User talk:The Kinslayer/Archive 4 09/02/07 - 13/03/2007

how do I find your replies?
and what is a ptalk page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lpgeffen (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Crisztina Sereny
I saw your message about this page at User talk:Dwanyewest. The subject is in fact a professional fitness competitor, which is sufficient to meet WP:BIO. The original article indicated professional status, so I'm not really sure why you tagged it for notability (also, tagging it literally one minute after it was created seems like jumping the gun slightly). However, I agree that this is looks like a copyright violation and should be dealt with accordingly; I added something about that to the message on Dwanyewest's talk page. It's also interesting that although the page was copied from her web site, the page was created under the wrong name (first name misspelled). fbb_fan 23:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing...
Related to the above, you may want to have a look at User:Kriszti. This is apparently where the text on the above page was copied from. It looks like Ms. Sereny is attempting to use this as a second web site. I don't recall for sure, but I think this may qualify as inappropriate use of a user page. fbb_fan 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you might like to know...
user:RunedChozo came back after his block expired and promptly began engaging in the exact same behavior he was previously censured for, on a different article. He got himself an indef block this time. Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd noticed he came back and was mouthing off. I decided not saying anything was the best result and it worked. Just handed him a rope and watched the idiot hang himself with it! The Kinslayer 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Liszt.com
Hello The Kinslayer. It looks as if I should be playing in the sandbox. Somehow this article ended up formated strangely. Bye Dogchaser 09:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jazz and jess
Hello Kinslayer, thank you for stopping by my page to help me with my first wiki editing. :) Would you mind if at a later date i came back and asked how to improve the status of my page and fulfil the criteria you mentioned?

Many thanks, Natephoenix 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'd recommend looking here as a good starting point for addressing the issues. The Kinslayer 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Toy Pištoľs
Can you explain what the rationale was for removing the hangon tag from the article? You didn't warn the author when placing the original tag. You didn't warn the author about removing speedy deletion tags. Isn't removing the hangon tag without any discussion inappropriate? This author needs to be talked to. I'll do it if you're unwilling. Leebo 86 16:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your very good at selectively interpreting these things you know. The hangon tag quite clearly states the person putting up the tag should state why they think a hangon should be applied on the talk page. Here we are some 5 hours on and I'm still waiting. No reason - No valid hangon tag as far as I'm concerned. And before we go over the same old crap, I am not interested in anything further you have to say, so please don't waste my time or your time by replying. The Kinslayer 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jinnah's 11th August speech
Historical speeches and quotes, especially those that are part of public record do not constitute copyright violations.

Dawn has a copyright on the supplement that reprinted the speech. I have made enough changes to avoid such violation. However The Dawn does not have the copyright on the speech of the founding father of Pakistan.

This would akin to New York Times having the copyright to the US Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YLH (talk • contribs)
 * I know the articles been rewritten, but it's not down to you to remove the delete tag, as was told to you multiple times. Now you've rewritten the article, the article will most likely be kept, but that's up to the Admin reviewing the article, not you or me. The Kinslayer 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked that someone could be this pigheaded and egoistic as to simply claim that something is a copyright violation when it is not and then go ahead and delete it as well.

Have some shame. Disgusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YLH (talk • contribs)
 * You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is an Admin that has the ability to delete pages, I'm not. The Kinslayer 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kinslayer, are you really this stupid or did you not pay attention in your history and/or commonsense 101 to know that PUBLIC RECORD released by governments is NOT copyright for newspapers, even if the newspapers are as important as New York Times for the US or Dawn for Pakistan. The problem with people like you is that you would not get what is being said, even if it jumped out of the screen and bit you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YLH (talk • contribs)
 * If you say so. The Kinslayer 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Next time stick to video games and leave adult stuff to adults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YLH (talk • contribs)
 * I'll take it under advisement. Any other (inaccurate) generalisations based on my user info you wanna throw in while we're here? The Kinslayer 13:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, dude, frankly I don't give a damn whether you are some redneck sitting in bumblefck rural virginia or not, or whether you get off on video games or are an incestuous freak who featured on Jerry Springer. My problem is with the self righteous attitude - when you are so obviously and blatantly wrong- that you take. Frankly, I have always sided with the Americans on most global issues,  but I think it is people like you who are a cause for why "they hate you". So nerd... get a life and stop messing around with stuff you have no clue about. FYI I am a lawyer and was educated one of your Ivy League schools - somewhere you won't get to go in a million years- and I think I have a very good idea what constitutes copyrights...   now why don't you go VANDALISE the Constitution of the US page, because John Adams has a copyright on it. (OH MY BAD- You don't know who John Adams is do you?- how about Tom Jefferson, Franklin? Washington? Hamilton?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YLH (talk • contribs)
 * I have no idea where you have got this ridiculous notion that I am American from. The Kinslayer 13:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

List Kinslayer, I don't care what or who you are. Prove how exactly you came to the conclusion that it was a Copyright issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YLH (talk • contribs)

No personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Leebo 86 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Prodding an article up for speedy
I placed the prod tag on the article, despite your speedy-delete tag, because I thought it was possible that the speedy wouldn't be accepted. It's possible for an article to go through two deletion processes at the same time; in this case, if the speedy is rejected, I'd prefer the article to go through prod (and I'm hoping that its author will expand it); if the article is speedied, the prod tag on it won't be a problem. In light of this, I'll suggest that you should self-revert the removal of the prod; I can't see how the removal would help anything, unless you think my prod reason is wrong but that the article is speediable (which seems unlikely). --ais523 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith - How to proceed?
Dear Kinslayer,

Despite that you feel I am only trying to enter our company and my name, I hope that you can shortly try to assume good faith. I do not have experience with the tags and protocols of Wikepedia. Still, our Silicium Escapement Wheels is an important step to improve mechanical movements. If you are wearing a Swiss automatic watch, it will effect you also. If you have another watch, I hope that you can consider that for all people wearing an automatic watch, it is an interesting subject.

The article from Theodore Diehl explains the improvement and purpose of a Silicium Wheel. I have added this article so you can see there is outside verification for what I have described on Silicium Wheels. If you have a misunderstanding or any question, please feel free to ask me (pcstas@frederique-constant.span.ch).

Quite frankly, I do not see why such improvement should not be added to the escapement page. I have additional interesting information on the subject but after almost two hours trying to find out tags and protocols on Wikipedia, my enthusiasm is reducing fast.

Best Regards, Peter Stas Pcstas 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC) — Pcstas (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wow, A copy and pasted answer from the talk page of the relevent article, because gods know I'm so stupid I needed it copied directly to my talk page. It's even got a Dear [Insert name here] intro. Well allow me to reply in kind with a copypaste of my reply from Talk:Escapement:

Good faith is a non-binding guideline. It certainly would be a stretch to apply it to someone who for the last two days has tried variously to get articles about himself, his company, and his products into wikipedia, especially after they, despite numerous good faith warnings, persist in removing tags from their own articles. And you still failed to explain how the source directly relates to your company. On the one hand we have this source about this process. On the other hand we have you running around saying your company 'created' this 'revolutionary' method sometime in the last 21 days. What's missing is a link between the two. You've established this Escapement exists, very good, no-one was claiming it wasn't. The Kinslayer 12:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The link between the two is that both are the same. Patek Philippe introduced such a wheel in a limited edition previously. Frederique Constant has just introduced it. It seems you do not consider the major improvement. Even if you do not want that Frederique Constant is mentioned, the information on the silicium escapement wheel remains a valid article that is still missing from Wikepedia. Clear that you do not want to abide to the 'Assume Good Faith' guideline. Can you still try to look at the facts of the silicium escapement wheel, not at my mistakes in trying enter this information? Pcstas 12:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right so it's now gone from you and your company 'creating' this Escapement to you and your company re-introducing a previously created yet unused Escapement. I wondered why an article about an Escapement that was supposedly 'created' in February 2007 was dated back to May 2005. The Kinslayer 12:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

~ You still are not looking at the merits of the system and that it is new. Do you question that it has an added value? Pcstas 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the system. I never claimed the system doesn't exist, I'm SAYING your company did not create the system and has no right claiming it did as a means to get it's article kept on wikipedia. The Kinslayer 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your conclusions and accusations are invalid: Frederique Constant created and produced revolutionary silicium escapements wheel and we take full credit of it! Pcstas 13:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter what you say. We now have proof that you didn't. So go ahead, claim away. I'll just remove them and have the proof to back up my actions. The Kinslayer 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Apart from whom created the silicium escapement wheel first, you now seem to accept that such system exists. Still you block an article about such a system. What is the purpose to do that? Please note that I am still trying to assume that you handle in good faith. Pcstas 13:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am blocking nothing. Check the articles again. I've instead put tags up suggesting that silicium escapement wheel be merged into Escapement, just not by you or me. The Kinslayer 13:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that is fine with me. Anyhow, I am going back to work. Lastly, I really do not understand that you state that you have proof that we did not develop and produce a revolutionary Silicium Escapement Wheel. I have never written that we were the first nor only. It seems that you have trouble in keeping everything clear. Small advise: try to assume a little more good faith and help new users instead of fustrating the process. Pcstas 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your original version of the article quite clearly stated that your company 'created' the escapement, rather than implemented an already created procedure. So you did claim to be first. It seems you have trouble understanding that if you want to claim to have 'created' something, you need to have proof to back your claim. And that proof shouldn't be an article that clearly says the escapement was created 2 years before your company claims to have created it. The Kinslayer 13:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we did create an escapement with a Silicium Wheel. If 'create' according to your definition means that that it must be exclusive and never been done before, then it is a misunderstanding. My native language is Dutch and 'create' to me means: that the person/company developped and produced the part/product. Please note that the CADCAM image shows the system development. Pcstas 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see that we might indeed have a language issue here. On Wikipedia, one of the notability guidelines is that a company is notable if it created something first. By your definition of create, the company has only improved upon an existing item/process and has not actually been the first to do it, and has not actually developed a unique product that has never been done before. The Kinslayer 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Eirias
hello, what subject do you teach at eirias high school? User:81.77.67.118 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't, I'm a former student there. Why? The Kinslayer 08:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New York Anime Festival
I have started the article in question, and would like to have the deletion notice expunged. NoseNuggets 7:59 AM US EST Mar 2 2007.
 * I'm sure you would. The Kinslayer 13:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a habit this isn't it? I was working on an article when you did this, upshot is now that I have lost a good 30 minutes of data entry which I'm not going to have to time to redo. See discussion on Institute of IT Training.--Pandaplodder 13:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, if you hadn't been so quick to complain, and actually examined the edit conflict page, you would have found your entire article at the bottom waiting for you to copy it back it up. So the loss of 30 minutes work is the fault of your ignorance. And as for a habit, if you mean a habit of patroling new pages and tagging those that appear to be shite, then yes it is a habit.The Kinslayer 13:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had my disagreements with The Kinslayer in the past, and I do feel an illogical twinge of pain when an anime-related article has to be deleted, but the New York Anime Festival article falls short of meeting our guidelines for notability. Also, NoseNuggets, the article is nominated at articles for deletion and it will stay there for 5 days while the community discusses. In the meantime, removing the deletion notice would not circumvent the discussion. Leebo 86 13:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mario Party 1 & Advance mg lists
Please do not redirect these pages to the main article as they are seperate peices of information. Thanks. Bowsy (review me!) 15:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

zinc pest speedy deletion
Why did you remove the speedy-deletion tag from zinc pest? I'd just like to make sure I'm on the right side of things regarding copyrights and such. Frotz 10:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken in placing it in the first place, as it turns it out that it didn't actually constitute a copyvio as it was re-worded. The Kinslayer 10:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lifehacker
Hey again.Please pay attention to the diskussion at the topic "Lifehacker". The redirection is misleading due to the concept of lifehacking Lifehacker 12:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Shut up and go away. The Kinslayer 12:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

NO..seriously. U want Wikipedia to be taken seriously then take a good look at this!! I respected your deletion of lifehacker.dk as an article, and accepted your arguments (partly:-)), but this redirection og "Lifehacker" to lifehacker.com is not appropriat due to the common understanding of the term Lifehacker : One who uses lifehacks!! Lifehacker 12:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

John Mullen
Hi,

I am sorry to give you a headache. I am confused as to if this entry meets noteworty status.

I thought I had done all the correct things. I am new user so I may be making lots of mistakes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Generalmartok (talk • contribs) 12:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Sklirou
Hello, You tagged this article for CSD:G7, which I agree with, however the creator has removed the tag and added some new content, which in turn contained spam. I removed the spam and edited some link errors out before I noticed the tag was removed by the creator of the article. Since the article now at least has some content I invite you to have a look and reapply the tag cince G7 no longer fully applies.

That said I believe the editor is creating those acticle solely for the purpose of including his or her resort links, for which I gave the user 2 warnings already, for different articles. Just wanted to let you know  Intinn Talk! 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sabrepulse
If you read further into the article, it asserts that this group has released 4 albums and one EP. That's more than enough to meet WP:MUSIC if this is true, hence I consider it a claim of notability. I agree, that first bit doesn't establish anything, but that part is supposed to be about the origins of the group. Mango juice talk 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On further examination, I see it says the artist is part of several internet/diy labels, which refutes that those albums would count for anything. (If I had noticed that I would have deleted it, which I will now do.)  BTW, side note: it's important with WP:PROD proposals that you mention prod in the edit summary: prods aren't supposed to be re-added and the only way people can easily check that is to look for edit summaries in the history.  Mango juice talk 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

redirect
i understand the redirect, but I was in the middle of writing a summary on Kaelor that could have been incorporated into the main article, now ive lost the whole thing, try thinking a bit more next time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd123 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
 * You lost your article because you were in too much of a hurry to complain. If you had bothered to check the edit conflict page, you would have seen that your own edit was listed at the bottom, and putting it back into the article is a simple as cutting it from the bottom, and pasting it back into the article at the top. So the data loss was your own fault, not mine. kthnxbye. The Kinslayer 10:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A Self-promoting dickhead writes...
its not about myself. its about me and my freind. it is real. go and type it in on youtube. Yeah biAtch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Stanek 9999 (talk • contribs)

Majorchaos
Can I request, please don't do anything that might appear as antagonism. Majorchaos is a newbie, and very frustrated by deletion of work he's done. If we handle this well, we end up +1 good contributor. Please take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. Thanks, --Dweller 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not an antagonistic comment, it was a genuine concern. His replies kept stating stuff that had already been explained to him by at least two seperate people. If he had read them then he wouldn't have been saying the same stuff. The Kinslayer 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Both I and he read your comments as antagonistic. Personally, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way... which is why I asked you to try not to "appear" that way. --Dweller 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, that following your post above, you then posted this. It's really not helping. Please desist. --Dweller 16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Get your facts straight before being 'disappointed' (like a care for your approval anyway). I was typing that post when you were leaving your message on my page, and didn't receive my message notification until after I had posted my reply on the talk page. Any other questions? The Kinslayer 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I would appreciate you warning him too, as I view his constant name-calling as extreme antagonism. The Kinslayer 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Type2error
I agree that the awards are an assertion of notability, although I'm not yet sure about the notability of these awards. But that is no ground for speedy deletion; as outlined in Criteria for speedy deletion, "if the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." Another reason I nominated the article is G11, blatant advertising. I'll give cleanup a chance to deal with any advertorial issues though. A ecis Brievenbus 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Tag
Sorry Kinslayer we stepped on each other with regards to deletion tags on Shakar. It happens from time to time. Please don't take offense. Have a "great day". Shoessss 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Incredibles 2 is upcoming in 2008.
Oh, What the Hell, You just put to them on my New Page, I Want My New Page and I Wanna Give away from Information. So Stop Adding Nonsense. -DelarionDavis89 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, looks to me like YOUR the one adding nonsense. According to you, 'TI2 was released in 2008', which is next year, and has exactly the same plot too. Weird that, what with it supposed to be a sequel and everything. The Kinslayer 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)