User talk:Moocha/Archives/2010/06

Première Hotel
Hi Moocha, I intentionally removed the maintenance templates, is there a problem? The templates asked for help to rewrite the article from a neutral point of view. I reviewed it and found that nothing in the article suggests that the hotel is "more superior" or "better" than any other hotels. Putting information such as number of guest rooms and types of facilities in the room look OK to me. I find it useful to readers rather than an advertisement.

Secondly, the template suggested that a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. What does it mean? Klang is a huge city with over 1 million population, naturally there will be people who will use Klang as their wikipedia ID. I won't be surprised if there are users with the ID such as Klangreader, Klangdude, Klangman, Klangboy, Klang something. I myself is using Klangwiki. Are you saying that if I create an article about Klang, I may have a close connection with the subject? I cannot comprehend it.

Lastly, the template said that the page is a new unreviewed article and it should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator. Well, my friend is the creator of the page, and upon creating it, she asked me to help to review it from the neutral point of view. I reviewed it, made some changes and thus removed the template. Is there anything wrong?

Perhaps you can "talk" to me first before you decide to undo my efforts, that will be much appreciated. Thank you.


 * Hi, Klangwiki! Sorry for the late reply, been busy in real life.


 * The issue that triggered my initial reaction was mainly the licensing of the hotel logo image, the rest (including the COI tag) basically came from there. Perhaps you might want to reconsider the license terms for the file, because I still don't think you can technically release a corporate logo image into the public domain - AFAIK trademark protection enforcement is mandatory just about everywhere in the world if you want to be able to hang on to the trademark. I'm thinking about having Wikimedia Commons covered there - not implying that the owners of the hotel might want to demand a takedown of the image, I'm concerned that they might be forced to.


 * Please don't interpret those maintenance templates as an attack or negative criticism; they're placed on articles to signal that someone thinks the corresponding article can be improved but doesn't have the time or the will to commit to do that, so they're asking for help - if I'd thought this had been purely an ad I'd have proposed deletion, which I clearly haven't :). I reverted your removal because there had been no explanation at all for it - generally, posting this on the article talk page would have done wonders :)


 * No harm done, though. If you think the article is OK now, I have absolutely no qualms to give it my blessing, and to send you a drink of your choice :)


 * Moocha (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moocha, Thanks for responding. I personally learn something new from you, thank you for explaining it to me. I agreed with you that posting this on the article talk page would be better =)

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klangwiki (talk • contribs) 06:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

List of micronations
The edit made to that page was information about my own micronation. I think that I should know the edit was reliable.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Declan2018 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see the links in the message I provided for more information about Wikipedia's concept of verifiability. Please cite sources for your claims - surely you must understand that Wikipedia is first and foremost aiming to be a reliable information source. Moocha (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

2D Articles
2d games are an important part of the internet. If you continue to delete my articles about them, I shall report you to Wikipedia and you shall be exiled to New Jersey for a minimum of 120 years for whoreism.

Nkarimbux (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Nnkarimbux


 * Please go away. Thank you for not spamming me as well, spamming Wikipedia is enough of an annoyance. Moocha (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up talk page
No problem! Mine just got vandalized too, for the 8th time! (I have a userbox on my page stating that fact, but it doesn't seem to matter much!) --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism- True Love
Hi Moocha, I noticed that you too reverted the vandalism by Karmin69 on the page True Love. If there has been several days of repeated vandalism by the same user, what can be done to stop it besides blocking/banning them or locking the page from everyone? Is it possible to block a user from one page? Seeing that it's more annoying (maybe a little creepy) than offensive, it may stop the user from any further vandalism to do just that. I understand that you're not an administrator, but since you've already seen what I'm referring to, I thought I'd ask being new here. :) Thanks. Katherine (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Katherine! What I can do is report the vandalism (I am not an admin thus have no way and no authority to take concrete action against vandalism.) I use Twinke for reverting changes and reporting vandalism - it's a wonderful tool. I'll look into the repeats, and if that user keeps vandalizing pages even after receiving a fourth and final warning, sooner rather than later the user's editing privileges will be revoked temporarily or permanently. Thank you for the heads-up! Moocha (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Emma Brown
Just to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on this article. You tagged it as a "test page" one minute after the article was created. I believe this was probably a mistake, because the article was clearly not a test page - it was simply incomplete, as articles often are one minute after creation. It's quite possible that the author would have continued to work on the page had they not received an immediate speedy deletion notice on their talk page. Cheers, Thparkth (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I requested speedy deletion because at that moment the article contained just "Emma Brown is the title of the unfinished manuscript of Charlotte Bronte before she died. It was complete by", so I assumed it *was* a test. Moocha (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Kochari
Thanks for contacting me. I have to disagree with you about my commentary - it is not "my" analysis, rather, facts. Kochari is derived from a word used by all Turkic people and means nomadic, it's is a Turkish word. This is similar to Armenians and other nations using dolma, sarma and, yes, kochari. My commentary is not violating policies. I will insist on sticking to a correct version or not having any version at all. The existing test is clearly biased as it states that despite the fact that kochari is common to a number of people, it is derived from an Armenian dance. This claim will be disputed by Greeks, Kurds, Assyrians, and Turks as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeydarQasimov (talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, I'm aware of the heated controversy in Turkish - Greek - Armenian relations. However, please, please don't engage in edit wars, and please, please, quote sources when reverting like that. Without references, there is no way to distinguish real from fake material, so, ceteris paribus, we leave the status quo as it is. I am willing to assume good faith as much as possible, but edit warring never helped... Moocha (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

East Indians
Hi, I am NOT vandalizing the East Indians page on Wikipedia. I myself am an East Indian Catholic. I have removed the Copyright tag and had messaged appropriately. There was a copyright notice which was put up by @SpacemanSpiff

The PDF linking to www.east-indians.com which was causing this copyright issue has been approved by the site's administrator Mr Prem Moroaes. You can see his thoughts on the East Indians discussion page on Wiki. Please remove the copyright template.

Jacdsouza (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi! As far as I can see, MWOAP requested a permission form to be mailed in, at which point I expect the administrator responsible for that to remove the copyvio template. Has that action been performed? I apologize for the inconvenience, but Wikipedia cannot afford too many copyright violation issues... Moocha (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the permission form had been filled in by Mr Prem Moraes and submitted but no action from the responsible Administrator yet. Please can you help and undo your edit. Thanks Jacdsouza (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, sorry for the inconvenience. I'll try to track down whoever received that permission and prod them into action. Moocha (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also created a link on the disambiguation page to which east indians (lower case) redirects. Moocha (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion template removal by User:2estates
Just thought I'd drop a quick note thanking you for being so quick to reinstate the speedy deletion template I left on a page when this user removed it, but please remember not to bite the newcomers: I think a level 1 or level 2 warning would have been more appropriate here, as it is the first warning that the user has received and he is probably not familiar with wikipedia policy.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  12:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like he's continuing to remove the speedy deletion template now though, so it seems lack of understanding of the policy probably wasn't the issue in this case. Still, please remember it is generally best to reserve level 3 warnings for later offenses or blatant vandalism per WP:AGF.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, crossed edits, my originally intended reply below. Moocha (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks, duly noted, but there was a reason I started warning at uw-speedy3: the writing style of that user is hauntingly familiar to me - I'm sure I've seen a few spam pages created by the same individual or group in the last week or so (beyond being standard marketing blah.) I'm reasonably certain that's a sockpuppet, but without any evidence to back it up I can't do much more. Moocha (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. You might consider starting a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI, and requesting that a checkuser investigate if you lack conclusive evidence that this is a sock. I have reported the user to WP:UAA based on the username and edits, anyway.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  12:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not waste a CheckUser on this case, there are enough worse people around. I've saved the entire data set accessible to me locally and will keep an eye out for repeats. Thanks! Moocha (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverts
Is this really vandalism? -Regancy42 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably should have assumed good faith, but look at the other contributions. I don't think running around and capitalizing common nouns is very constructive. Moocha (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the user did give an explanation. -Regancy42 (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have rolled back using AGF instead of VANDALISM, it came across too harshly. Not much I can do now, however, can't edit the revision comment. Moocha (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand citation
Sorry I forgot the citation. Thanks for catching that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrector555 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it, anytime. Have fun! Moocha (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

not vandilism
on the list of pop punks band i got marked from vandlism when really all i did was remove unfitting bands and replaced them with actual pop punk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floggingmolly101 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. That may have been what you meant (although considering your other edits, I consider that to be very unlikely), but what you actually did was replace two links with one link to Fireworks (which are pyrotechnic devices), and one broken link to a non-existing page. See here for your edits. Please respect other people's work. Moocha (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What have you done with income statement?
Barney's Bakery needs their financial information.--Melons Accounting (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not use Wikipedia for this. You can use a spreadsheet program, an online service such as Google Docs, or even a piece of paper. An administrator has deleted the page. I'm quoting from the message I left on your talk page, so you can recover the data (and in the future I suggest you work on your own files and not on Wikipedia): Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Moocha (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

nasty German username
Although not locally blocked, the username has been globally suppressed by a WP:STEWARD, and their edits appear to have been oversighted so that even admins can't see them, so they are a done deal here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Moocha (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Apparently, you have a fan: Leuma
Re your messages: Yeah, it happens from time to time. It looks like I have two of them. Funny thing is that I didn't "delete" anything of theirs, only reverted it. Oh well. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not Spamming Engagment Rings
I did not insert any spam links. They were links to justifiable references. There are links on the engagement ring page that are very questionable and are unjustifiable links unlike mine. Please look at the entire page and the context the links are placed in before singling out users who are tryign to add valuable content. You are a disgrace to Wikipedia.

Please review the other links under engagement rings: Styles. There are even one or two dead links in there. Good job screening those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.219.10 (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's alright, I don't mind being a disgrace as long as it keeps people from spamming. Also, please don't do this (namely, use one account to spam, then log out and use an IP-only account to re-prepare the terrain), since that will get you permanently blocked very, very quickly, Mr. or Mrs. Lakhip. Please familiarize yourself with Sock puppetry first. Thank you. Moocha (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention: If you think other edits to the page added spam links, then how about being constructive and follow So fix it, instead of complaining and insulting me here? Moocha (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note: If you selectively edit legitimate comments on user talk pages like you did here, especially in order to hide or falsify the truth or to distort someone else's views on their own talk page, you will be blocked indefinitely. Moocha (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:60GB Original PS3.gif
Hello. I must ask you about the file "60GB Original PS3.gif". Why did you remove it? Maybe you didn't see it but it is a picture from Flickr. It is added a link to the file to Flickr. I hope you can answear the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream-2291 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not remove the picture, I reverted its inclusion in the PlayStation 3 article. The picture in question appears to violate the copyright of the author, and furthermore has been marked for speedy deletion by another editor. Before linking in potentially non-free content, please familiarize yourself with Contributors' rights and obligations and Guidelines for images and other media files. Thank you. Moocha (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The user is indefinite blocked by Elockid. Reason is "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233". Greetings, Cervidae  14:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Also - ye gods, that's one hell of a SPI... Moocha (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)