User talk:Kurykh/Archive 8

Anthony Chidiac
I bet your Mom and Dad are proud of you Kurykh. You come across as a very likeable person that is - well, a lot older than finishing high school! I asked really nicely and got chidiac and his PR adding video and audio sources on YouTube for citation - but now told YouTube is an unreliable source - the content is the subject matter - how else can I gain article credibility for addition into mainspace? What would you want to see before you are convinced? My fingers are burning for trying more things on here but for the amount of voluntary work you do here, and finding the experience most tiring instead of fun. I just want a "specific" thing you want to see to convince you of the guys notability, that way I can concentrate on other things I know of and would want to write about.--T3Smile 15:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

University Triangle
By the way, is there anything in wiki about "University Triangles" - I note of two places - North Carolina (where BOSE Audio research is) and here in Bundoora Australia (the Global HQ of VDO - the guys who make speedmeters and instruments for most of the worlds cars), that have such development areas within a geographic "triangle" of notable universities - is there an article in that?--T3Smile 15:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

From Johnny542
Hey man you telling me that Connell that sent that friendly welcome was doing bad stuff. Wait I still don't understand why you blocked him? If you get this message, write back. Johnny542 21:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh so he was vandilasing huh. So he is going to be bloacked forever. Damn, oh well. Johnny542 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, Kurykh, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy  UCP 04:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Steven Cann
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steven Cann. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kingjamie 16:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see the logic for the overturn of the deletion of this article. The situation is the same, he still hasn't played a single professional game for a professional club, merely that he is attached to one, which was the case while the (unanimously delete) AfD ran. To close a deletion review after a couple of hours when the case for notability was still not proven seems a little premature to me. - fchd 05:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cholga and IL2BA
Well, yeah it looks like. Chris! my talk 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Autism Initiatives. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for fixing Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. :) --Yamla 23:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Walking like an Egyptian
Since you deleted this article on July 31, could you please finish cleaning up the loose ends left by the deletion? I was curious to read the AFD for the article Walking like an Egyptian, which was formerly listed in Unusual articles. (I was not familiar with the article.) The link to the deletion log points only to Articles for deletion, not to the AFD for this article -- can you please add it to the log as Articles for deletion/Walking like an Egyptian (2nd nomination)? Now that I have read the article, I see that Walk Like an Egyptian has some links to it. Rather than simply deleting those links, can the information about the sand dance be added to Walk Like an Egyptian? --orlady 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Expired Prods
I disagree, under WP:PROD: "This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion." Someone has to make the determination whether the use is for uncontroversial deletion or not; when it's not obvious, letting the community decide is proper. It seems how other admins handle the close calls. I wouldn't mind changing the policy so that after X days, maybe with notice to all the authors, it remains unchallenged, that its deletion is mandated, but that's not the current policy. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment was that I am to delete expired prods - I assume you meant without discretion or thought. Sometimes, an article is tagged with a prod that would be a controversial deletion - not every article is sufficiently active that its watchers look at it every 5 days. If there is no discretion or thought, they why have a policy with the limitation (only, emphasis on the policy page, for "uncontroversial deletion candidates") on prod usage? Who makes the determination that the "deletion candidate" is "uncontroversial"? Certainly the prod-er in the first instance, but do we entirely rely on that determination? It makes no sense that the process is mindless to the admin; if it were (a) it could be assigned to a bot - much easier; and (b) why reiterate the admonition at the head of each day's expiring prod cat: "Only uncontroversial articles may be deleted using proposed deletion. Do not re-list an article if someone has removed the prod template; instead, list it on WP:AFD and seek a consensus to delete it." So, evidently, some discretion or thought must be required of the admin upon looking at the expired prod. Given that, then taking them to Afd in cases where a prod has expired on a page where the deletion would be controversial seems better than to just delete them robotically. Carlossuarez46 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you are a fellow Californian; I'm from LA area but in my last year (I hope) of school up north. Yes, I agree some of those are dogs, and I hate "for the sake of process" but I (and others) have been dinged by people who think that notability and verifiability are things that can happen later, let's just keep the articles and they will organically improve, so in an abundance of caution, we go afd. The hidden advantage of course, is that many of these have been or will be re-created and speedy G4 becomes available. Carlossuarez46 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course if you have an opinion to either keep or delete them, please comment on their Afd's. Carlossuarez46 01:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD
Following your recent participation in Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review: List of hotels in Singapore
I note your recent conclusion at Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Singapore, whereby you cited "Singapore-centrism" as the primary reason for deletion. I do not feel this is a professional rationale for deletion even if this was true. (I didnt see anyone arguing to keep the article because it is about Singapore, do you?) The primary assertions for deletion has been that this dublicates what a category does, but I think it has long been said that this argument will not hold unless the list is a clean dublication of a category with no added value. This list classified hotels by geographic area, and there was also an attempt to group them by market. Others have pointed out that categories cannot show this information clearly, but you didnt address this when closing the deletion. Please reconsider your decision, or in the very least state clearly your actual deletion rationale.--Huaiwei 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He he... Ironically I was coming here to congratulate you on what I believe was a sound call and to warn you that I expected you to get a pretty good amount of flack about it. Apparently, this has already begun! Note that the AfD was mentioned on the SGpedians noticeboard at Wikipedia_talk:SGpedians%27_notice_board. Notification of the project is of course ok, but the tone of the discussion turned a routine AfD into a question of protecting Singapore from Singapore haters which of course is not what the AfD was about. Notification of this request for undeletion has also just been made on the same page. Pascal.Tesson 02:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I arent sure how you could actually deduce that the discussion is something about "protecting Singapore from Singapore haters", which to me is pretty naive and amusing. My message states matter-of-factly that I am launching a deletion review of this article (I dont do that very often, thank you), and that I dispute the rationale given for deletion based on a quotation. If you wish to infer hidden messages from it, than I suppose you arent any better than the folks you are talking down to. Anyway, this is a talkpage of Kurykh. You are most welcome to continue this discussion elsewhere.--Huaiwei 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Huaiwei, you can do without dictating the terms of discussion on my talk page. It is considered rude to do so. — Kurykh  03:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I was referring to this edit of yours which pretty unambiguously claims that the AfD is the work of a bad-faith anti-Singapore editor. Pascal.Tesson 03:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt response. If we were to look at the deletion rationale:
 * User:Pascal.Tesson: Wikipedia is not a directory and such listings without context are useless. It has been argued that the list provides more information than a mere alphabetical list of hotels, and cannot simply be called a directory when it lacks "directory information" anyway,
 * User:Russavia: as per nomination AFD is not a vote.
 * User:JForget: WP is not travel guide or a directory, so a list of the more notable ones can be put in the main article since it is not a large area of land Fails to address the counter argument that it is not a directory, nor a travel guide (where's the addresses, for example?) Also did not specify which article to "upmerge" to.
 * User:Keb25: Wikipedia is not a travel directory Third comment which fails to address the counter arguments.
 * User:Calton: This is what categories are for. WP isn't a travel guide: want a list of hotels in a city? Go use the Yellow Pages A more lenghty comment which basically says the exact same thing as the nominator. Again, it fails to address the counter arguments, and as pointed out, categories should not be used as a criterion for list deletions where they are not carbon copies of each other.
 * In summary, the deletion rationale has only one point: that it is a directory/travel guide. None of the voters addressed just how this list should be one despite this deduction being contested. How should this one point outweigh the numerous counter arguments raised later? I would love to hear how you came to this conclusion. Thanks!--Huaiwei 03:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah I am glad to hear that. Will still hope you may share something about your deletion rationale thou. Much appreciated, thanks!--Huaiwei 03:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And Pascal.Tesson's comment has also been addressed by Kappa subsequently. If the article in its current state of affairs is considered worthy for deletion, I am considering creating a new list which addresses those pointers. Would seek your advise on how this new list may avoid problems raised earlier, since the definition of a "directory" seems shaky at best especially when it becomes a deletion rationale.--Huaiwei 03:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what "userfy" is, but if it helps to allow me to refer to the older list, I would certainly appreciate that.--Huaiwei 03:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent idea. How about moving it to User:Huaiwei/Cold Storage/List of hotels in Singapore for the time being while I work on a new article. Many thanks for this!--Huaiwei 03:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wooo that's fast. Thanks once again!--Huaiwei 03:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

improper deletion
Excerpt from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture
Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture was improperly deleted and I have restored it. A regular AFD nomination was begun at Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture and someone deleted the article in the early stage of discussion. User:Kurykh and User:Sr13 appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures. The latter's edit summary when he deleted it was dishonest, stating that it was done "after discussion". Michael Hardy 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

end of excerpt
"Because I don't understand it and I don't like it" is not grounds for speedy deletion. Saying that something has been deleted "after discussion" when the discussion is only three days old and the communities that may be interested in the article have not been notified is dishonest. You condoned that statement, which was made by user:sr13. Michael Hardy 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbie-biting in an unblock response
I disagree with your handling of User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12. The user should not have been instantly indefinitely blocked in the first place, because even the username policy mentions talking to the newbie and asking them nicely to change their name.

The response of "nope, you broke this rule you didn't know about" only made things worse. I urge you to be more understanding of newbies in the future.

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be made aware that this is a discussion on this being held here. Kelpin 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

your words
So what did you mean when you said "That's fine with me"? It was proposed to reopen but this time follow the usual procedures instead of what had been done. Then you acted as if I took you by surprise by doing what is usual, notifying those at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, just as if you had not expected that when you said "fine with me" in response to the proposal that the usual procedures should be followed. Then you turned around 180 degrees and acted as if doing what is usual and expected was wrong and implied that I must be "quite desperate." To do what you had already called "fine" means I must be "quite desperate" and you should retract the word "fine". Was your use of the word "fine" sincere? Or did you intend to turn around 180 degrees after what you had called "fine" was actually done? Michael Hardy 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing], eh? You seem quite desperate to keep this article. — Kurykh  05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) I was fine with reopening the AfD, and when it closed, that was it. I was not fine with you wheel-warring, and nor is anyone else. — Kurykh  20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not "desperate"; it was routine and it was improper for those who nominated this for deletion not to put that notice there in the first place. When articles in that field are nominated for deletion, people always put a notice there.  Except in this case.  It is not "canvassing" to ask people to express there opinions without urging them to vote for deletion or against deletion. Michael Hardy 06:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What you call my "wheel warring" was part of reopening the discussion. And the reopening never properly happened, since the notice to the relevant communities didn't get there until after it had been reclosed.  Your use of the word "fine" was insincere and dishonest.  It was fraud. Michael Hardy 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop framing AfD at your whim. There is no requirement to notify anyone or anything except the article itself. You're making stuff up. — Kurykh  20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And I have a life outside of AfD and deleted articles (and, for that matter, Wikipedia), so go to WP:DRV and air your grievances there instead of ranting at me for a perceived farcical injustice. — Kurykh  20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether there is a requirement in AfD rules is a separate question. The subject matter makes it required by prudence, and it is normally and routinely done, and you first agreed to it, calling it "fine" (your word) and then acted as if it took you by surprise, calling it "desperate", as if you hadn't expected it and hadn't agreed to it. It was the proposed purpose of reopening and you called it "fine". Then you turned around and denied all that. And acquiesced in closing the thing again BEFORE the purpose of reopening could take effect. Michael Hardy 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem confused. It is not "normally and routinely done"; that would be a regurgitation of baseless assumptions. I said your canvassing was "desperate," so you're just building straw men. Implicitly calling me a hypocrite (an absurd suggestion by someone grasping at straws) does not bring you honor or sympathy, only ridicule and reprimand. — Kurykh  21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed normally and routinely done when any of the articles in any of the subcategories of the mathematics category is on AfD. The purpose of reopening was so that it could be done in this case and you called that "fine". Then you renegged on that before the listings on those talk pages were even put there. Then you act as if you hadn't agreed to those listings and as if closing before they could be done was consistent with your word "fine". Even if you were right that it's not normally and routinely done, the fact is you first agreed to it, calling it "fine", and then renegged on that and acted as if you hadn't expected it and called it a sign of desperation, rather than the main point of the plan that you called "fine". Michael Hardy 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I...have a dream.
I dream:


 * All of our articles are featured.
 * All of our editors get along very well.
 * Wikipedia is the most recommended source of information by universities, organizations, and all other major venues.

And that is my dream. LOZ : OOT  02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just wondering, is there anything a WikiBonked editor can do? LOZ : OOT  02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. By the way, who do I remind you of? LOZ : OOT  02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct answer is: Martin Luther King Jr..

That was actually the intention. LOZ : OOT  04:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, there is a question I could ask. Is the following a weasel word: "Is frequently ranked as the greatest game of all time." It is verified, but the website claims it to be "one of the greatest games of all time," not "THE greatest game of all time." Just out of curiosity. Oh, and another thing, about the WP:3RR, does that mean that if your edits are reverted more than three times, you are blocked instantly? Or does it mean that if you revert someone elses edits three times, you are blocked instantly? LOZ : OOT  20:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I live in Alberta. I love seeing the mountains. LOZ : OOT  02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He probably needs to have autoblock enabled - a returning sockpuppet/troll whose next edit inserted a phone number, which I've already sent to oversight.  Acroterion  (talk)  03:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An important letter
Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
 *  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats
 *  master son T - C
 * SonTalk
 * ( [ →]O - RLY?)

Placing images at common
I think you moved the 7 images I made for the districts of Abkhazia to commons, which is excellent, except that one of them is no longer working. The reason for this may be related to the fact that I had previously uploaded this particular image to commons. Could you have a look at it? Thank you! sephia karta 14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No that's perfectly alright if you weren't the one who placed them on Commons. Thanks anyway! sephia karta 16:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

System of a Down
Good job on the vandalism fighting for System of a Down. User:Toxicity² should be blocked before further damage is done to the encyclopedia. Thanks in advance!  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   19:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you've done an excellent job, my friend! Cheers! ^^  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, may I ask a favor...
Hi. Would you please repremand user:Freedom4korea for vandalizing my user page? I would, but we have a bit of an ongoing feud going on, and I feel I may accidentally let prior biases get un the way. Thanks, aido2002talk 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Father or mother of something
You said "under no circumstances should the AfD be overturned without an AfD" - I don't quite follow what you mean, perhaps you meant DRV instead of AFD?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

oh really?
the truth is i tried earlier and didnt know how, i did it wrong anf couldnt find the template. would be paste it to my page in a message, id be glad to use it in the future, i just thought that was harder to screw up ya know?CholgatalK! 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

oh okay thanks, i thought someone would yell at me for rating them arbitraily, o thought they were rated by some committee, thanks!CholgatalK! 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistake
Thank you for alerting me of my mistake, something I'm often guilty of. I tweaked the block to indefinite.  bibliomaniac 1 5  00:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Afd bottom
Good catch, I was wondering where those were popping up and just went to investigate and you'd already fixed it! Carlossuarez46 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Distributed Systems
On my talk page, I see a notification that this was deleted, but the curious thing is that I don't think it was one of my contributions. Maybe I edited it to add a link to something else. Anyhow, I just figured I would touch bases with you and see if you were hoping I would do something, like write such a page, or edit the version you deleted, or whatever.

To be honest, I think the topic is probably too broad and that the best you could do with it is to create an index to other entries of a more detailed, specific kind....

Anyhow, drop me a note if you were hoping I would do something. But perhaps I was just notified automatically because of having somehow touched the page in the past! (New to this game...) Ken Birman 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Le Hong Phong High School
Thanks for your contribution. This article could easily be a B or even a GA given some more references. Do you know anyone who could help ? Victuallers 08:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (schools project)

User:53180
I only had 2 RfA nom forms, and the advice wasn't nice, they all ganged up on me for things that weren't even true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 53180 (talk • contribs)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 11

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am Kurykh on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Kurykh. Thanks. -- Kurykh  22:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodshoped35110s responds to your message (Thanks)!
(Edited version of Goodshoped35110s 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)'s letter) Fine. Well, apparently, since i cannot find any proof of Stockton and Jackson at Stockton and Clay, so, just keep it that way.

Oh, and thanks for your welcome at my page. I really appreciate it. Sorry it took me so long to respond.

Goodshoped35110s 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-created deleted article
Hi Kurykh,

You recently deleted an article which was created again in a practically identical form. I trust you can take care of this. Thank you. Absentis 16:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for semi-protecting my user page. I don't know what his deal was, but as soon as someone suggested an article he created be deleted, he flipped out. Thanks again. Parsecboy 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reconsider User:XavierVE's ban?
As shown here you first unblocked Xavier exactly 12 hours into the 24 hour ban that User:Swatjester instated on 13 August 2007, and then banned him indefinately. Since ten, Xavier has obviously served far more than the 24 hours initially proposed for the personal attack he posted here. It comes to my attention (though I admit, I have not verified the fact) that this instance was initially reported by User:Fighting for Justice as an attack against User:Welland R. I am presuming this is true because he stated he reported it to you on User_talk:Welland_R and that no one else has taken credit for reporting it. I believe the 24 hours was warranted for posting an unsupported personal attack, but that Xavier's ban should be lifted. An attack against Welland R would have been unwarranted, and Xavier's actions would have been reprehensible if he was trying to support that attack. In his last edit, Xavier correctly identified that he had not attacked Welland R, but ME. User:Tyciol. I just want to make sure the Wikipedia administration was aware of this. I don't think User:Fighting for Justice should be help accountable for this mistake, because it seems like a very honest one to make, as I have explained in discussing the issue on Welland R's talk page.

I think we should look at this to realize the root of Xavier's stated intents towards Wikipedia. He may suspect that Wikipedia had instated that 24-hour ban mistakenly. He may or may not be correct in this, depending upon whether Swatjester was aware of whether or not this was against Welland R if Fighting for Justice did indeed report that and Swatjester made a mistake. Swatjester has not made any statements related to this, so I am unsure. Regardless of whether or not he verified the target of Xavier's personal attack, Swatjester was completely correct in calling him out for and punishing him for it, because it was indeed inaccurate.

The problem here, is that I don't think Xavier KNEW that the statement he made is inaccurate. As such, if in response to this ban he flipped out on Wikipedia causing you guys to change the ban to 'indefinate', then I think it's better to look upon him as being legitimately concerned about Wikipedia content, editing biases, and conflict resolution biases. I'm not familiar with the exact nature of what transpired during those 12 hours that caused the 24>indefinate change, but I'm hoping Wikipedia might elucidate on this, or at least privately review this so that it can be better understoof. I have not monitored this so I am unsure if it was an isolated or a straw that broke the camel's back. Even so, if the final 'straw' (the personal attack) was actually an honest ignorantly unsourced mistake (which me may have and still may be unaware of) rather than a random vandalization, this should be taken into account when deciding on the context of Xavier's reactions and resulting actions in response to his 24 hour ban that resulted in indefinately banning him. I think when they are, this could be repealed, or in the very least shortened.

As someone has posted on my talk page (though I was already aware of it), a person working for Xavier's 'corporatesexoffenders.com' wikisposure project (the one he made a personal attack against in reverting my changes to it, which I admit, do need sourcing so I won't add them back until I adequately source them), a members of his Perverted-Justice organization using the alias Munchkin did create an article called Tyciol based upon the posts by a poster using the alias 'Tyciol' they found on a discussion forum of a website they have profiled. Xavier was aware of this article as he has made 5 edits to it:, , which consist of (in order of his editing and my mention): some retitling, calling the poster a 'poser (intellectual)', putting in a userbox, changing a category title, and categorizing the poster as Canadian (which I am) based upon my listed location on websites I have registered for, such as Wikipedia, which publically (and happily I might add) state that I am a Canadian citizen.

Xavier has not made the majority of edits on this wiki regarding the poster using the alias Tyciol. He comes in third after Munchkin and another editor (who has made the more albeit, he did begin AFTER him) edits than Xavier. Xavier's final edit of the article was on June 8, 2007, a month and 5 days before he made the personal attack on Wikipedia against me. I believe he is associating my wikipedia account with the poster on the discussion forum, as my wikipedia account is being listed on his organization's article. After Xavier's first edit, but before his second edit, Munchkin associated the Poster with this Wikipedia account, here: on June 4, and Xavier made his second edit 23 minutes later. During those four days between his 2nd and 5th edits I presume he made this association. Exactly 1 hour 15 minutes after Xavier's second change and 25 hours 25 minutes before Xavier's third change, munchkin made a key association which I believ has influenced Xavier's personal attack on Wikipedia and his reversion of my statement due to suspecting that this is an account making biased changes.

Munchkin incorporated Xaviers 'pseudo-intellectual' personal attack against the poster (and perhaps also myself based upon my wikipedia profile that he associates with the poster)on the 'Tyciol' wikisposure article in a statement calling the poster (and thus my wikipedia account by extension as Munchkin had already associated it with it) a 'pedophile'. This happened here:.

The Perverted-Justice organization that Xavier heads works as a team. Certain members (such as Munchkin) may jump to conclusions about some people they profile (such as the poster) and make mistaken accusations (as I believe occured here). They may then also draw certain conclusions based upon I admit, easy to make associations yet without providing direct proof for them. They also are willing to allow statements to stand based upon outdated evidence, and not monitor the ongoing statements by the people they profile, and as such, have outdated associations. On the message board in question, the poster has actually stated that were not 'pedos' and that they had been misled by sensationalism (part of which Perverted-Justice or similar organizations might overlook being popularized on their forums by their thousands of posters) of a mistaken definition for 'pedophile' (one which would not conform to wikipedia, wiktionary, or professional psychological or criminal law definitions both in Canada and the United States) which was realized to be inaccurate in self-identification as the poster then rejected it, and began using different descriptive terms.

Xavier has a lot of work to do, and can't be expected to reference all this, so I don't find him personally (only by extension of being responsible for all his organization's statements) at fault for the unproven association for the alias 'tyciol', nor for what I believe is the mistaken classification of the poster 'tyciol' as being a pedophile. I believe has had (and may still have) faith in the conclusions his trusted contributors came to, thought it was the truth, and as such, has adamentally campaigned for a fair Wikipedia based upon his beliefs. He definately had honest intentions and I want to make sure that the Wikipedia Administration has not thought differently due to potentially not realizing this misunderstanding he may have had. Please take this into account in reconsidering if it is necessary to have him indefinately banned. He has been a dedicated for some time now as I've heard said, and no doubt has made a large number of helpful edits, and will continue to do so in the future. I think he will learn from this not to make personal attacks (and hopefully, overlook his own wiki's infrastructre for the existance of personal attacks and inaccuracies) and will be a very good editor in the future. I say let's give him a chance by taking down the indefinate ban, and hopefully settle the bad blood that has occured between sprung up between both of these well-intentioned and highly populated organizations.

I should also note that the evidence I've brought up in helping to clarify this issue contains plenty of evidence of the content of Perverted-Justice's wikisposure to properly source the content in the change I made here which Xavier later deleted and made a personal attack in response to:. This is a separate issue though, and I hate to trouble you further with this, so I'll be discussing it with User:Homologeo who was the one who tagged it for ((Fact)) 3 hours 41 minutes after I made the change, and 19 hours 27 prior to Xavier's deleting it. I am hoping he or anyone else who believed the addition of a sourcedness ((Fact)) tag was warranted will see this as adequate sourcing, and can help get the addition reinstated. That, and also format it to be more encyclopedic, as I admit it could definately use some tweaking to be properly presented as evidence of the organization's behaviour. It is also possible that there are other examples of wikisposure's content and behaviour that could be added, I did rely upon the issue mislabeling my person and my wikipedia account. Possibly this could constitute a bias in bringing it up myself, which would be grounds for taking it down if I was advocating the addition in isolating, but I am hopeful that other Wikipedians will see this as adequate evidence of it and possibly add it themselves. If people refuse to, would it still be wrong to reintroduce it until I have evidence of Wikisposure containing internet aliases other than my own containing unsourced and inaccurate editing? Tyciol 18:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

the recent deletion of Prints (band)
I was not aware of the medium to which i was supposed to contest the deletion of the article until it was already deleted. I was under the impression that the talk page of the article was where there was to be dialog about the article. Since i was unaware of the official area i couldn't contest the deletion. In any event, i do not agree with the sentiments of the two individuals who commented on the deletion of my article. They affirmed that Prints' lack of notability was cause for deletion but it clearly states that (lack of) notability is not the be-all end-all of an articles' relevance to wikipedia. I spent quite a bit of my own time creating the article and i took pride in it, as i do for all my work. Something seen as irrelevant to a few is not fair to others who are interested in the particular niche that Prints was. I implore you to take the time to consider my argument and reinstate Prints' article. Barleycorn 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"GAY KID GAMES" - My watchlist
I've recently found this page listed on my watchlist, yet I am 100% certain I did not add it to there. My watchlist is mostly gaming-related articles; does this page have any relation to that? I'm messaging you because you are listed as having deleted it. Haipa Doragon (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Also, I'm pretty sure no-one has hacked or accessed my account, ever.


 * There is another explanation, Haipa, and that is a game that was on your watchlist has been renamed. I cant actually find the article you refer to, can you give a link for it here? Also use the "what links here" buttonm the left as that includes all the redirects to any article and you may find what you linked to there, SqueakBox 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving Anthony Chidiac Article back into MainSpace
Dear Kurykh, I'd like you to review my currently adopted piece on Anthony Chidiac for consideration of moving into mainspace.

I believe that: 1) with the work I have done to provide factual pieces of information to support this biography, and 2) with the rumour of Chidiac being shortly announced as playing a pivotal part of the University Hill Development in Bundoora, creating worldwide attention. This article should now be moved into mainspace.

Don't forget, I also successfully picked John Brumby as being the new Premier of Victoria, Australia and noted such in other admins pages, and do have the inside track on news pertaining to major technology developments here in australia with encyclopedic notability, so based on such and the promise that I will progress this article as well as some other key players in this major announcement, I hope you find my work of a quality that meets your exacting standards. Thanking you in advance for your positivity and assistance in getting my first article in wikipedia published.--T3Smile 16:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Deletion - Website_Baker
Hi there, just wondered why you had decided to delete the article about Website Baker from the site. Is there a problem with it in the old form? I only just noticed it missing! Any advice you have to reinstate the article (i.e. what was wrong and should be fixed) would be appreciated. Aladowellin 01:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the discussion to me. If this article was to be improved so that it wasn't an advertising blurb and I can prove notability (which is not hard, the software is listed in a few places as significant with a sizable userbase, including a feature on CNET Tech Reports just 2-3 weeks ago) then would it be allowed to be restored? I am not asking for the original to be restored but would rather write from scratch so that the original style is not repeated. Would that be acceptable? Aladowellin 11:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Inkulab
Hi Kurykh! Noticed today that an article that I have been involved in editing had been deleted by you (ofcourse after discussion) on a writer called Inkulab. Unfortunately I am not able to find the old discussion page (I am hopeless!!!). Can you please help me find it? I am pretty shocked that this entry was removed since he is a pretty famous writer and orator in Tamil Nadu, India. Cheers!ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 06:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I found it myself. How do I restart the discussion on it? Thanks! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 06:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Inkulab. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:222.153.79.106
No he's not autoblocked, there's a /16 range block on this IP range, which explains why it doesn't show up in the block log. See this one. Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 01:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Committed Identity
I've seen on several userpages, including yours. I read the articles at SHA-512 and commitment scheme. What I don't understand is what purpose the committed identity serves on Wikipedia. How (and under what circumstances) can it be used to verify your identity? Thanks for your time. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 23:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am Kurykh on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Kurykh. Thanks. -- Kurykh  00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Homework
Hope your homework went well enough... take care, and good luck with it all! Jmlk 1  7  08:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for considering copying the image to Commons!
You have recently considered this image to go to Wikimedia Commons. I thank you for your consideration. This picture I took during a bowling trip and happened to see the bus. I got lots more other pictures if you want to see them, I mean, it's OK with me! Thanks!

I also need help with my own userpage. I'm not sure whether I can, or anyone can create a RSS feed or embed videos. So, my question is:

Can users embed videos and how can you create a blog RSS feed?

Thanks!

Goodshoped35110s 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)