User talk:Kyle1278-2/2011 Archive

Nomination for deletion of Template:Edmonton
Template:Edmonton has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2007StallionsLogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:2007StallionsLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ray William Johnson
Before completely deleting my contributions on the article "List of YouTube personalities", how about we reach a compromise as fellow Wikipedia editors about the subject. In the article "Discussion" page I suggested adding after RWJ's entry if anyone did not feel he is notable enough for inclusion. Can we not reach a compromise and include him with a after the entry, as that is what you feel is the case?

I understand your wanting to adhere entirely to the notability clause, but as demonstrated on the discussion page there is a large number of editors that want RWJ included. My edits included articles that to the best of my knowledge fits the notability requirements, if taken together as a whole. I can only suggest that you be reasonable in your editing, and consider that by not including RWJ, the article's quality is diminished and misrepresented.--Chiefmartinez (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities
Hi Kyle1278. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), you may be interested in Talk:List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Edmonton
Template:Edmonton has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2007StallionsLogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:2007StallionsLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ray William Johnson
Before completely deleting my contributions on the article "List of YouTube personalities", how about we reach a compromise as fellow Wikipedia editors about the subject. In the article "Discussion" page I suggested adding after RWJ's entry if anyone did not feel he is notable enough for inclusion. Can we not reach a compromise and include him with a after the entry, as that is what you feel is the case?

I understand your wanting to adhere entirely to the notability clause, but as demonstrated on the discussion page there is a large number of editors that want RWJ included. My edits included articles that to the best of my knowledge fits the notability requirements, if taken together as a whole. I can only suggest that you be reasonable in your editing, and consider that by not including RWJ, the article's quality is diminished and misrepresented.--Chiefmartinez (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities
Hi Kyle1278. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), you may be interested in Talk:List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Yes, you were right about Ronald Jenkees, - I was looking for him! Thank you so much for posting his name, now I'm happy to listen to his music again. I also added him again to that article about celebreties, suppose it would be fair.

Best, Ivan (ivanatt@yandex.ru) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.198.121 (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring to keep a BLP violation in an article?
Please explain why you used Huggle to edit war on Lynne Spears to keep a WP:BLP violation in the article. Exxolon (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am interested in your explanation as well. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all I would like to state that I have no bias weather or not the content should be or not be in the article. I first saw the edit while I was online. It came up as a removal of content and I reverted it as such and left a message on the IP talk page with the Huggel template. The next couple of the reverts were due to the same reason as you can see in the articles history. I understand that I should of not taken it past the second revert and should of instead left a message on the talk page, and I take full responsibly for my lack of judgment on this issue. I have no ill will towards the IP or editors that took action. The revert where the IP left a explanation or the edit was my fault as well. I responded to hastily to the edit from the previous reverts and did not take time to review it. Once I realized that there was a explanation I went to the talk page to see if there was any message left. There I saw that User:Ponyo had left a message requesting a reply form the IP to discuss the content that was being removed. The next two edits that i made were to leave the content on the article for the discussion at that time I should of left a message but did not again I take responsibly for my non-action in that case. At the time of the reverts I did not know that the content was in violation of WP:BLP (I understand now how it is), and I understand that I should of taken closer look at both the content and references before reverting. I am very sorry for any trouble this has cause any editors and I take responsibility for my part in this problem. I am not trying to cause trouble I understand what I did wrong in this incident and I fully understand the action of other editors that have been taken against me. I am on Wikipedia to help improve its quality not cause problems. Please forgive my response time I am currently in university and it takes up most of my time.  Kyle  1278  02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I have a few questions: Thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is English your second language?
 * 2) When content is removed, do you usually look at what that content is?
 * 3) Have you read the BLP policy, and do you feel you understand it?

Yes English is my first language. I'm sorry if the reply seemed written poorly I wrote it quickly before I left for work. In this case when the content was removed I noticed that the content was stating and made an assumption that this person was a fan and did not want the information on the article mainly because of a lack of explanation. I did not look at the references which I should have, and I should not have not continued to revert after the explanation by the IP and rather should have gone to a admin. Before I revert a edit I will look at what has been changed to see weather it is vandalism or not and what type of vandalism it is. I have read the BLP policy before and I read it again after this incident. I now under stand from reading it again that I had a responsibly to check the references and the content to see if it violates BPL when the IP stated why they removed it. Before I re-read it I through it was the other way around but I now see how I was in the wrong. I believe I understand the BPL policy fairly well, and in the future if I am uncertain of an edit or revert I will refer back to BPL or a admin. Thank you for your response and questions. Sorry about the talk back template I did not notice you do not want them on your talk.  Kyle  1278  18:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it sounds to me like you may be trying to do too much, too fast; working yourself too hard and focusing on volume rather than quality. You restored content without checking it; you posted on my page without reading my editnotice... it may be that you're simply rushing things a bit. Try slowing down and carefully considering your actions a bit more; there is more here than a simple misunderstanding of the BLP policy, IMO. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, I have been rushing a lot of what I do on here. As you can see from my contributions for the past two months I have not been very active on Wikipedia compared to other months. When I got a chance to start editing it again I started fast and went to far with the edits without thinking of the consequences. Again thank you for the comments.  Kyle  1278  18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nod nod, take a little time for yourself, and when you do edit Wikipedia, remember that The World Will Not End, etc - take your time and just do a few things (carefully) - don't try to do everything. :-) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of Huggle/rollback
I've revoked your rollback rights for the time being, because I think we need to discuss what happened at Lynne Spears. I'm not going to take your head off for it, I'm not in that kind of mood, but you need to satisfy me that your knowledge of policy and your judgement are both sufficient for you to be using tools like Huggle. There are several issues here. The first is that reverting the same edit by the same person seven times in about 15 minutes is rarely a good idea. Even in the most blatant cases of vandalism, it's usually better to take a step back—there are dozens of other editors on recent changes patrol at any one time and multiple noticeboards or admins from whom you can seek advice. The second is that the material is an egregious breach of WP:BLP. I hadn't noticed this earlier, because it's only now I've had chance to look at the diffs, but this brings me onto my final point: the manner in which you were reverting suggests to me that you going far too quickly and not thoroughly examining each diff before reverting. If you're going to patrol recent changes with Huggle, it's imperative that you pay attention to what you're reverting. I've never used Huggle, but I'm sure it has a "skip" function of some sort. When in doubt, you need to be using that or coming out of Huggle to examine the circumstances behind he edit.

When you can convince me that you're going to take things a bit slower and that you've read or re-read WP:VAND and WP:BLP, then we can talk about restoring your rollback rights. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have re-read both the WP:VAND and WP:BLP pages, and I have seen that I made a mistake and did not follow the policies that are set in place, mainly with BLP. I took it to fast, reverted and did not think of the consequence of the action till it was to late. Please read the comments above if you have not, they go further into the incident. I hope you see that I did not do this in bad-faith or out of a bias, it was the first time I have seen the article. I would like to be able to regain the rollback privilege. I understand your actions of removing it and I have no ill will to any of the editors that took action. Thank you.  Kyle  1278  01:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've restored your rollback privs. Slow down, take it easy and remember that there are plenty of other vandal fighters. If you're not sure an edit is vandalism, leave it for someone else and try to adhere to a 2 or 3RR for anything that isn't so obviously vandalism that anyone in their right mind would revert it. That way, hopefully our next interaction will be in more positive circumstances. Best, HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you.  Kyle  1278  01:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Something that may interest you
Daysland, Alberta is a very limited article, and there's an online resource available on it at - any chance you could maybe do any work on it? I'd do it myself, but I'm a pretty poor content writer, very disorganized and all - I can only do short(ish) biographies - like of E. W. Day, Daysland's founder. Interesting story as well. No need to do this, just thought I'd mention it. Connormah (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, thank you for taking this one on, I look forward to reading it :) - from what I've read, it has an interesting story. Connormah (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Whenever you have the time. Connormah (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Map of Canadian arctic tree line: OR?
Hi, Kyle. Over at tree line, the map of the arctic tree line in Canada (File:Canada tree line map.png) has been removed, because another editor thought it was original research. The file description says that you created the file. If so, could you add some citations for the data that you used to generate the map, so that I can add it back to the article? (I really like the map). Thanks!—hike395 (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list atWikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC).