to nominate for deletion two articles, List of Jewish American musicians and Samnaun. There were problems with both nominations that I've cleared up, but at the price of closing the one discussion I could find.

Specifically, the problems were that the List one was malformed on the page and on the discussion so I couldn't tell exactly what you were trying to do, whilst the Samnaun one didn't appear to have a discussion at all that I could find.

The Articles for Deletion process can be a bit tricky, so you may want to follow the step-by-step guide at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. I recommend keeping a tab or a window open with it in as you nominate an article. Completion of all steps is required or User:DumbBOT, a robot that polices Wikipedia deletions, will notice and request assistance (that's how come I'm here).

There's a long and detailed guide to Wikipedia deletion at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion that may help give you pointers on what we do and don't delete. It's quite a read, but worth doing if deletion is something you see yourself being involved in.

You're welcome to restart the AfDs for either article (following the How-To guide), although I'd also suggest you check Wikipedia:Lists for advice on Wikipedia listmaking; and the criteria for speedy deletion for the geography article.

I hope this helps. Happy editing! ➔ REDVEЯS was here 08:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

C H A P T E R 5 " The name game" or calling a Spade a Spade.

Calling people names
Re: this: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Punkmorten 07:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

C H A P T E R 6 The List of Liszt or Wikipedia is NOT a list

Liszt Compositions
There's no way this is going to get deleted. You might like to withdraw this AfD before it starts snowing. Nick mallory 12:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350)... Your complete missuse of WP:NOT#DIR seems to indicate you are either attempting WP:POINT or, as you are completely ignoring all the editors demonstrating to you how incorrect you are [1][2] (read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT very carefully), you are simply trolling. This "chapter" lay-out of you talk pages lends evidence to the latter. --Oakshade 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your post on my talk page, please become familiar with the following statement from WP:NOT#DIR:

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List.

And this isn't at all a list of "loosely associated topics", but multiple compositions very specifically associated with the list topic of a famous composer. If you're a trained classical pianist as you say are, you would know that. As stated in the AfD, if you'd like to change WP:NOT#DIR to eliminate all lists, you have to make your case at the WP:NOT talk page, not on specific articles as you are only wasting time of editors (notice that you're the only one in this AfD who wants to delete this article?) as you efforts are looking more like an example of WP:POINT or trolling. --Oakshade 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC) C H A P T E R 7 The point is? or Friendly note from Martijn

Really, what's the point
Hiya, Kosh. You seem to be having a lot of fun in Wikipedia recently, but your main aim seems to be disrupting and confusing. Maybe it's a good idea to step back for a moment, and think about your motives for editing wikipedia for a while. You might be able to mildly disrupt a lot of people and pages, but the project will probably go on, and nobody will take much notice. Could you explain why you edit Wikipedia, and what your aims are? I'm sure there are more productive ways to accomplish that than the path you have taken now. (And do give this a nice chapter. I do like your chaptes.) Martijn Hoekstra 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

C H A P T E R 8 Oh Shennandoah, I long to see you...

North River (South Fork Shenandoah River)
If you truly feel this river is non-notble, send it to AfD as your added notability tag has been repeatedly removed. I am well aware of the notability guidelines. Perhaps you are unaware that WP:NOTE provides for common sense exceptions, like for towns or geographical features. WP:OUTCOMES are examples of those. As WP:NOTABILITY states, "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. " You're failing to understand this. --Oakshade 18:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, an perhaps you didn't notice, the EPA is a reference in the article. --Oakshade 18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Fall out boy, you will be blocked from editing. Excirial 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like that article was just plain nonsense. The origional longer article was just one big attack, and the edit that almost cleared the page was of the same caliber. Guess we just ended up ping-pong reverting the two vandalism articles. I marked it for deletion nowm should be removed shortly :) --Excirial 18:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Geber_(crater)
Which guideline does it fail to meet? Its a lunar crater, not a pop star, company, etc. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, please read WP:N to see how notability is defined. Cheers, WilyD 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I have noticed that you have replaced the template again, and I went hunting for your rational. I found it digging through your contribs on User talk:WilyD. If that is what you think, I suggest that you nominate the page for deletion, and let folks figure it out there, rather then revert warring. 3RR is an upper limit on disruption, please lets talk it out. Thanks. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Holes in the ground can get right notable, eh? If you need an appeal to common sense, I'll tell you pretty plainly it's almost impossible for find four reliable sources for something that isn't notable. WilyD 20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I'm not the author, I think its notable, its astromical data, that is not found anywhere else and is a useful collection of data. In addition the subject of the moon is a rather important one, though there are of course other astrological items. My suggestion is again, to stop adding the tag, and instead simply nominate it for deletion and come to a final result to the article. In addition I should note that if you want the author to respond, I would suggest you leave a note to him, rather then rudely templating the article that he put his time and work into. There are humans behind these account names. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KoshVorlon"

June 2011
I recognize that you feel strongly about cyberbullying and inappropriate use of Wikipedia to further a political campaign. Please stop creating redundant deletion processes. The article is being kept and it is not good for you to be the one who constantly proposes deletion. If deletion is the right result, somebody else will notice and make a proposal. Continuing your campaign further will start to look like WP:POINT. Please don't go there. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 18:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A few of your mates have been leaving me nasty messages. Kosh, please understand that this Santorum thing is a horrible mess, and that we need to be fair to all sides.  If you will stop antagonizing people with repeated deletion nominations, it will be much easier for me to remove the disruptive editors from the venue, those who are making a mess of the article and stonewalling against editorial progress.  Thank you.


 * Any talk page lurkers who want to slag me, please do it here. I'm very good about using the watchlist to follow up on conversations.  Do try to be constructive. Jehochman Talk 01:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
I'd like to recommend you follow the guidelines at WP:ES (especially those at WP:REVTALK) when reverting vandalism. Pointy edits may be considered disruptive by some editors, and using edit summaries that don't accurately describe what you are doing makes extra work for the rest of us (who had to check exactly what you did). If I hadn't known your history regarding the santorum stuff, I would have blocked you as a possibly compromised account. Syrthiss (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As those edit summaries were intended to disrupt the encyclopedia in order to make a point, I have revdeled them. In addition, as I last time you disrupted a page, I have blocked you for a week. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  18:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing regarding the "santorum" article, most recently placing edit summaries regarding it on unrelated articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of declining this as well, with: I don't see that Sarek's actions in this case extend beyond normal administrative intervention. Issuing an appropriate warning does not constitute involvement. Your actions were clearly disruptive, and I'd have blocked you after this edit myself. Future unblock request should focus on your actions. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Enquirer may not be reliable in your eyes, but there should be a citation to indicate why it is not reliable. The Huffington Post has reported the story; Slate is mentioning the story; and People magazine is citing an unidentified source who has corroborated that "Chris Hansen and Kristyn and have been hooking up for months."

The Enquirer's credibility has been strengthened as it broke the story of John Edwards and his love child and the infidelities of Tiger Woods.

I would like to mention a denial by Mr Hansen, but I am unable to find one. It is ironic for someone who sets stings was stung and is unwilling to issue an immediate denial. His stung parties face a camera, so should he. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaHealuh (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude, you need to stop blaming others when you've done wrong. Your actions are independant of theirs. Jehochman Talk 03:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag► directorate ─╢ 16:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * A very well deserved one at that, congratulations! 94.4.123.182 (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag again
I see he was demanding my last IP be blocked, and that I was described as an "IP hopper". Hopefully the fact that my IP has switched despite the last one not being blocked is enough to convince them that I am not doing it purposefully. Anyway, I don't want anyone to think that we're socks :P, but could you ask him to explain why exactly he was demanding other admins block me? It's not really fitting behaviour for an established editor to go around "baying for blood" (as the quote goes...). If you'd rather not post the message for me I'll ask that Egg Centric chap to post it as well. 94.2.240.29 (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I will not be asking this question for the IP. Feel free to if you want to enter that rabbit hole again... Egg Centric 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Link to what I am referring to here: . 94.2.240.29 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please think harder
You can't possibly be seen as a neutral closer. If that isn't obvious to you, then you may not have the judgement necessary to close any discussion here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dating Guy
Per the discussion on talk:The Dating Guy, which you clearly failed to read, I encourage you to revert your vandalism. You are behaving inappropriately in failing to pay attention to consensus and agreemen and encouraging the WP:CANVAS behavior of a badly behaved editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.109.127.141 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Wiki background.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wiki background.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Licensing
That's it. The original tag (Copyleft) has remained on that image. I guess your bot got confused by the hidden comment. I'll write myself a note not to use that in the images area. Thanks! @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member) -@ 16:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What you've got there is not a copyright tag, it's a mass of wikicode that does not create a human-readable license, much less a bot-readable one: "all rights reverted", for example, is a nonsense statement, and copyleft is a philosophy, not a license. I recommend you use one of the standard license tags, such as no rights reserved or Cc-zero.


 * Incidentally, the bot did not stop because of anything you did. Rather, it only monitors newly uploaded images for a certain amount of time. --Carnildo (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:W. B. Yeats
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:W. B. Yeats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello Kosh. I had to drop you a note saying how much I admire your pointing out to Dweller that he did not fail in his attempt to mentor TT. It is also a wonderful coincidence that I am rewatching B5 at this very moment and, thus, I enjoy your username and signature immensely. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 07:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Running up that Hill
I saw you reverted the edit sourced to Twitter, which I had done before you, but I have to ask, did you not see the previous argument on the Talk page? If not, please go back and read. I nearly got blocked and the administrator restored the Twitter-sourced edit in the end. It was a drama. But I agree with you completely. I just hope it doesn't start all over again!--TEHodson 22:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Outing removed"
I'm afraid that this edit is kind of silly, since User:Cazedessus not only uses the same last name as Camille Cazedessus, Jr., but states on his user page that he won the 1966 Hugo award for his Edgar Rice Burroughs fanzine. That's not ambiguous. There is only one person who won the 1966 Hugo award for ERB-dom. --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I undid this. If Cazedessus linked to his RL identity explicitly, then OUTING is not an issue. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No summary revert
Hello. I noted this edit as an un-summaried revert of a perfectly good edit. Would you be kind enough to explain your rationale please? After all, I was making the article comply with WP:DASH, WP:HEAD and more. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. Perhaps you could add an edit summary in future so I could see that was what you had intended to do.  (Although looking at the edit history I can see nothing that would have required your reversion...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Characters of Persona 4
Please don't make huge reverts in Characters of Persona 4 just for a nickname. You removed a large number of references and reverted the trim of a large number of details.Tintor2 (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I had supposed it was a mistake, but you made a mention about a nickname.Tintor2 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

TinTin++
Yup, that's me. --Scandum (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops
Thanks for spotting my massive fail here... I stand trouted, sigh. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon/JFF
KoshVorlon, I'm sorry, but I didn't think this template was very helpful, even if many might deem it funny. For vandalism, I always think that a warning should be enough. I noticed that you only used it in May and November of last year, and I hope you won't reintroduce it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Retribution
Tag team vandalism on that article, it seems, so my rollback appeared to introduce further vandalism that you caught. I had to go back a day to a version without such shenanigans. If you don't mind, I'll remove your vandalism warning from my talk page, as being a false-positive? Rails (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you for removing anonymous alteration to my user-page
No way to figure out why this person makes peculiar additions there: has previously done so and been corrected by another also operating in Wikipedia registration. Odd behaviour given that observations supposedly by me are false and I am on the other side of the world. Ah well. Masalai (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lost Nigger Gold Mine
What do you mean "all references point back to the wiki", and why does a man who was 14 in 1887 fall under our Biographies of Living Persons policy? Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

MOTDs (This space for rent)
You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated!  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 14:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Sorry, whats rong???Peter in s (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

POV edit warring
Come on, Kosh, you know better than and. Leave it, ok? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.19 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Old spice yet again
See this. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Cla68
Please do not modify other people's user pages, as you did at User:Cla68. The exceptions for situations when this are appropriate (see WP:USER for more info) are fairly narrow and should be obvious to most editors; the fact that many people at ANI find the message to be acceptable clearly indicates that the community does not think this is an obvious case. As such, the more general principle allowing user's broad discretion over their own userpage applies, until such time as there is a consensus otherwise. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia talk:User pages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nobody Ent 17:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to close the RfC again. Just let the discussion run its course, please.  ‑Scottywong | chatter _  18:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's just the thing, ScottyWong,, WP:SOAP is the current consensus, and already answers this question. The RFC was not needed, and in fact, is the wrong place for this. They needed to be on WP:NOT looking to change WP:SOAP, as this is what they'd need to do. It already ran it's course and was closed. (not at this point, of course). YOu follow ? ‑KoshVorlon | Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 18:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with you. But, this is not a reason to stifle discussion.  Please just add a vote along with your rationale, like everyone else.  ‑Scottywong | squeal _  19:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with you, but your attempts to close the discussion are clearly disruptive. Just stop. You're not helping at all. --Onorem♠Dil 20:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Spelling...
On your user page, you might want to change

Burecrat's Noticeboard

to

Bureaucrats' noticeboard

The Spell-Checker Song: Owed to a Spell Czech Her

I have a spelling checker.

It came with my pea sea.

It plane lee marks four my Rhea view,

Miss steaks aye Ken knot see.

Iran this Poe Em threw it.

Your sure lee glad two no.

It is core wrecked in every weigh,

My chequer tolled me sew.

A Czech her is a bless sing.

It freeze yew lodes of thyme.

It helps me right stiles ewe can reed,

And aides me when aye rime.

Each frays come posed up on my screen,

Is trussed two bee a Joule.

The check Ur pours o'er every word,

To Czech sum spelling rule.

Bee fore a veiling cheque curs,

hour spelling mite decline.

If wee R. lacks oar have a laps,

We wood bee maid two wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling,

Is checked with such grate flare,

There are know faults with in my cite,

Of nun eye am a wear.

Now spelling does knot phase me,

It does knot bring a tier.

My pay purrs awl due glad den,

With words sew fare too here.

To rite with care is quite a feet,

Of witch won should bee proud;

and wee mussed dew the best wee can,

Sew flaws R knot aloud.

Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays.

Such soft wear four pea seize.

And why eye brake in 2 averse

With righting sure too please.

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My revert
Hey KoshVorlon! I just thought I'd let you know that I did revert your edits to Requests for adminship/Avicennasis with this edit. The arbcom decision only topic banned him from a namespace beginning with Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/, not from Wikipedia:requests for adminship/. The arbcom decision did allow for Malleus to be banned from an RfA but that takes the action of an administrator. There is a discussion going on at ANI if you care to take part. Ryan Vesey Review me!  17:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This was explained in the decision and numerous times at RfAs.
 * Maybe you should consider asking for guidance on a talk page, if in you again feel tempted to disrupt an RfA, by sharing your misunderstandings.
 * RfA is very stressful for the candidate, btw.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, the indenting of your comment suggests that you were sending that message to me. Do you believe I did something wrong?  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I intended it for this user.
 * Such indenting makes it easier for me to read discussions.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't ever do anything like this again. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You are never to tell another user to "fuck off" again. Period. Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a remark, it seems like it has been decided that telling a user to "fuck off" is not a personal attack. In addition, Malleus already remarked about this in the section directly above.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  21:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful coups d'état. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Secret account 20:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Re AFD
Never revert an AFD that was closed by an administrator because you don't agree with the closure. If you disagree with the closure take it to the admin talk page or WP:DRV per proper guidelines, do not revert again. Secret account 20:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on AFD
Stop edit warring over the closure of that section at the AfD. I will block you both if necessary. Worm TT ≡talk≡ 13:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kosh. I've done a bit of digging and I'm a little bit more in touch with the situation now. Thank you for refraining from hatting things. I thought I might try explaining things to you directly, in the hopes that it might help and that you are welcome to ask me any questions.
 * Firstly, the hat template has a very specific use, and that's for uninvolved editors to close discussions and discourage further editing. The documentation specifically says "It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." It really mustn't be used by editors who are involved with any particular debate. On top of that, it shouldn't be replaced if editors object (especially uninvolved ones). The two cases postdlf highlighted at AfDs, I agree, you shouldn't be closing at all.
 * Secondly, we have the "ad hominem" attacks. Now, I can see why you might see them as an attack, but I'm afraid that I don't. I see the comments as tactless, and possibly excessive, but not attacks.
 * Finally, we have the whole discussion about WP:NOTDIR and what it means in relation to WP:LISTs. Wikipedia has a lot of lists, because it's not just an encyclopedia, it also has properties of gazetteers and almanacs. This is perfectly reasonable and we are so happy with lists that we even have a set of featured list criteria. A good rule of thumb is that if the list topics are notable, and they are linked by tangible selection criteria, we can have a list. Have a look at Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists for more. NOTDIR is more to stop lists of non-notable subjects, like "List of builders in North Yorkshire".
 * Does that make sense? I'll drop a note on the AN/I too, but if there's anything you'd like to discuss, feel free to message me. Worm TT ≡talk≡ 13:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Please see the above ANI report regarding you. postdlf (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Indentation on talk pages
Hi. Could you try to get your indentation right in talk pages: it makes them hard to follow when the indents are wrong. In general, you need to put the right number of colons at the start of each paragraph of your comment, or use < P> to start a new paragraph. Thanks. Dricherby (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"damn" on my talk page
Wikipedia is not censored. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
regarding the warning. The Determinator p  t  c  14:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Popular
Looks like were are both popular HERE for THIS. I have to say that I don't really like sharing the spotlight, but I will let you take all the credit for this one. :) --Morning277 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate accusations of vandalism, and destructive edits labelled "copyedit"
I don't know what you're up to, but in this edit which you labelled "copyedit", you undid several corrections which User:Mogism had made, and then accused him/her of vandalism, and similarly for Level 42. I think you owe them an apology, and you need to take more care with your edits and accusations. Pam D  15:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC) ''Reply on my talk page, copied here for clarity: Pam, Actually, Mogism removed several lines of text under the premise of "Copyedit". (I'm running Lupin's antivandal tool and any changes made are highlighted immediately (Yes, it still means I have to read them ). ) He broke at least one sentance by this removal. I didn't call his edits vandalism, I reverted as "copyedit". I left him two non-templated mesesages explaining that he was  removing text and that he needs to slow down. No big. (As a matter of fact, I happen to know he's running fast,  the two messages I left him were very close together, he responded  first to one, that about 5 mins later, he responded to the other. So, no, no applogy is needed, nor did I accuse him of vandalism, just moving too quickly with the AWB. "....We are all Kosh...."</b><b style="color:#000">  <-Babylon-5-></b> 15:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads up, this is what I'm talking about. His "copyedits" are producing this kind of a result  (he's removed about three lines of text under the edit summary "typo fixing".   (I didn't communicate with him about this at all....I wanted you to see what I'm seeing, because I get  you see differently )

File:06122012_wiki.jpg'' ''


 * Please look again: in this edit, which has a clear edit summary of "(Typo fixing and cleanup, typos fixed: to to → to using AWB)", Mogism:


 * 1) changed "to to" to "to"
 * 2) removed a couple of trailing blank spaces
 * 3) changed "August 7th" to "August 7"
 * 4) removed a space before
 * 5) did not remove any lines of text.
 * Total mismatch with your description. Your link to an image makes no sense to me. (I'll watch this page, so let's keep conversation here).  Pam  D  15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but check the image, you'll see what I see. (Left click on it, and check the highlighted section ). −  <b style="color:#000">"....We are all Kosh...."</b><b style="color:#000">  <-Babylon-5-></b> 15:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the standard Wikipedia diffs. If they don't show vandalism, I don't believe there has been vandalism, even if some fancy gadget appears to show it. I'll copy here the message which Mogism just left on my talk page, as I think it's intended for you:


 * Copying message from User talk:PamD:


 * This is the edit you're linking to in your screen-capture above, and is the only edit I've ever made to Monarch Airlines. In its entirety, it:
 * Removed some trailing whitespace;
 * Corrected the (incorrect) "Kb/s" to the (correct) "kbit/s" (the typo fix referenced in the edit summary);
 * Fixed a broken URL;
 * Put the interwiki links in the correct order.
 * The error is with the tool you're using, if it's showing me as having deleted any text from the article. I would very strongly advise you actually to check what you're reverting, before you issue spurious warnings. Mogism (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * end of copied message
 * Yeah, I was just about to post the same thing. Kosh, either you are using or interpreting the automated tool incorrectly, or there is a bug in that tool that you should report. In any event, you should stop using it until you figure this out. And as this is not the first time you've mistakenly accused someone of vandalism in recent memory, you should know by now to actually look at the article history carefully before continuing with your accusations once they've been questioned. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And you should apologise to Mogism and anyone else you have falsely accused of vandalism. Promptly and sincerely. Pam  D  15:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I also see that you left a level 1 vandalism warning at 3:53 and followed it with a level 4 warning at 3:54. That's not right - editors are entitled to a series of warnings and time to react to them. Please take a lot more care about vandalism warnings, even where they are justified. Pam  D  16:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the image you linked: it's for this edit. No text removed. You need to sort out your gadget, as it is producing false information. Pam  D  16:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I use this tool (and it's not my own, by the way) a lot, and if there was a bug with it, why aren't there more instances of me falsely reporting vandalism? Truth is, there isn't.   I tagged Mogism the first time with the test message template the first time,  however, the next edit removed text out of a paragraph that rendered it unreadable -- I tagged him again with a slightly stronger template to get the message across. I supplied you with a screenshot and your reply indicated you didn't even look at it.

You need to look at all available evidence and then make your conclusion. I showed you what I saw, if you not interested in looking at it, ok, I can't make you look at it. All evidence points to no bug in the tool (it's Lupin's by the way ) and that he made at least two edits that pulled text out where it was not needed, with an edit summary that didn't even come close to what he purported to do.

I don't know if you're his mentor or not, and just for the record, I'm not interested in turning this into an "I'm right - you're wrong match ". I, again, stand by my posts on his page and believe no appology is needed. <b style="color:#000">"....We are all Kosh...."</b><b style="color:#000"> <-Babylon-5-></b> 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't look at the screen shot at first as I couldn't see what it had to do with the edit I was discussing, which was the edit to Let It Shine (film). I did look at it later, as described above, and pointed out to you that the diff for the edit disagreed with what the screenshot showed. Pam  D  16:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Kosh, this is the edit depicted in your screenshot. We all looked at the screenshot and saw what your circled. But that text clearly wasn't removed by this edit. There is no way that your screenshot from an automated tool is more accurate than the actual article history. Do you get it now? You are wrong, and objectively so, because this does not lie. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to exercise a litte more care
You recently left a warning on No More Mr Nice Guy's talk page, falsely alleging that he has violated a 1RR restriction. That RR restriction clearly says 'Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR'. You should probably remove or otherwise modify your warning. They think it&#39;s all over (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't mot warn him correctly. Please read the text of the h1RR restriction on the talk page, which says, as I quoted to you - 'Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR'. NMMNG reverted an IP, and his reverts are thus exempt. Furthermore, that IP has already violated 3RR, and has been reverted by at least 3 other editors, beside NMMNG. Do exercise more care. They think it&#39;s all over (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not getting it. Yes, NMMNG reverted twice. That's not the issue. The 1RR restriction  exempts reverts of edits made by IPs - which is what NMMNG did. I've quoted the text of the 1RR restriction to you twice already. here goes a third time, pay attention to the part in bold: 'Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR'. They think it&#39;s all over (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Strange
Hi, Kosh. I'm afraid I'm not following: Wikipedia itself is free use. Clearly, I could not copy from the website RecalledComics.com. But it's perfectly permissible to use Wikipedia and in fact it's sensible in that it keeps same-topic content consistent.

I could see nowhere on the copyright-policy page anything about not using the same wording in two Wikipedia articles. I'm not entirely sure that you're correct. But might be wrong. If you could point me in the right direction, I'd be happy to investigate further before going back to Doctor Strange. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I took it not from Jackson Guice but from the entry at the Wikipedia article Recalled comics. So, again, I'm not sure it's impermissible. And if so, which of the three articles can claim it? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kosh. I'm glad it all worked out and that we had a chance to talk it through. Thank you for going the extra mile and double-checking! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't do that again
It's an ArbCom page. The clerks will remove anything they feel is inappropriate. You are not a clerk. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Also, you misused the hat template, and so you should review the prohibitions against its misuse. <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 18:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

KoshVorlon's misuse of the hat template has been a recurring problem. His history of improperly removing others' talk page comments also goes way back, and complaints about it can be found throughout his talk page archives. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've unhatted again, as the notice at the top of the page makes it clear that only arbs/clerks should be doing that sort of thing. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so we are all on the same page, KoshVorlon don't do it again. It's disruptive. If you do, I'll block you for a week. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia User 72.14.77.206
I see that you had given this guy User_talk:72.14.77.206 a "last warning" a while back to stop vandalizing pages. Well, they are back to their old tricks again recently. I don't think I've seen a constructive edit from this IP address at all in recent months. I'll leave it to you as to what to do next. Thanx. Guy1890 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Whack!
 — PinkAmpers  <font color="FF1493">&#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  06:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem....trout are tasty!!! Nomnom  :) <font style="color:blue;background:white"> KoshVorlon .<font style="color:white;background:blue;"> We are all Kosh ... 21:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)