User talk:Kusma/Archive 4

Let me explain
I surely would like to discuss changes on the article. But the continuing activity and incivility of Matthead, Jadger,Scinurea are to me a larger problem and consitute the priority. I see no reason in engaging in writing information that will be deleted out of hand by user who writes "no MoloPOV", refuses to engage in factual discussion or at best resorts to personal attacks. This situation is no longer acceptable. If you are not concerned, I don't find you guilty at all, I will search for other means of solving this. But as I said the siutation has gone far enough. True I can be a bit emotional sometimes, but I obey civility on wiki as best as I can, while those users find nothing wrong with repeated incivility violations with no fear of punishment or warning even. I am quite willing to engage in fruitfull disccusions with civil editors such as User:Richardshusr for example,with whom a good resoultion was found in Expulsions article. These users however represent incivility and nationalist POV, I tried to not use this term, but frankly the situation has gone so far that I can no longer refuse to use this word. --Molobo 00:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing your answer on Polish noticeboards I may reckon you do not want to adress Matthead, Jadger and Scinurea about their incivility and behaviour ? If so, I understand. This is not your main job here, and there is no duty for you to engage in this. However I think that before defending them in the future you should try correcting them first. --Molobo 01:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will remind Matthead to comment on your contributions by their content, not by way of who contributed them. See Talk:Ernst Moritz Arndt: you were right that the article has POV and needs to be updated. Kusma (討論) 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See his responce. --Molobo 09:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, seeing that the discussion heated up, I suggest a pause for calming down. However as it seems you are unwilling to adress problems I pointed out, I don't think our debate will solve them. I shall try to find somebody who will be willing to try to solve the problem of incivility and refusal to use scholary resources instead of private opinions by users Matthead,Jadger, Scinurae. Have a good day, and please don't take this personally. --Molobo 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Romanticism
I was looking for something about the Romanticism in Ansichten.... However, the best I could find was this. And that's not so convincing. However, I find this remark quite sensible as this journey affected much Alexander von Humboldt and there was much of gothicism there. This sentence comes from the German version. Maybe you could find a German reference on that? alx-pl D  18:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article nomination objection
I see that you object to the nomination because of the size of the article, which I think such a reason is very unfair. If you look at the article on Canada, it's over 50k as well, same with many other featured articles. The article will not be improved by removing information, because others will accuse it of not being comprehensive. I suggest you think over your objection and change it accordingly.--Ryz05 t 13:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the article will be improved by removing information. The correct answer to the objection "this information is missing from the article" is "This information is in subarticle X, where it belongs". Kusma (討論) 14:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler
Hi, please can you tell me how to link the English article on this film to the German one. Thanks Ashfan83 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

delete talk page
Can't you delete my talk page? I don't want to use it anymore. (Oahc)
 * The page has been archived. Kusma (討論) 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

List of all single-letter-double-digit combinations
I have deleted this cross-namespace redirect to List of all single-letter-double-digit combinations. I believe you had mistakenly created the list in the wrong namespace and then moved it. If my deletion was wrong and there is a good reason you believe the redirect should stay, drop me a line and I'll restore it. (Typically, such redirects do get deleted at WP:RFD though). Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 15:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please restore. All these tables were originally in main space, but after AfD&CfD discussion were moved en mass to Wikipedia space.  The redirects were deliberately left because they are used in the List of reference tables, and in the several AfD, CfD, and TfD discussions.  They probably should be R unprintworthy.
 * --William Allen Simpson 00:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have restored the redirect. Kusma (討論) 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

After the discussion at Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/June 2006, the closer failed to delete this one, and. Could you please delete them (and the latter Talk redirect)? I've removed the links at List of reference tables, and converted List of acronyms and initialisms to point directly at the Wikipedia space.

Meanwhile, you mentioned during the debate: "If deleted, move back into main space? Or move all reference tables into Portal space?"

The Portal: space idea is novel to me, I'd never heard it mentioned before. What are the criteria?

The other possibility mentioned on my Talk was a proposed new Appendix: space, similar to that at Wiktionary. This is where Wiktionary moved their Appendix:List of two-letter combinations in December 2005.

I've asked for feedback from Docu (the creator) and Ceyockey, too.
 * --William Allen Simpson 11:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC) -- watching here


 * I have deleted the two other cross-space redirects for consistency. (Cross-space redirects are not in fashion these days). All of these lists are potentially useful to the reader, so shouldn't be hidden away in Wikipedia namespace. However, they are not really articles and their mains advantages over categories are that they contain red links (I like red links) and better adapted formatting. The List of reference tables and some other lists is also not really encyclopedic content, but rather appendix material. I wonder whether we should create a Portal:Lists or Portal:Reference or a subpage Portal:Browse/Lists where all this stuff could go without asking the devs to create a new namespace for us. (Actually Appendix: is not a namespace in Wiktionary, just a name in namespace format).
 * You asked about the Portal criteria. I am too lazy to look up the official criteria (and I think the case at hand is one where we should ignore the rules anyway), but my view is that Portals are there to organize content in a web-oriented and reader-oriented way that both shows what Wikipedia already has to offer and encourages contribution. The official rules are at Portal.
 * Summing up, something should be done about these lists (and perhaps List of people by name etc. should be treated similarly), I don't know what exactly, but I think strict application of existing policies and regulations will not help us. Kusma (討論) 22:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User Block Procedure
Hi I am still fairly new to this but have a question for you. I put a serial vandal id up and am confused by the notation you left in deciding not to block--(rm one, not warned, only one edit, left test2, list empty)--if I am reading it correctly you say that the user 204.244.150.7 was not warned--despite the fact that he has a final warning on his talk page and you also say that he has only one edit--but his contribution history is full of unhelpful edits that seem to qualify as vandalism. Now it's almost certainly me who is missing something here but if you could clear this up so I can try to be more constructive in the future I would greatly appreciate it. Aborrows 03:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please unblock me
Can you please unblock my account User talk:Hoof38 or at least shorten the block? I haven't done anything with my account that should give me a block at all, much less an indefinite block. I can help improve articles if my account is unblocked. Please be respectful and unblock my one account. Even if you can't believe that I'm not a sockpuppet of User:Science3456 can you still unblock my account? 64.12.116.138 13:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't do anything without discussion with the original blocking admin. I have already asked him to comment. Kusma (討論) 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * sorry to butt in to something I have no connection too, but why don't you unblock him, then in 2 or 3 hours look at his log and see if he vandalizes or imitates that science guy you're so convinced he is? Why bite him? -- Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't unblock without input from the blocking admin. See also WP:BP. I am pretty sure that Ruud knows what he's doing. Kusma (討論) 23:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedies
Will do. (I'm getting a collection -- I got scolded for not substing warnings, and now for substing speedies. ;) )NawlinWiki 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Beuchel
I didn't know anyone was watching the article...anyways could you give my translation a look. My German isn't too good. Gruß, Chooserr 22:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew the first line wasn't right, but I'm glad the rest is pretty good. If only I was as sucessful translating from English to German. :) Chooserr 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gott ist mein König
Thanks for the note; I've reworked some of the text, as well as adding more body from the nl: article. I think you've done a sterling job with the article in any case! Best, dewet|✉ 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User is blocked
I have just been blocked from editing Uncyclopedia, see the block list there, my username there is MyrtoneXXXX. Myrtone@Longhair.com.au


 * Nothing I can do about that, I don't even have an account at Uncyclopedia. Kusma (討論) 13:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Arabic article on AFD
Hello, you'll see my comments on the Sanabel the beloved AFD. I think no need to transwiki. --Easter Monkey 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, that's what my boss always tells me: the reward for a job well done is always more work. BTW, I love languages, I'll be happy to help...mein Deutsch ist viel besser als mein Arabisch... tschüß! --Easter Monkey 01:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple move request
Moin, Kusma! Would you mind helping me move James Goldman (actor) to Jim Gardner? The individual in question is a Philadelphia news anchor, NOT an actor. Wile his birthname is James Goldman, "Jim Gardner" is by far the most common name used to refer to him. I tried to correct the title myself, but I messed up a move somewhere along the way and cannot complete the process myself. Any assistance would be appreciated. Tschüß! Olessi 03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Could you also clean up his section at WPVI-TV Personalities?
 * I zapped out some info there. Would you mind also deleting James Goldman (author)? It was copy-and-pasted from James Goldman instead of being moved. Danke sehr für Ihre Hilfe. Olessi 15:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Bitte schön, stets zu Diensten. Kusma (討論) 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ritzungen?
I'm still working on my translation of articles relating to uninhabited islands from German to English, but along the way I stumbled upon the word Ritzungen which I don't know. Can you help by putting the translation of this word in the article Holm of Papa.


 * Oh yeah, I also wanted to know when it says "bei Wolin" it means "near Wolin" not "at Wolin" right? Chooserr 07:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, "near Wolin". I have used "carvings", seems to fit best with the picture I found. "ritzen" means "to scratch"/"to carve". You might want to check the article with the external link and the Papa Westray article - I am not sure the German one is 100% accurate. Kusma (討論) 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 5th.
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.

Redirects
Thanks for the headsup! I'll try to keep the templates in mind when I create redirects (and I make a lot of them...). Olessi 02:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Osman Nuri Topbas
We need a Turkish speaker to help us determine what to do with this mostly untranslated article. Could you please take a look and comment on the notability of this person? Thank you, Kusma (討論) 03:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I commented on the afd page. -- Cat out 10:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List of unofficial GURPS books
In regards to the comments you made on my talk page about the List of unofficial GURPS books page, specifically; "Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)."

However as shown on the Proposed deletion page, section 2 says; "If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can do the following things:
 * 1) Remove the tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary.
 * 2) Optionally, you may also edit the article to try to address the concerns of the tagging editor."

Which is EXACTLY WHAT I DID! So perhaps you can explain to me how my actions (which are exactly what is listed as Wikipedia policy) could possibly be misconstrued as vandalism?

No really. I'd really like you to explain to me how my actions, which EXACTLY followed Wikipedia's listed policy (as opposed to your own "I'll do whatever I want to do because I'm special policy") could possibly be characterized as vandalism. I await your response. Seanr451 06:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Answered on your talk page (mostly by Blnguyen). Kusma (討論) 13:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. I still don't like being accused of vandalizing when I was at least attempting to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I've run afoul of Wikisnob-powertripers before and without exception they violate Wikipedia's rules by claiming ownership of a certain article or subject and then delete-delete-delete everything I try to do. One of the aforementioned jerks even put a vandal tag on my talk page when the only alteration I've done was to correct the spelling of several words in the article. I'm getting just a bit tired of Wikians who feel they own Wikipedia and that I'm an intruder that can be squashed like a bug on a whim. Seanr451 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bucerius Law School
Will do, it will be a respectable stub. --Bobak 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done (heh, btw: I created it because I didn't want a dead link from the University of Minnesota Law School, not too far from either of us, eh?).--Bobak 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please check the reasons for deletion before deleting an article
Your deletion of Andreas Aepken cited WP:CSD although even your entry in the deletion log contains the external link giving enough context. Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. Deleteme42 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cialis Western Open
I attempted to move the site Western Open to Cialis Western Open, but Cialis Western Open needed to be deleted first in order to move it. I've done this twice before, and I don't believe it's an controversial move, so why should I use WP:RM? Just wanting to know for when I'll have to do this at the end of the season for tournaments with changing names.

Thanks, – DakPow  e  rs  ( Talk ) 20:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean you believe the move is uncontroversial? Whatever, I'll just delete it, you sound like you know what you're doing. Kusma (討論) 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Darn double negatives. That's what I meant. :) This is the third move I've made, in order to standardize PGA tournaments from their old names to their current names. Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. :) – DakPow  e  rs  ( Talk ) 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Haeften
I asked yesterday for someone to move the article, and no-one did so. Adam 04:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Where was the diagreement about the name being expressed? It wasn't communicated to me and I didn't see it. I regard Fest (the leading German historian of these events) as authoritative. Adam 05:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I should have noticed his comment. However, he cites no source for his contention other than the material at the article itself. This is circular referencing. I on the other hand cited the leading German historian of the period. Here is another German source showing the Hans-Bernd spelling (see last line of text). Here is another reference. And another. I think I am entitled to ask to see some equivalent references for the other view. I don't want to make a big issue over a hyphen, but encyclopaedias are supposed to be accurate, ist dieses nicht so? Adam 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for the advertising. Adam 05:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Autosignature
I had put an aotu-signature on all the Test and vandalism templates; I see you have removed them. It took me a half-hour to do all that. Anyway, I was wondering exactly why you removed my additions. Flameviper12 13:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

...test section
Will this get botched?

Subsidiary pages
You asked to delete one of my subsid pages recently - could you now delete the others, listed on my user page? I don't really need them any more, and they just take up space. Thanks, Staffelde 16:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good man - thanks.Staffelde 13:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My siggy
I closed the div tag, sorry. The only problem now is that my dig goes on another line, invariably. Gah. Flameviper12 19:43, 12.06.06

Changes to Angostura bitters
You probably misunderstood me, there is no noun "bitter". The singular is "bitters", hence the need to move Angostura bitter there (a title accidentally created by me). Can you please delete Angostura bitters as requested? -- H005 22:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just moved the page for you; I thought there was a singular, but apparently there isn't. Kusma (討論) 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Besten Dank! :-) -- H005 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 12th.
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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Stalking
What is the proper way to deal with Wiki stalker. I am asking you since you seem to be interested in enforcing wiki rules. --Molobo 13:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * File an RfC or an RfAr. As stalking is often nonobvious, I am not sure there is a quick way to deal with stalkers that are not otherwise disruptive. Are you being stalked as per Harassment? Kusma (討論) 13:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted part
The paragraph I deleted is connected to unsourced statement that despite several attempts remains unsourced, mainly the statemnent that Soviets used antipolish propaganda to incite anti-Polish feelings. The rest of the paragraph is used as extrapolation of that unsourced thesis. I however recall you weren't so disturbed by deletion of well sourced information in Prussia and Georg Forster. My I know what changed your mind ? Thank you in advance. --Molobo 13:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not changed my mind. So you admit that your edit summary was intentionally hiding the main point of your edit? Kusma (討論) 14:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not changed my mind Please explain. You believed sourced information in Georg Forster and Prussia can be deleted ? So you admit that your edit summary was intentionally hiding the main point of your edit? Please talk in civilised way, such question is very unfair, in line with "So you admit you lied about not murdering somebody", you already determined me guilty. I find that very disturbing. I hope this was simply a mispelling. I presented the main point of the edit. The deletion of unsourced OR wasn't important it was adressed several times before, and nobody presented any source for it. No serious reasons or source were provided for it. Because of that I didn't believe it to be important part of the edit, as I don't consider private views or OR research important unless they are supported by scholary research. I hope I cleared that up. --Molobo 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe sourced information that is not sufficiently relevant should be deleted. The edit summary of such a deletion should not be "added information" to make sure it is not confused with sneaky vandalism. Kusma (討論) 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, how is the work going on restoring neutrality about Prussia and its aparthaid like system of repression of national minorities? Or are you disinterested in that article now ? --Molobo 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never been particularly interested in that article, my recent posts on that talk page were an attempt to find middle ground in a 3RR dispute, and then an attempt to tell you that long uncommented quotes make a talk page hard to use. Kusma (討論) 15:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and btw. How about these edit summaries , Do you have any problems with them ? --Molobo 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a slight incivility problem with them. What's good about them is that they clearly label the edit as a revert and not as something it wasn't. Unlike your summaries, they tell me what happened to the article. Kusma (討論) 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration
Hi! I filled an arbitration request concerning the usage of "liberation" in WP articles. If you are interested in, please add your name to the list of the involved parties and type your statement.--AndriyK 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Need Admin help
Former sysop NSLE has helped me on a couple of occasions with disruptive sockpuppet vandal User:Regulus marzo4103 also known as User:Regulus marzo4103@yahoo.comand User:Guluspogi@yahoo.com. This annoying sock has returned in the form of User:Marzoregulus@yahoo.co.ph...who you reverted earlier on the Philippines article. Not having dealt with this type of vandal too often I am unsure how to A)tag this user for who he is and B)Bring attention to his actions in the proper forum.(Admin noticeboard???) Perhaps you can be of some assistance? Thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Best place is probably WP:ANI. I have indefblocked the account as obvious reincarnation with the same editing pattern and name. Thank you for giving me the missing links! Kusma (討論) 00:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Geez...that was fast...I barely had time to go get a coffee! Thanks for the tip! I have been keeping an eye out for this particular sock for a while now. It was easier when he concentrated on southeast Asia. Now I see he's moved into Europe too. I already have about 2000 articles on my watchlist. Pretty soon I'll have every country in the World. Again thanks for your help! Take care! Anger22 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet another sockpuppet has appeared. User:Marzogulus@yahoo.com. Anger22 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Add another one... User:Marzoregulus@yahoo.com. Anger22 13:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Both blocked. Please use new sections to report further sockpuppets, up here the messages get lost easily. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Marienkirche
If you were not already aware of this, I have undertaken the translation of Marienkirche into English (I am a native english speaker). It is indeed an excellently elaborate article in German. Progress is coming along nicely. I daresay I will keep you update if you are interested. Kind regards, WilliamH 01:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Diskussion:Johann Georg Adam Forster
Schoen, dass Du Forster bearbeitest. Ich hab Dir in der Diskussion etwas zu Quellen geschrieben. Diedrich 139.75.1.11 14:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gleichwie der Regen und Schnee vom Himmel fällt
Thanks for the heads-up, although I could only get around to it now! I appreciate the note, and hope that I didn't muck it up too badly ;) dewet|✉ 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Greatings from Codice1000
User_talk:Codice1000.en Can't doon to desk!

? Confused ?
Was the comment you left on my page sarcastic? I couldn't tell as i'm not an admin.-- Andeh 00:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I thought the rule was not to remove the content. And I thought you could've been sarcastic because if you didn't have any of the content in the deletion log then it wouldn't have been a perfect reason to delete the page. I worded that bad, hope you still understand it..-- Andeh 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unicode on Sprotected template
Oh dear; no idea why that might have happened. My external editor is UltraEdit which is fully unicode, but thanks for the catch - and I shall pay closer attention to any non-latin characters in future edits to ensure it doesn't happen again. --AlisonW 09:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cunt
Fine. But it wasn't vandalism. 204.52.215.107 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.
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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Satoshi Kamiya
I forgot to check that the person who removed the tag was an admin (which I was just coming on to check right now). An honest mistake. -- MOE .RON  talk  01:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Satoshi Kamiya
Thanks for the backup, Kusma. :) --Fang Aili talk 01:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) Kusma (討論) 01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Greg Gallman speedy deletion
I guess you removed the tag just before I clicked on the link, but I deleted it anyway because the article is total nonsense. It has two photos of "Greg" in 2006, one is presumedly himself, who is a high school student, the other is Mark Ricciuto, who is the captain of the Adelaide Crows. Thanks for your attention, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Thanks! As I know nothing about Aussie rules football, I just thought it is a bad article about a notable person. Kusma (討論) 01:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Block of User:Googleyii
Given that the last notice of a block was from three days ago and was for 48 hours, I assumed that any block previously in place was expired. I suppose this wasn't the case. —Cuivi é nen 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Kungfuadam blocked 25 minutes before you did; maybe the block log wasn't up to date when you checked? Kusma (討論) 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding "liberation" to "Words to avoid"
I filled the proposal for Words to avoid. Please find it here. I would be thankfull for your commennts, suggestions and corrections.--AndriyK 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello Kusma, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

July 1979
I've recreated this as a redirect to 1979, as is customary with "Month YYYY" titles for less recent years that have not yet been divided by month. Ideally it would redirect directly to the section 1979, but section redirects don't work :(. One option might be to change incoming links from: &#91;&#91;July 1979&#93;&#93; to &#91;&#91;1979&#35;July&#124;July 1979&#93;&#93;, which would be an easy bot task. — Jun. 20, '06  [20:32] < [ freak]|[ talk] >
 * Sounds not bad, except that the year pages are usually so useless as link targets that it might often be better to just de-link instead of using a bot to link. Kusma (討論) 21:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, see for example November 2000. — Jun. 20, '06  [21:24] < [ freak]|[ talk] >

Old IFD logs
Sounds like a good idea to me, I was just following the exising pattern. Which is apparent, Images and media for deletion/Log. All pages after june 21's 06 are deleted when they are complete. that was the policy change at that time. (that i know) ... the ones from before then are part of the backlog, and i've been working on this for a whole month since backlog cleaning started. I'm willing to concede the point ... but look at what is there. -- &infin;Wirelain 00:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it, to the talk page. -- &infin;Wirelain 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks. Part of my mistake seems to be using the /log talk page instead of the main project talk. -- &infin;Wirelain 03:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm around to help ... -- &infin;Wirelain 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

German Translations
Great minds think alike, I guess. The format you suggested I use was in fact I one I had in mind when I volunteered to redo the page. Coincidences, huh? Have a nice day, fixing the GTIE page is making me feel a little queasy. Happy to be of help, RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In my new formatting scheme, I've eliminated the "Worth doing because" line, because it seemed to inconsequential, and all of the same reasons were being listed over and over again. I also merged "Supported" into "Other notes." What are your thoughts on this? RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

IFF edit summary
Thanks for letting me know! I'll change that. — Mets 501 (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed
In my work in Wiki I never experienced hostility towards Poland, Poles or Polish issues from other contributors. Seriously. I am particulary impressed by neutral attitude of German and Russian contributors who never are influenced by nationalist sentiments, in comparision with the now infamous "Polish cabal". --Molobo 19:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I know you are being sarcastic, and I know that there are German and Russian editors who will oppose other editors just because they are Polish. Instead of fighting along national lines, you should perhaps try to see the other side as well. Try to always assume good faith, just as Piotrus usually does (even if that has brought him into trouble recently). Kusma (討論) 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As to
As to There are many other places where German-Polish issues might not be written from a NPOV, your statement towards the productive and quite neutral user Matthead which works for improving Polish-German related subjects, I offer my help. Care you point to such articles ? --Molobo 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop being sarcastic here. I was telling Matthead that he should fight about serious topics, not diacritics where German and Polish editors should IMO agree. Kusma (討論) 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You did mention that some articles aren't neutral, so what according to you are the serious topics that need attention. I am interested in your view on this. What are the serious topics Matthead should fight for ? --Molobo 19:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't have any specific examples in mind. Kusma (討論) 19:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I appreciate that you answered. --Molobo 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Does not Wikipeda English accept items about Chiese Scientists?
Dear Kusma

Thanks a lot for your attention to the items I created. I was wondering whether the Wikipedia English accepts item about Chinese scientists. I have created and will create more in Chinese language. The ones I created English entry for the simple reason that they worked overseas for some time and made much contribution to international science community.

I am quite new to wikipedia.

Thanks again for your kind help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zhenling.sun (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia certainly accepts articles about Chinese scientists. The articles should, however, explain why these Chinese scientists are important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. See WP:BIO and WP:PROFTEST for more about that. Hu Xian Xiao will probably be deleted unless you add more information to the article. What did he research? What is he famous for? Did he write any widely used books? Does he have famous students? Kusma (討論) 13:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla
Comparing editors is always tricky. There are ceretain similarities and certain differences between Ghirla and Molobo. As I have said several times, there is no doubt that Ghirla is a great content creator and the amount of texts he writes vastly exceeed the contributions of Molobo. Also unlike Molobo he has never broken 3RR - however that does not mean that he has not engaged in many revert wars. And being a good content creator does not give one immunity from following WP:CIVIL: throughout my 2 years of Wiki carrer I have not known any other (not yet permblocked) editor who has been so incivil: as for evidence, would you prefer: set A (his RfC and the warning from ArbCom), set B (how he ignores and deletes warnings he receives from other people (,, - those are just three examples from the last few days, and they by no means represent any irregularity in his behaviour)), set C (his comments 1 and 3 at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Irpen) or Set D - his contributions (please pay attention to edit summaries). And this is a selection of just his transgressions against civility, the disruption of Wikipedia through engaging in revert wars is another matter; and it is here that I believe is his greatest similarity to Molobo: although Ghirla has never crossed the 3RR treshold, he reverts frequently, and personally I think he is even more disruptive in this reverts then Molobo (I have never, ever, seen Ghirla provide references, and he very rarely engages in talk dispute; Molobo at least gave *some* references and tried to talk to people). For evidence of Ghirla disruptive reverts, you can just go check his latest contribs (linked above), or some examples of my recent encounters of him (Soviet partisans in Poland (edits marked as minor and 'false rollback', failure to use talk), Dmitry Merezhkovsky (as above) or Aleksander Krzyżanowski (as above, plus a personal attack in edit summary against me 'rv tireless revert warrior'). And I am just stopping at three examples because I have better things to do, but the RfC linked above should be enough to show you that there is a clear pattern in his behaviour, not stemmed to any extent by RfC, ArbCom warning or myriads of warnings on his user page (which he almost always removes). Now hopefully you will see where the problem is.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that Ghirlandajo is often incivil, and I wish he would not insult people he perceives as trolls or siding with trolls. This has often targetted you personally, and the way he adressed you and other good Polish editors in edit summaries was often rather ugly. Still, I believe that now that you didn't protest against Molobo's block, he might be more open for constructive dispute resolution again, and stop being disrespectful against other good editors. Kusma (討論) 23:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be nice. Unfortunately, Ghirla's has been uncivil long before Molobo's joined the Wiki (Ghirla's contribts in Jan'05, Molobo's first edits in July'05. I doubt that removal of Molobo from the equasion is going to to anything but confirm to him that he is right and has community support to ignore WP:CIVIL and related policies. Still, incivility I can live with. It is his edits like here that I find more problematic, since if removal of useful info from the article is not disruption of Wikipedia, what is it?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't been on in a while
Must have missed the Futureal business, my day job keeps me pretty busy...--Easter Monkey 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.
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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-references
I'm just wondering, have you read WP:ASR recently? Your string of comments on WP:RFD leads me to believe that you may not understand why the distinction between the encyclopedic content and the process of building the encyclopedia is important. We haven't allowed self-references in article space since almost the beginning. How would you feel if you were thumbing through Encyclopedia Britannica and you ran across some entries that were dealing with the editorial process of how inclusion of entries was decided by the Britannica editors? Encyclopedia Britannica does a good job of separating content from process and we can do the same. In addition, there's a good technical reason why cross-namespace redirects are to be avoided: they break on mirrors. Remember, we aren't just writing content for en.wikipedia.org; we are writing encyclopedic content that is used on dozens of other sites. And those sites use database archives that include articles but not project space. So each one of those cross-namespace redirects creates a broken "encyclopedia entry" on the mirrors. We should keep the articles entirely separate from the project stuff, which necessarily means two separate namespaces and a strong division between the two, not the blurring that we see with cross-namespace redirects. Please reconsider your stance. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will explain why I don't really buy these arguments (and I actually believe CNRs to be less self-referential than links from actual article pages to Wikipedia space: unlike articles, CNRs shouldn't have any incoming links from main space). Although I don't really believe the arguments are all that good, I don't have a big problem with the deletion of many of the CNRs, but want to avoid having them speedily deleted (or deleted after a one-day debate, which basically amounts to speedying). I certainly believe the distinction is important. Redirects from article space to Wikipedia space from plain English words and phrases will, however, only be visible to users if they either type them in the search bar or use Special:Allpages. If we often (say, more than twice per year) get the situation that a user types a CNR in the search bar and gets taken to a totally unexpected Wikipedia page, the CNR should be deleted. I don't see how a user can be surprised if typing Wikipedia is not in the search bar leads him to a page about Wikipedia. Whether this is a problem at be bold is something at least worthy of debate. In Special:Allpages, cross-space redirects do indeed mix encyclopedic and meta-encyclopedic content, a situation we should try to avoid. (Here the WP: shortcuts are so nicely grouped together that an exception for them is no big deal). The question is at which cost we try to avoid these. If links as be bold are orphaned before deletion/retargetting, at least only old versions of pages break. Old versions of policy and talk pages are worth something, but how much exactly should be found out by a more centralized discussion. The time certainly isn't ripe for speedy deletion of CNRs. For those such as BJAODN I don't see much possibility of confusion with encyclopedic content anyway: a user who sees this on Special:Allpages and clicks on it will get at least the expansion of the acronym. The Special:Allpages argument is actually the strongest pro-delete CNRs argument I see, but I still am not certain enough that disallowing natural and more easily typed links such as be bold insetad of be bold are really worth it if all we get is a "cleaner namespace".
 * A problem with deleting CNRs is that they are popular and often get recreated. If somebody then replaces the redirect by deletedpage, we have the worst possible situation. Instead of a useful self-reference (the CNR) or a redlink that discourages linking (deleting), we get a useless self-reference (the deletedpage template) and encourage linking to it by making the link appear blue. This is a bit self-defeating, and pages that exist as deletedpage also appear in Special:Allpages, mixed with the real encyclopedia entries. Per WP:ASR, we should use deletedpage as rarely as possible and delete these pages as soon as we can.
 * Your argument about mirrors is something I can not quite follow. I expect our mirrors to be smart enough to remove all cross-namespace redirects from their database, which can be done easily (just like removing cross-namespace and red links). I understand that links to cross-namespace redirects could lead to a problem (a bit harder to remove, needs a second pass) but there shoudn't be any of these in article space anyway. Do you have a specific example of a mirror that has problems? Can we solve these without deleting our CNRs? How does that mirror deal with our shortcuts?
 * Certainly we should make sure all self-references are appropriately marked, so we don't have a naked link to Wikipedia space as the one in the hatnote on boldness. Yes, I know it is wrapped in selfref, but that template doesn't actually do anything (maybe we should wrap stuff in the right CSS, I guess you know more about how to do this than I do). This leads to breaking on mirrors such as this (scroll down to Wikipedia, notice the not working link). In this case, the CNR might have produced a better result than the hatnote. Answers.com is, by the way, smart enough to have figured out not to display deletedpage anymore. For real mirror stupidity, you can also look at Brian Peppers or Userbox at help.com (Answers.com still had them a couple of weeks ago).
 * Another topic are CNRs to template or category pages. Many CNRs to category pages probably break on mirrors, and (worse than those to Wikipedia space) are probably linked from article space. However, linking to category space from article space is useful, and we should do it. Often, the intent is just to link to an automated list. Probably it is better to move some of the content of the category description page to a stub article instead of the redirect. CNRs to templates are often stuff such as a sports team template posing an extra article, which is probably unnecessary.
 * So perhaps I don't have strong arguments for keeping, but I find the arguments for deletion weak. The arguments for deletion certainly also apply to deletedpage, but we use that since we believe it to be useful enough to allow these self-references in main space. Many CNRs may also be useful enough to sufficiently many people to be allowed in main space. Kusma (討論) 00:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks For Moving The Page
Thanks for moving my Favorites page. I was going to do that, but something happened to my computer at the last minute. BTW, I'm still puzzled at how to pronounce wiki. How do you pronounce it? Hmm... --§-MAN
 * See the wiki page :-) Kusma (討論) 00:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Dear Kusma,

Currently we have great problems around the article certainty principle.

I am one of the supporters of the certainty principle. I just opened a new account, so that those, who fight against the certainty principle, could not immediately remove my post from here and block me.

The certainty principle is a physical principle in quantum mechanics that generalizes both the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Mandelshtam-Tamm relation (for energy and time) on some unified base (group theory and Fubini-Study metric). It was discovered more than a year ago by Russian theoretical physicist D. Arbatsky. It is supported by specialists (not only by "sockpuppets" in WP) and now we want to have an article for it. But some people, who are not specialists in the subject, still insist that the principle "does not pass Google test" and that their "crank detecor is beeping".

Situation became really bad. I do not want to talk much about personal attacks, threats etc., that were made by both sides. There are things that are much worse. The war became really destructive for Wikipedia, for articles that do not belong to the topic, and for users who do not participate in the war.

Some admins (opponents of the CP) believe that when they fight with "bad" users, they do not have to follow Wikipedia policy. If some user is new and is "likely" a sockpuppet of other "bad" user, then this "sockpuppet" must be blocked "on sight", even if this user does not break any WP-policy. Many such people were indefinitely blocked in the CP-war, even those who, possibly, did not know about the war. They cannot come back to WP, because when account is blocked, the IP-address is blocked also. Possibly, admins here do not understand this.

Hryun, who wrote the good version of the article, behaved quite agressively (and this is bad, of course). But he claimed from the very beginning that he is proficient in computers and will overcome protection. But most people cannot do that. Why do they have to suffer just because they support the same ideas as Hryun?

Being suppressed by administrative power, some CP-fighters began to vandalize even those articles, that do not belong to the topic. (Possibly, they all were sockpuppets of Hryun.)

What can I suggest in this situation? I think, it is necessary to undelete the controversial article and allow people to fight there and in related articles (formally, it is legal to do that, see ; see also consensus). It is also necessary to persuade other admins not to block those people, who do not break any WP-policy. Even if those people "push" some "unusual" POV, but do not break WP-policy, they may not be blocked. It is also necessary to unblock all such people that were blocked already.

If you help to do all these things (or at least undelete the article), you would make a great thing for Wikipedia and for me. Thank you. (Reply here.) Lokas 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

German Biographies
Hello, Kusma. I remembered the interest you took when I reformatted the German-English translation page, so I thought I would let you know when I did the biographies subpage. I just finished reformatting it, using the same new scheme I used on the main translation page. Just though you'd like to know, RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 23:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 3rd.
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.

Myrtone
I don't think Cyde's block was very fair, as I checked the disruption clause and it actaully states that users will usually be warned before being blocked, so why wasn't I, given that I am an established user. Myrtone
 * He obviously considered that you had gone beyond what would be usual:
 * I have blocked you for 48 hours under the disruption clause of Wikipedia's blocking policy. Your continuing nonsensical comments and votes on various RFAs show that you are purposefully trying to disrupt Wikipedia. Once this block expires, please get back to writing the encyclopedia and stop disrupting Wikipedia's process for adminship. -- Cyde↔Weys 03:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What I did was nominate JustPhil for adminship and also opposed a number of self-nominations on the basis that self nomionations are silly, being blocked for that felt repressive, I don't understand how expressing such a view could be disruptive. BTW I beleive Cyde to be a she rather than a he becuase of her reason for blocking one of the troll accounts. Myrtone
 * Er, that block was two weeks ago and has long ago expired. There seems to be nothing to do now. I completely fail to see how your message is connected to "Jesus on Wheels", so I changed the header. Kusma (討論) 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance (second time)
Dear Kusma,

You do not reply to my request (see above) for quite a long time. What does it mean? If you do not want to help, you should plainly say so. I still hope that you will help. Lokas 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As it says at the top of this page, I am busy in real life. From a quick glance, the deletion was done within process, and deletion review found no new evidence. The situation is not likely to change before Arbatsky's results are published in a peer-reviewed journal. I can't see anything I can do at the moment, especially since I have almost no time for Wikipedia at the moment. Kusma (討論) 14:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI (1) Initial deletion in April was within process. But situation has changed, and now protection of certainty principle is against WP policy. (2) Arbatsky's results were published in a peer-reviewed journal. (3) If you do not have time to help, you do not have to. I just have chosen you among admins, because you are a mathematician and certainly can better understand the situation. Thank you anyway. With best wishes, Lokas 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What journal is "Font. phys."? I couldn't find anything about this journal. Kusma (討論) 10:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article
Hi, the above metadata template that you previously speedy deleted has been recreated again. Could you speedy delete it once more please? The "consensus" given as a reason is apparently nothing more than a handful of editors discussing colours. Cheers. Niz 12:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To update you, its now been deleted by another admin. One unhappy user has raised a second deletion review here : Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8, which might interest you. Niz 13:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 10th
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.

Yet another sockpuppet for User:Regulus marzo4103
This time using the name User:Gulusmarzo@yahoo.com (how original). I expected you were on a temp Wiki-break so I posted at WP:ANI as well. It may well be taken care of before you read this. And then again??... Cheers and take care! Anger22 00:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * make that 2 more: User:Regulusmarzo@hotmail.com... I think that's a new 1 day record? Anger22 00:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Blanning did the job and blocked them. Kusma (討論) 10:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th


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. Treebark ( talk ) 23:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Eva Braun
I may have reverted the same time you did. Could you check the gasoline v. deisel and make sure it's right. I think we were both reverting the currently...in hell vandalism. Thanks, -- G <font color="#b34a00">e <font color="#cd6000">n <font color="#e67700">e <FONT COLOR="#ff8c00">b</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff6a00">1</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff4700">9</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff2300">5</FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000">5</FONT> <font color="#006699">Talk<font color="#887788">/ <font color="#666666">CVU 03:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By consistency with other articles, I think it should be "gasoline". Kusma (討論) 09:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects
You are receiving this message because you previously voiced your opinion on a Redirects for deletion of a cross-namespace redirect that was originally deleted but then went to Deletion review and was then relisted at RFD. This is a courtesy notice so you are aware that the issue is being discussed again and is not an endorsement of any position. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

1982 in India afd
Hey -- you apparently came to a decision about this but didn't actually close the AfD. I just closed it, not realizing you had already done so. We came to the same conclusion, which is always nice to see. ;) Mango juice talk 03:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did close the AfD, but that was during the server problems where some revisions somehow didn't make it to the real database. Thanks for fixing it! Kusma (討論) 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th


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. --Michael Snow 04:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD/VfD2 (hehe)
OK, no problem. I will copy your question to WP:AN with a request for another sysop to provide a third opinion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you so much! RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 03:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kusma
I was really amazed that such an experienced member of this encyclopedia would block me for no valid reason (I have already explained to user: malo that this IP address is used by many people who may or may not have been vandalizing)... that is to say, amazed until I found out you were —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.127.112.78 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Until you found out what? Kusma (討論) 07:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

probably that you are a german... fucking germans, nothing changes

Talk:Jogaila
Hi there. Despite a whopping victory for the name Jogaila on the previous vote, the Polish users have got upset and called yet another vote. They want to get it moved back to the old unpopular name Władysław II Jagiełło. If you are interested in stopping this, you'll need to cast your vote again. Sorry for all this tediousness. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I voted for both Jogaila and Władysław II Jagiełło, both names make sense to me. Kusma (討論) 07:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st


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 03:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)