User talk:Kww/12072013

Good article reassessment

I mentioned your name here as a possible closer and no one objected so am hoping you would consider it. I imagine you are familiar with the article and have been following the debate. AIRcorn (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it tomorrow.—Kww(talk) 06:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Some questions to the singlechart template

I just wanted to try to understand the kind of technical things you are using in Template:Singlechart for maybe being able to edit it later by disassembling all parts of the template, but I finally failed. Template:Singlechart/chartnote for example is a macro that made me get really confused as I totally understand nothing what a macro contains. I also got confused trying to edit the sandbox as my changes were not saved and it instead showed an error which I could not understand. So, I tried to copy the template into my userspace (User:Ali1610/Template:Singlechart to edit it but it just displays nothing, what depends on some missing other linked templates, I suppose? So how to get into this template or at least how to understand it? :S --Ali1610 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's there: just press the "edit" button.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, yes, of course the text is there, but that does not help me as I want to see what I am editing, and neither the save- nor the preview-function shows anything... --Ali1610 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Never will. Take a look at User:Kww/singlechart and User talk:Kww/singlechart. I use the talk page to test calls and see how they expand.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed. That will make my plannings difficult as I had some ideas for the charttable, both new charts to which a template could be created (as the Canadian RPM charts or Austrian, German and Swiss dance charts) and also improvements for the charttable itself. I will make a list and we will see what you can add or what not, as I do not see myself in a position to be able to edit this table ^^ --Ali1610 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Block restrictions

Hi kww, just wondering if it is time for my restrictions to be lifted yet? I think I have made significant progress and matured/learned over roughly six months. Thanks. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

AIR Charts

Hey, I want to add AIR Charts to {{Singlechart}}, can you add it? I don't know but I think it's not a bad chart right?Ggdlmnt (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Broken BillboardDanceElectronic album template

I have found a broken template, but I do not know how to fix this myself, I suggest that this is just one or two letters :D Example:

Chart (2009)	Peak position
US Top Dance/Electronic Albums (Billboard)	7

Please fix that or show me how to do. --Ali1610 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It was missing a carriage return inside the template. I don't mind you asking me about it, but it's really Hahc21 that maintains albumchart. He just borrowed my code as a basis to start from.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for fixing. Could you introduce that system somewhen to me? That does not have to be now as I´m stressed aswell. I´m interested in these templates and maybe a template for the year-end charts could be made, as Billboard is now publishing some year-end charts in the artist chart history... And did you overlook my question some sections above? :) --Ali1610 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the one about Zobbel, no, I didn't overlook it. I just don't feel comfortable endorsing Zobbel by encoding it into singlechart.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean the one called "Controlling my article" four sections above this one. So you really overlooked it ^^ --Ali1610 (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The table is broken again although I did nothing in this part of the template? I am confused... Please fix if you can. Additionally, is there a possibility to send you my proposals for new charts getting added to the template with example links and the parameters that would be needed? I am not able to add them myself as for example I cannot add any notes. And I do not want to send you this on your talkpage... --Ali1610 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You broke the carriage return again. I fixed it.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, but I did not edit anything in this part of the template and as you can see in the version history, I additionally entered a space, but that did not help. So what did you exactly do to correct this?

Please also answer the second question in my post before ;) --Ali1610 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You did it right here. Don't know why. I fixed it by inserting the carriage return. You can send me requests, so long as you are patient in waiting for results.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hi. I just came across User:HeidiHalliwell and their contributions, particularly the way they create and move their userspace drafts and the edits to music related articles, reminded me of User:Lizzy Green, who you blocked in January for vandalism. I was just wondering if the two accounts looked similar to you or am I barking up the wrong tree? - JuneGloom Talk 20:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to Basics

Ah, our old friend Mathiassandell. Thanks for dealing with that, Kww; I had seen you make a few blocks of Mathiassandell's other socks but was I hesitant to give out any blocks myself due to my involvement. Thank you. Acalamari 17:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Mariah is back

Per My Bra, s/he has returned as 86.165.48.75 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you protect London with the Lights On and maybe Slip (song)? S/He is targeting it too much in recent days. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

Could you opine on this matter? Regards — Robin (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Whats the problem(ray of light)?

Hi, thanks for unbloked me!!!

Ray of Light sold most than 20 milions http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/150058.stm%7Ctítulo=Madonna http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2012-03-30/madonnas-top-11-controversies-and-how-they-helped-her-succeed-commercially/%7Ctítulo=Madonna’s

I cant undestand because RL sold 20M,but some people insist on 16M My dream is one day all people agree that Ray of Light sold 20 MILLION

Reporting User:Loginnigol

Hi Kww. The user linked has been removing a picture of Christina Aguilera unnecessarily on "Birthday Cake (song)". (The difference is: before and after). I have reverted him twice: the first time my edit summary/reason was that it was unexplained, the second time I reverted and posted on his talk page here with a warning explaining why it should not be removed. He has reverted me three times, and says that the picture is spamming the article, and thus is on the 3RR borderline. He doesn't understand that the mention of a singer, or anyone/anything, means that it is allowed to be included and is allowed to stay. It was heavily reported that Aguilera was on the remix, fuelled by Rihanna's actions. Instead of me reverting him for a third time, I am asking you to put the picture back in the article and take whatever action you feel necessary on User:Loginnigol.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Reporting User:Calvin999

This person is trying to insert picture of a person in Birthday Cake (song) page even though the picture has no factual relevance to the subject. --Loginnigol (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You're in the wrong here, not me.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

US charts and certifications

Hey Kevin. Since you are obviously pretty invested in the charting of songs, I was wondering how you feel about what the US has been doing... Recap: The Hot 100 now includes streaming, as well as the RIAA.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Streaming doesn't seem very different from radio airplay: advertiser-supported media that allow someone to listen to a song without buying it.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm not keen on it, I can see why they included it on the Hot 100. However, certifications have always been based solely on sales. That seems so outrageous to me. They could have at least created a separate certification like they have for ringtones (or had, I don't know if it still exists now.)  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me an announcement saying that the RIAA recognizes streaming?—Kww(talk) 22:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Found it. It only counts towards the digital cert and does so at 1% of the weight of a purchase, so a digital Gold would would require 5,000,000 streamed views. I understand why you don't like the mixing, but that doesn't seem outrageously wrong.—Kww(talk) 23:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Justin Bieber's "Baby" sold just under 4 million copies in the US and is now certified 12x platinum is quite outrageous.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bodyguard

the bodyguard wasnot certificed by ABPD with 750,but with 100M.Check the history of certificed in ABPD.Im from brazil i know the history //www.abpd.org.br/certificados.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreMoneyGomes (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

LOOK http://www.abpd.org.br/certificados_interna.asp and http://www.abpd.org.br/niveis_de_certificacao.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreMoneyGomes (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Belinda

Top 40 and news articles!!!!!!! xoxoxo177.97.141.254 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

discography

sorry but in Anggun discography, the Malaysian and Indonesian chart is already there before i edit itGgdlmnt (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Vilify

In the article for Vilify (song), chartbot made this edit, but it provided a link to an incorrect page. The issue could be that there are two bands named Device listed in Billboard, one with artist id 300837 and one with 1556810. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've disabled Chartbot on that article for now. How would you feel about using "Device (pop rock band)" and "Device (heavy metal band)" in the call? That's how we distinguish the articles.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Return of TheREALCableGuy

Just reopened the user's sockpuppet case, as Macbookpro1990 (talk · contribs) seems to have a few hallmarks that match up perfectly to TRCG's editing MO, if you would like to comment. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nelly is Portuguese

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/nelly-furtado http://www.spiritartists.com/nelly-furtado.html http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/nelly-furtado

Do you need any more references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phuytt (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you revert your changes?

No. What you have found are copies of a last.fm article that has been copied to other places. Those last.fm articles were edited after this controversy arose on Wikipedia, where Wikipedia editors inserted the claim and then tried to use it as a source. Last.fm is a wiki, edited by amateurs, and does not meet our standards of being a reliable source. Those pages have been heavily discussed before. Feel free to try to find a reliable source for the citizenship claim.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Mathias

He has been changing multiple genres the last few days. Comparing the geolocation of Aguilera's socks and this IP: 91.154.103.158 (talk · contribs), which is the lattest, I have no doubt he is he. Also, can you protect/watchlist Insomnia (Faithless song)? An editor from Argentina has been disrupting various pages. Although he is right and Tiësto remixed the song, it is not a single and as such it is not his song or he is featured (and the article includes no information). I left a RPP report BTW. This nonsense started with True Love (Pink song) and moved to Blue (Da Ba Dee), Boot, Leggings, and others. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Mariah still editing as 86.165.48.93 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Muhammad

Thanks for referring me there. I'll move the new section there.Truth-seeker2004 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

billboard

i got a source from a forum. sorry you'll never accept that as a source but it will be published by billboard

173.218.4.77

The IP makes the same edits as Billim1 did, mainly involving Arkansas and western Missisippi and Tennessee television stations by changing branding and weblinks that do not meet sourcing or MOS standards, uploading images without sourcing (something unable to be done with an IP, obviously) and also to subjects involving Cabot Public Schools, where is how I can tell if it is a Billim1 sock or not. Billim1 has been giving many opportunities in the past to explain their editing behavior and work with us, but has consistently refused to do so, and thus works now on IPs to avoid scrutiny. Nate • (chatter) 05:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please block User talk:Zietebá

Hi, can you please block User talk:Zietebá with no expiry set (indefinite), because if Zietebá may changing genres again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.179.79 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking 96.4.156.41

Thanks for blocking this user.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenzo999 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

MariaJay

Per 86.165.48.93 (talk · contribs), s/he is disrupting Why? (Mis-Teeq song) and Roll On (Mis-Teeq song). Can you protect them? Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you block the IP as well. S/he still active as 86.142.55.197 (talk · contribs). Thanks again. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. S/he has returned as 86.170.127.249 (talk · contribs), per their edits at Jentina, as well as Monkey Business and "Don't Lie". Thanks again. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Your AfD closure - OVPsim

You just closed this discussion whilst I was typing out an additional comment I wished to make, which ended up edit conflicting and now I can't add it as as the AfD has been closed. I don't think there was any consensus ( WP:NOCONSENSUS ) to delete the article, indeed I posted the only delete vote and that was "weak delete", and I have since agreed (as stated in the AfD) with Widefox's proposal to userify the article rather than simply deleting it. So could we do that please if are going to close it? --wintonian ^talk 02:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That must have been frustrating, but I can understand this being closed delete, although userify I believe is the consensus, so that should be done IMHO. I just don't see anyone making any argument to keep, or requesting/agreeing it userified to their page, and as it can always be rescued and userified later who actually cares about it? Seems even the WP:SPAs that are all over it don't. Now that it is closed, let's say WP:SNOW - Wikipedia:INCUBATE#Incubation criteria just needs 4. someone willing to Wikipedia:INCUBATE. Widefox; talk 10:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about WP:SPA, I saw no evidence of anything untoward, just an intrest in a single subject, but then I am quite fond of the Presumption of innocence. But anyway the point is that there was no consensus to delete and thereforte it should be kept as per WP:NOCONSENSUS an whichd forms part of the deletion policy ( Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_of_articles ) rather than simply being a guideline. I have considerd taking this to WP:DRV but that would akin to starting a pointless argument ( WP:LAME ) and more specifically be a Wikipedia:Waste of Time and I don't want to be such a trouble maker. and yes it was frustrating but I'll get over it :). --wintonian ^talk 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to reply to the side topic about WP:SPAs. User:Duncgrah is an SPA, that's a fact. There's nothing implied by that until you asserted it above, which I hope you will take back WP:AGF. The main relevance now, which I'm sure Kww is alluding to, is that userfying to an new SPA isn't ideal, and incubate might make more sense. Thank you Widefox; talk 12:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone actually requests userfication, I'd probably be cooperative. Right now, people are only suggesting that it be userfied in someone else's userspace.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I thought we would move to User:Duncgrah who created it with an explanatory note stating that we would gladly have the article published if the relevant sources were found and provided. I am however not convinced at the moment that User:Duncgrah will return to work on it. I don't really want to be seen as trying to 'flog a dead horse' over something that no-one probably wants to take (a sort of) ownership of. Perhaps a brief note on the users page saying that the article can be unelected and moved to their user space if they so wished, would surface? Unless people don't think it's worth doing that either? On a final note I have just sent Talk:OVPsim for WP:G8 as a tidy up exercise --wintonian ^talk 17:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, been away from wikipedia for a few weeks and come back to see the OVPsim page has gone. Can I get that page back, I think you suggest into my user area, so that I can try and improve on its content to something acceptable to all?Duncgrah (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I support Duncgrah's request, and would also support Incubation (see above). Widefox; talk 12:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

About last message

Okay I get it. I just don't like it when users on this site defy me or pressure me with irritating relentless comments on stuff that is wrong and not supposed to be.MandarinVengeance (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

TRCG again...

This time with 12.152.0.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), added to the sock investigation. This time I would like a CheckUser to go forward. Nate • (chatter) 03:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Salvidrim's talk page.
Message added 17:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I assume it may be someone caught in an autoblock but I'd appreciate some input from you as I am leaving and cannot fully investigate. Thanks! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ping again (unsure if you've got me watchlisted); user responded with the rangeblock explanation. I assume it was probably intended to prevent editing; seems to know a lot about the socking/master issue you pointed out. As an aside, have you considered setting up an unprotected talk page so that non-(auto)confirmed users can still have some way to contact you and/or troll you without disrupting your main talk page? Scratch that, it seems your main user talk page isn't protected? *shrugs* :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Charlie (2)

He has returned as 86.145.68.27 (talk · contribs) per this. He's disrupting anyway. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you re-block this IP, he returned to do the same. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. He has returned as 86.145.69.236 (talk · contribs) per his typical "Wikilove" messages. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song) [To save edit warring...]

How is it "completely" detailed?? It's one short sentence saying when it broke into the top 10, and one sentence about how when it charted at number 5, it spent each of the next four weeks rising by one position. Hardly a trajectory. I haven't written "The following week, it rose by one position to X" four times over. It's not like I have given a trajectory of the entire 3 months that it has been charting, I could understand I had (Not that I would do that anyway...) Look at the section, it's tiny. All I talk about is the debut, the top 10, the top 5 and the number one position. Nowhere does it say on WP:CHARTTRAJ that you can't mention these things. I'm surprised you're making an issue out of something as small as this... If anything, you've made it worse, because now all there is is the debut in mid Feb, and the peak at the end of May. There is nothing in between, it gives no insight to what happened in the time between mid Feb and end of May.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you want to include a chart trajectory. They are useless, and I see far too many of them. If you can find a reliable source (like a Billboard column) that discusses why this particular trajectory is notable or interesting, the would be sufficient reason to include it. As it stands it's just trivia, and it's exactly the kind of material WP:CHARTTRAJ advises against.—Kww(talk) 23:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? It's not a trajectory. You've made it worse by giving nothing at all. Between mid Feb and 1st June (as that is when this is actually dated), there is nothing. No information at all. Two small sentences, that's it. You can't write trajectories for an entire chart run in two small sentences. It would be a paragraph, easily.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the entry date. Or to get consensus on the talk page that this particular trajectory warrants discussion. Either way is fine.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm reinstating the info. Editors can't comment on what they can't see, can they.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what talk pages are for. Put the material on the talk page.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

NO. It was in the article originally, and only you have a problem with it. It stays in the article until its decided that it should be removed. Show me where it says otherwise. You are really winding me up.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an obvious violation of guidelines. You don't get to include obvious guideline violations until a lot of people object. It's on the talk page. Let a discussion happen.—Kww(talk) 00:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But it's not violating. You're supposed to leave things until a consensus is made. Notice how you are bending the rules. It's not me who is violating the 3RR...  — AARON • ^TALK 00:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think things are kept until consensus to remove is reached. Both WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD indicate that once an addition is reverted, it stays out until there's a consensus to include it. I've bent nothing, nor have I crossed WP:3RR. Note that the sole talk page comment agrees with me that it's a violation.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I've seen or been told. No, you haven't crossed it, but you are also the one who told me that reverting three times is just as bad as crossing it and can be treated in the same way, so yes it is bending. Actually, half agrees. So you think that the section reads well missing out 3 months of info? I'm not saying to include all three months charting, but to include nothing at all is rather stupid.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Not what you've been told?" I'm not sure who told you what, but WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD have read that way forever. Generally, there's no reason to include chart trajectories. Peaks are sufficient. Eliminating my contributions to the talk page was well below the belt, by the way. If you want to add something to the discussion, feel free. Obliterating my comments will cause you trouble.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And you not explaining why I want it kept is fine though?  — AARON • ^TALK 00:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You are free to present your side of any discussion. If you had done what I originally asked and sought consensus at the talk page, your side of the discussion would have been presented first. I was careful to state my opinion as being my opinion.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I started writing it before you did, if you haven't noticed I have presented both sides. You only included yours. Mine took longer to write. If it's your opinion, then it's a case of your opinion vs mine then, right? Nothing to do with rules or consensus?  — AARON • ^TALK 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus and guidelines always involve considered opinion. I'm of the opinion that your change is an obvious guideline violation. So is Lil-Unique99. You are of the opinion that by leaving some parts of the trajectory out, you aren't violating the guideline. That's what discussion is for: the "D" in WP:BRD.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A trajectory is saying "The following week, it rose by X positions to number X" over and over and over again. Me saying when it debuted in the top 10 and the top 5 is not a trajectory. According to you, what constitutes it? Would saying "It spent six weeks inside the top 10 before reaching the peak" be trajectory? "It spent a month inside the top five before peaking at number one"? "It spent three months on the chart before reaching number one"? Vast majority of songs do not take over three months to hit #1, so that is why I included it, and according to WP:CHARTRAJ, it says it's okay.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said up there above somewhere, if you can find one industry source that says that this particular song has had an unusual trajectory, then I think that would be sufficient reason to include it. Is there any reason that we are talking on my talk page instead of in the discussion on the article talk page?—Kww(talk) 00:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need someone to write it when I provided the week by week archive?? And no.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Your love will be the death of me

Brexx, perhaps?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

MandarinVengeance

As per this request, see here, here, and here. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kevin. I see it took you long enough to figure out who I was. So the trick is to edit while you are asleep. I'll see you in July. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.18.100 (talk • contribs)

He's soapboxing again, which directly ignores your previous warning. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Kww! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Emmelie de Forest

Changing the Pending Changes on Emmelie de Forest without consulting me, besides being pretty damn rude, has left the article open to some rather serious BLP violations. See article talk, the recent history of my talkpage, and this guy, just coming off his week-long block tomorrow if you wish to inform yourself further. I used PC2 per "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". That's policy as I expect you know, and I followed it. None of the disruption on the article has come from IPs or new users. None. PC1 is quite irrelevant. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC).

talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Bishonen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bishonen | talk 21:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC).

UTRS request on hold

Hey Kww - Could you take a look at UTRS request #7609 when you have a chance? You sent it to the OPP queue, but I don't see that you ever listed it at WP:OPP to be checked. Thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you log in to UTRS right now? You're right that I didn't realise that putting it on the OPP queue at UTRS didn't actually cause anything to happen, but now I can't fix it because I can't log in to see the IP.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I can log in now, but it's a crapshoot as to whether I can connect at any given time these days. And it's very slooooooooow. I made the same mistake with the first few proxy/tor requests I handled; I thought it was an automated process until TParis clued me in. I would have fixed it for you but you have the request reserved so I can't make any changes to it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but this UTRS ticket is still attached to you and cannot be edited or closed. I was having trouble logging in for a while, possibly due to some updates that were made to the interface. I found that when I tried to login from my bookmarked link I was getting an error message, but when I used the link at UTRS (http://toolserver.org/~unblock/p/login.php) I was able to access the site. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In for the first time in over a week. At OPP.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Queen of Sheba

Hi, Kevin, just to let you know that I disagree with your semi-protection of the article, particularly your comment in the protection log. If the IP (currently blocked along with the registered editor) had come back and reinstated their version, then I would have reverted it as a resumption of the edit war and semi'ed the article, but I would not have done it preemptively, accusing the IP of something that doesn't seem to be true on the face of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Chartbot

Is there any way to prevent Chartbot from replacing archived Billboard links? SnapSnap 23:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Pretty difficult. What's the value in keeping the old link that we know is never going to be restored? Isn't the real answer to archive the modern form of the link? I might be able to do that.—Kww(talk) 23:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean the modern form of the old link? What if I just used the archived links, since they were left untouched? SnapSnap 00:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It won't touch the archived links. If you use the archive directly as a source, Chartbot won't mess with it.—Kww(talk) 00:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved. SnapSnap 03:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit war with User:SuperVirtual

Hi, I am in the middle of an edit war with another editor and I need an admin to intervene. Firstly with the article Walk (Foo Fighters song). User:SuperVirtual keeps on adding information that is not directly supported by the source he is using. He is stating that the song was only released in Germany and quoting a linked source to the German iTunes page for the song. Apart from the fact that the song is available to down load pretty much in any country in the world, the source he is quoting does not specifically say that the song was released exclusively in Germany - and is therefore in breach of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. I only speak a little German myself but can tell that the source does not give this information. Just to make sure I have requested, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Citing non-English sources, that the said user give a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.

OK, the next article, also a song by the same rock band is Arlandria (song), in which the same user is stating that the song was the second single from the affiliated album, in the United Kingdom. Again he quotes the UK iTunes page as a source, but again there is nothing in the source that says that the song was released as the second single in the UK, and is therefore again in breach of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Further more I have given reliable news sources that say that the song is infact the third single: [1] and [2]. I have tried discussing this with the said user on both of the articles talk pages, yet he wants to turn it into an edit war. The user also appears to be Italian and has a poor grasp of the English language when attempting to discuss the issue. Please can you intervene. Many thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Quintus, is really necessary mentioned me in all users discussion? --SuperVirtual (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I reverted his edits because is not a valid motivation "be a Wikipedia reviewer", and also he done edit war in the same quantity as me. I explain my reasons to stay with my edits, and I explain also my motivations to keep the edits. --SuperVirtual (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Kww, if you look at the talk pages for the two articles concerned you will see that I have put my reasoning - to cut a long story short SuperVirtual is adding information that is not directly supported by the source. As mentioned in my post to you above - which I hope you will take into consideration. He does not seem to understand the Wikipedia legislation that I am forwarding in my argument: i.e: Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What both of you need to do is to understand that neither of your explanations excuses the edit-warring. Discuss it on the talk page of the articles in question. I agree that there are synthesis issues (which is a big part of why WP:BRD mandates that material that is removed isn't added again until there's a consensus reached), but both of you still resorted to edit-warring.—Kww(talk) 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Amanda_Bynes_iconic

Screaming Brexx to me...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hilary Duff

Hi, the addition of an extra credit is not really a contentious addition. The rest of her filmography isn't sourced either and likely just based on IMDB. For instance I don't see any reference for her work in True Woman but I don't think it should be removed from the article (although a {{fact}} tag might be helpful. Garion96 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

D'uh. True Woman was the actual addition. :) I was just searching for an unsourced entry and mistakenly saw that one. So basically the addition was already in the article, the new editor just also added it to the filmography table. Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Having an unacceptably sourced thing in one place is still arguably better than having it in two. It is, at best, trivial and meaningless, and, at worst, untrue. Shouldn't be in the article either way.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the very first role for an actress is particularly trivial or meaningless. It also wasn't untrue. It's a bit excessive but I added a cite for it. Garion96 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Vevo Awards

These are actual awards. See this billboard article. For further proof see: video of given awards being received (only one week ago).

With this in mind, surely these can be included in a page titled: List of awards and nominations received by...? 333cale (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that their advertising campaign doesn't include describing them as an "award", but that doesn't actually make them an award. It's actually a perfect example of the kind of thing that WP:SINGLENETWORK is about. VEVO does not measure the number of plays on a number of different venues (like Nielsen or Billboard's "Streaming" chart, for example). It simply counts the number of times videos are requested through outlets it controls, and it pulls a publicity stunt whenever the magic number of 100,000,000 is reached, all in order to publicize the existence of VEVO.

It's not an award, it's an ad campaign, and we should not be participating in ad campaigns.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Matt LeBlanc

Wow, I had no idea Chace Watson and that IP (I'm assuming that is topsecret over at Commons?) were one and the same person (Oz steps also?). Anyway, I had intended on putting the 2013 image in the article except I had a busy weekend and MyCanon beat me to it. Just letting you know, I ain't MyCanon :P Cheers! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

RE

Hi. I write that "Edge of the Earth" is a promotional single (reported also by Discogs, the biggest database of music) and Earthh undid my edits because according to him there is also a digital single, but that version was never released. --SuperVirtual (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: SuperVirtual

I meant to just undo the edit, but I accidentally clicked the silly thank button. The1337gamer (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Badthanks.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:Badthanks.PNG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

IP address 84.138.55.94

Can you please check up on it? It constantly adds Scott Storch as a producer on "Cry Me a River" and per the official booklet of Justified, Storch is only credited as the songwriter and not producer. Tried to explain somethings to him but... — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is back again! :@ — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotional/buzz singles

Although promotional/buzz singles are usually not included in the singles chronology template of album articles (Born This Way, Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded and Red (Taylor Swift album) come to mind), certain editors believe it's okay to include them. Is there any particular guideline addressing the inclusion (or non-inclusion) of such singles? Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles isn't very enlightening either. SnapSnap 00:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't think there's a specific guideline, and don't think you will get very far trying to get one agreed upon. Used to be there was an extremely clear distinction: the buzz single had a very limited physical release targeted at radio stations and clubs. Once those limited number were given away, there were no more. With digital downloads and per-track sales, once the album has been released, how can you tell the difference between a download of the album track and a download of the promotional single? I sympathize with your cause, but I suspect it's a lost cause.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, such definitions appear to be rather blurry nowadays. I do believe there should be a guideline or something, especially when a certain single is referred to as "promotional" or "buzz" by reliable sources. But yeah, probably not worth my time. SnapSnap 22:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 20:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Image edit conflicts

I had no idea that was even possible: File:We Can't Stop.jpg. Learn something new every day! Theopolisme (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok :)

Thanks for that advice! sorry! --Raúl Romero (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj discography

Some of the info you updated on the page are incorrect. Your additional info was added manually in an edit of the last recent edit. Note: Tonight I'm getting over you remix was not released as a single. It is also best to state the releases in one paragraph in the beginning of the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JACUBANHELADO (talk • contribs) 22:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Badthanks.PNG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Badthanks.PNG

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Having unfairly maligned you, now I'll ask for help

Could I get you to look at the edit requests (and especially, ahem, mine) at Talk:India Against Corruption? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stooshe

Mariah returned as 86.165.48.180 (talk · contribs) per this compared with this. I don't know when Amazon.com became reliable for genres. Can you block the IP. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

S/he has returned as 217.43.164.79 (talk · contribs), per Jentina (album) and Stooshe pages. Thank you for the block. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, could you please protect Come & Get It (song)? Several IP editors continue changing "Gold" to "Platinum" when RIAA website says gold, the typical "sales = certifications" mistake. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

TRCG

On WMLW-TV and WFTS-TV, it looks like they're playing with their Sprint 3G connection tonight; a rangeblock looks impossible as it bounces higher with each reset. Put in a RFP for WMLW. Nate • (chatter) 05:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

Hi. Thanks for your correction about Nelly Furtado. I am kind of a newbie here, and I am trying to understand how things work. You were right about last.fm. But you completely neglected the second reference placed (there two), which was from a newspaper, and signed by a journalist (in Portuguese), specifically stating she had Portuguese nationality (not just that she was Luso-Canadian). An official news in a 143 years old newspaper is not reliable and acceptable under wikipedia rules? I would like to add that actually she is coming to Portugal right now to participate in the country´s Nationality and Expatriate Communities Day celebrations, this 10th of June. It´s all over the news. If you want, I can send you the newspaper references to that as well. Thanks once again. Zee5050

The portion of the Portuguese source that states citizenship is just a word-for-word translation of the last.fm material.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It´s indeed very similar, but it´s actually not word-for-word. But I see your point. In a situation like this, how can we distinguish who started saying what though? How do we know that it wasn´t last.fm or others that copied it from the legitimate newspaper news? I could be wrong, but is it for us to decide and rule where did a credited journalist from a credited newspaper get his material? Wouldn´t it cause chaos on wikipedia if we all were to decide based on our own personal opinion on how reliable is a journalist or a newspaper? Thank you again. Zee5050

Publication date. Your article is from 2011, but the Last.fm material is from 2009. I can dig up the exact edit that inserted it again if you want: I had to research it before when this issue came up before.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I also see there are many issues regarding this matter already. I think one needsw to understand that her being Portuguese is just how it would naturally happen, that´s how Portuguese normally get their citizenship (by parent descent). Just as Canadians usually get it by place of birth. But more than anything, that´s how she defines herself. I see that the issue for you and others apparently seems to be where to find an official declaration of Portuguese citizenship of hers, but this is something that would naturally be absurd for a national of a country to say, right? No one can find any source whatsoever stating specifically that she is a 'Canadian citizen' either, and no one ever demanded such proof for her to be shown on wikipedia as Canadian. I actually searched, and nowhere on the internet can it be found that she is a 'Canadian citizen', only that she is 'Canadian'. Equally, we can find inumerous sources of her saying she is Portuguese, but not that she is a 'Portuguese citizen'. Shouldn´t this be treated having in consideration what she expresses about it, and also in equal terms of certification demand regarding both countries' nationality? She repeatedly declares herself as Portuguese in interviews in many, many occasions. Here´s an interview where she talks about how it is to be a Portuguese in Canada, and her coming to Portugal to visit as a kid:. You have another one here with her stating she is equally both Canadian and Portuguese:. I can get you more if you want. I mean, it´s not hard at all to find her declaring herself as Portuguese, and in a context that has nothing to do with her ethnicity, but her actual link to the country. If she declares herself both Portuguese and Canadian, who are we to say no, right? I don´t see the difference, honestly. I will not bother you any more, but please reasonably think about it. I was reading past posts, and I have seen you seem to have a very, very strong personal position on this issue, but I believe in the end this should all only be about searching for the truth, and having demanding criteria of proof that do not discriminate between countries (or the artist herself), right? I do thank you for your enthusiasm, dedication and work here on wikipedia, that appears to be outstanding and no one can deny. Zee5050 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nathan

Hi, I'm sending this to Bwilkins, Kww, and Spinningspark. I've just seen Nathan's explanation of why he reacted as he did. I was shocked when I saw his response to Spinningspark, but given his circumstances it's completely understandable that he'd be operating on a short fuse. Would one of you reconsider his unblock request? If editing in a coffee shop is the only time things feel normal, a week is a long time to lose that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Marc Mysterio

I'm his photographer. I heard the quotes last night on the wrestling. I already know its going to be reported in the morning. Whereas he has a huge charity collaboration being released tomorrow, I'd respectfully ask you to refrain from edits until Tuesday on that page.

I see your a good editor, and mean well.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knicksnyc (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You have been reported. Please Cease & Desist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkness_Shines_reported_by_User:Mrt3366_.28Result:_No_action.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knicksnyc (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This was handled via WP:BOOMERANG. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You may want to see [[3]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

French singles chart archives

Hey. Out of interest, do you happen to know if there's a French singles chart archive for positions prior to 1994? Although lescharts.com is very accurate and of proven reliabilty, it only goes back to this 1994, and the archive on the SNEP website only goes back to July 2001: I've been trying to search for Pink Floyd single positions to add here, and most of them occurred before '94. I spotted this at InfoDisc, which isn't listed here, claiming to list the single positions from August 1955 to December 2009, in a similar layout to their albums archive. However, whilst the accuracy of InfoDisc's albums archive seems to be perfect when the positions it lists for certain albums are identical at both InfoDisc and lescharts.com (see Nelly for an example) the singles positions do not match at all in many cases in both archives (in Pink Floyd's case, compare "Take It Back" and "High Hopes"), and even seem to list positions for songs not released as singles at all, in the days before digital downloads made this possible (see "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" and "Pigs on the Wing", as well as their chart dates). As a result, I seriously doubt its reliability.

If you know if InfoDisc's singles information is reliable or not, or if there is a better archive for positions before 1994 that I have missed, I'd greatly appreciate your help. If not, I'm sorry to have bothered you. Keep up the fine work! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with you asking, but no, I don't have an answer. In general, most chart positions for older songs are only found in books, and I don't know one for French charts. I believe the discrepancy between Lescharts and InfoDisc comes from publishing different singles charts, but I don't know the details.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

American Dad!

Thank you for getting involved in the edit dispute there. I'd welcome your input at the ensuing Talk page discussion, especially given that AD86 has been engaging in personal attacks since they opened the topic (and apparently are singling me out), but understand if you don't wish to get involved. Thanks again. Doniago (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've opened an ANI filing specifically regarding AD86's conduct at the American Dad! talk page. Your input would be welcome. Doniago (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Explaining rules to admin

Kww, evidently, you're unclear on Wikipedia policy despite being an administrator. But when another editor has some suspicion that a revert will lead to edit warring (as was clear here [4] where I reverted the information as factual with a source because it was removed as untrue), it is up to that individual who knows full well his actions are contentious to initiate the discussion on the talk page and refrain from reverting otherwise it is belligerent and acting in opposition to policy. Doniago has engaged in similar behaviors of this nature in the past on American Dad related articles, one of which he even had to revert himself on his own edit because it was unconstructive (as shown here [5] and here [6] ). Since you seem to be unclear on Wikipedia, despite being an administrator, I've copy and pasted the following and bolded it for you, located here:

Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is used on many pages where changes might often be contentious. Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh! Admin, please thoroughly look over the issues before bombarding in and with aggressive remarks so you can make more informed moves please. I am not the one to have made the edit. The edit was first made last year in May 2012 by User:TBrandley (as shown here: [7] ). It was removed earlier today as being "untrue" and I simply sourced it as being true with a source. Shortly thereafter Doniago, who has embarked contentious editing behavior with myself in the past as shown above, removed it as being trivia on basis that "the film wiki project discourages tv ratings" while this is a television show. Furthermore, Doniago is not even using the television wiki project to support himself because it's not stating it there, so the user is bending the rules. When I explained this to him, he said he doesn't see "why everything on the film wiki project article can't apply to the television wiki project article." And I said by his logic, we might as well remove the wiki project television show article. The user can't even come up with a legitimate basis to remove the edit and is using policies that don't even apply to television show articles. He's engaged in similar behavior in the past as shown above. Moreover, the tv ratings are apart of the Family Guy article which is a GA article but now Doniago insists on how he's going to question the reviewer about his decision. You didn't even look into the matter before engaging in this behavior as shown here [8] and you're supposed to be an administrator of whom Wikipedia is entrusting with tools to handle matters reasonably. This concerns me, administrator! AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I misread the history. Note made on article talk page.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. =) AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathan Johnson

In light of the continued discussion on Nathan Johnson's talkpage, I have posted to ANI requesting review on the unblock request. Please feel free to comment on the thread, here. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Kevin, as much as I'd sometimes like to block you (or maybe just key your car), I appreciate your comment as well as your sentiment on that ANEW report. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, considering this edit, I'm sure they're the IP as well, but no doubt that is taken care of by the autoblock, if I understand that correctly. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• That IP isn't under an autoblock right now.—Kww(talk) 05:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Let's keep an eye on it. Say, how do you get a Dutch "citefout" notice on your talk page? Should I tag this page as {{not english}} ? Drmies (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Set your interface language to Dutch, and you too will leave a little trail of them whenever you visit a talk page where people thought it would be fun to include a reference but not a reflist.—Kww(talk) 05:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

77.31.71.153

Hello kww, you reverted several editions by the ip user, but i don't think the image themselves added by him are copyvio. --Puramyun31 (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So what can I do to add the celebrity images? actually their original versions are legitimately taken and uploaded by this commons user, also some of the celebrity articles what you reverted such as this currently have no alternative images of them. --Puramyun31 (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for your answer. Goodbye. --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Chace is probably back as Special:Contributions/Vevofan. Nymf _{talk to me} 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Singular / Plural

Ummm, general usage is "they reside" and, in the same way, "the couple reside". In this case "the couple resides" seems clumsy, English rules are complex and subject to so many exceptions. DesmondW (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's true that English is complicated, but "couple" remains a singular noun. "The couple reside" isn't even an acceptable alternative: it's wrong in any dialect of English I'm familiar with. "The couple resides" is correct.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your revert

There was no "removal" and an explantion was given. Please be careful about your wording in edit summaries. YRC's post was posted twice to the thread. Since he asked for it to be in a separate section on his talk page, all I did was move the answers to the duplicate to the appropriate section. I would like to move them again. OK? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You had no edit summary on your edit, so there was no explanation given. When you move text, please do it in one edit, not a chain of several edits without edit summaries. I've removed the duplication.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually did type "Moving dupes to section below", but apparently goofed it up. Sorry about that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: File:SonyPlayStation4.jpg

The image qualifies for fair use as it meets all fair use criteria. Addressing each one individually:

1) There IS no free equivalent that would have the same or higher encyclopedic value and it cannot be created until the console is in the hands of the general public rather than being seen by the lucky few at E3!

2) If anything having this image on the article will be BETTER for everyone as it provides a much better representation of the console than any free media for it currently out there.

3a) The image is only being used in the infobox

3b) The image is only being used on Playstation 4.

4) This image was published here.

5) This image EASILY meets the content standards and is very much encyclopedic!

6) The image meets Wikipedia:Image use policy.

7) The image will be used on Playstation 4 once this whole kerfuffle is over and Masem stops reverting the addition of it.

8) The presence of the image DOES significantly increase the readers understanding of the product by providing a clear and UNOBSTRUCTED visual reference.

9) The image will only be used in the article namespace.

10a) The source is readily identified.

10b) The provision for fair use is listed in the description.

10c) The fair use rationale is unique, simple and easy to understand.

I hope this is enough to get the image back into the article. Thanks for taking the time to read this! PantherLeapord (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. WP:NFCC#1 isn't about being the same quality, it's about being of sufficient quality. Given that the appearance of the product isn't a particularly important aspect of the product, I think your logic for WP:NFCC#8 is pretty dicey as well.—Kww(talk) 06:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As for #1: How can this image NOT be of sufficient quality? And as for #8: Like it or not; there are NOT going to be any free images of this that have the same quality as the fair use one until someone takes a free picture of it WITHOUT the glass case in the way! PantherLeapord (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The substitute image is of sufficient quality. Not as good, but sufficient.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesse R. Waugh

Hi Kww, I suspect that all of the IPs participating in Jesse R. Waugh are socks. Should I formally report them? None have ever participated in an AfDs before all simply claim obvious notably and surprise or outrage at the nomination. Cheers--I am One of Many (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll investigate, and let you know what I decide. I'm about to leave the house, so it will be a few hours.—Kww(talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No rush. I just wanted to let you. Thanks.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Assistance

Are you able to fix a little mess I've made? I've nominated ...And Justice for All (album) for GA article, but accidentally I've put myself as a reviewer. Thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesse R. Waugh AfD

I suspect that those IPs who are not SPAs are the same person using proxy servers. Is there any way to check for that? The style of their comments is pretty blatantly similar. Voceditenore (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Care to show your math?

[9].

I'm sorry but counting up the votes I get 18 "unblock" and 19 "opposes". I might be off a vote or two, but that's no where near 2:1 and could have very well turned around.

Am I missing something? Volunteer Marek 22:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's see: Retain ban:

1. TenOfAllTrades
2. Nomoskedasticity
3. Dominus Vobisdu
4. Rockfang
5. A Quest For Knowledge
6. Kww
7. Prioryman
8. Andrew Lenahan
9. Binksternet
10. Roscelese
11. Alanscottwalker
12. Lord Sjones23
13. DHeyward
14. Drmargi
15. Hobit
16. RolandR
17. Colonel Warden
18. Rivertorch
19. Thumperward
20. MarnetteD
21. Rickyrab
22. EdJohnston
23. Cactus.man
24. Rschen7754
25. MrX
26. Dayewalker
27. Taroaldo

Lift ban:

1. John Cline
2. Andreas
3. SPhilbrick
4. The Devil's Advocate
5. Count Iblis
6. Black Kite
7. Eric Corbett
8. regentspark
9. My very best wishes
10. Dirk Beetstra
11. Only in death does duty end
12. Collect
13. Boing! said Zebedee
14. Begoon

Yes, I would say that you missed something.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

...and what happened to:

1. Andy Dingley
2. Drmies
3. Pete
4. Blackmane
5. Giansnowmen
6. Peridon

? Did they just not show up on your version of Wikipedia? Perhaps in the future you should refrain from closing those discussions which involve complex math, like being able to count to more than 10. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I missed Andy, Drmies, Giant Snowman, Blackmane, and Peridon. That's part of the problem with a discussion that spans multiple days and multiple subsections, with some editors' support comments being made as replies to other editors' comments. Pete did not support an unblock, nor did he oppose it: he said he could support one given some sign of fundamental change within YRC, but he did not indicate that he believed he had seen such a sign. That brings it to 27:19, or roughly 3:2 opposed.

If you want to reopen the discussion, have fun. I'll just point out that if you wanted to even approach numeric consensus, you'd need to get to 3:2 the other direction (60%). That would mean of the next 22 people issuing an opinion, you'd need to have unanimous support for an unblock (getting you to 27:41, or 60.3% in favor). As for the "strength of argument" method for determining consensus, I'm hard put to see how that would apply. This discussion was split between "it's hopeless", "we shouldn't give up on anybody", and "we can always reblock later if necessary". How can you decide one of those arguments is stronger than another?—Kww(talk) 01:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed the hat, invited reopen in the summary of my change.:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=559808955

Italo disco

Hi Kevin, we have this article Italo disco which I strongly believe should be about a term rather than a genre. The main editor of the article insists on believing that it's a genre, not a term. This term was invented to refer to Italian based (mostly English sung) synthpop/new wave dance projects of the '80s. I was wondering if you'd have any knowledge about the topic and would like to comment in this thread that I opened up. By the way, most of the article is unsourced, and has been tagged as unreferenced since 2011.--Harout72 (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Singlechart

Can you take a look at the singlechart usage on Sweater Weather and tell me what's wrong? It's saying that the band's name is illegal. NYSMy talk page 22:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Such a new band that the templates didn't include the name to id translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:BillboardID/T&diff=559938188&oldid=559046786 fixed it.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. NYSMy talk page 09:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

question

A SaudiNet IP has returned. I remember this one, 77.31.127.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and wasn't sure how you guys knew who it is. I don't want to accuse anyone of anything though, but *coughseemytalkpagecough* the poor english just seems really familiar. Should I not worry about it? If someone's too lazy to log in, is that still sock puppetry? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You guys are frighteningly fast. Nevermind! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Temp unblock

Please note that I've unblocked ImtheNeonLight (talk · contribs) to allow him to rename. Intent is to re-block to your same settings 1) when the rename request is submitted 2) 24 hours passes with no action, or 3) he does anything other than request an unblock. Will monitor. Kuru (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For the blocking of Freechemistrytextbook. In the space of 5 minutes, he's managed to rack up a whole lot of controversy over several project pages. Kevin12xd (contribs) 16:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:American Dad!". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 13:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Rusted Auto Parts

I do admit that he has a weakness against the third-revert rule and sometimes being civil. I told him off that personally. But I do feel like pointing out that he is not always a bad contributor though. He's a good updater on articles related to notable death etc. It's sad to see him go because he really does love to contribute. I feel that a weekly block or something to just let him cool off might be better. Also I am hoping that he would promise something that he hopefully will keep (that I recommended to him). I might just need to be there to probably warn him that he goes too far. He might just listen to me and I am willing to do that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at WT:NFC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am proposing a change. Please read the description of the RFC, I changed it to show the change clearly. I was proposing to change "or could be created" to "or could be created reasonably". Surfer43 (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Dancing_with_molly

Not sure of who this is... but it's a sock of someone who was previously blocked. I know there was one user who kept coming back with a username that contained a song lyric.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Brexx? Just blocked Hashtag beautiful a couple days ago. --auburnpilot talk 02:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse the intrusion...I went ahead and blocked. It looked WP:DUCKish enough for me. --auburnpilot talk 02:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC Help

I am trying to set up a request for comment on the notability of schools. I use the GNG for WP:ORG which states "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is" we also require WP:RS to verify this. Unfortunately often at AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Moresby International High School ) is a good example of the types of arguments made. I personally think this is crap and I want to get more discussion on it. the RFC page is a little confusing so I was wondering if you could help me or point me to someone who can help me set it up? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I can help, but first let me try to talk you out of it. First off, you are absolutely right: there's no reason to have articles about 99.9% of high schools. That said, you will never get a consensus to delete them, no matter how hard you try. Even if by blind luck you manage to get an RFC set up that seems to set up some kind of restrictive guideline, it will be ignored at AFD and the articles will be kept. It's pointless to try, and will gain you nothing but frustration and heartache. Still want to try it?—Kww(talk) 03:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Then the policy should be changed. The policy as is states there has to be notability shown and proved for any organization. There needs to be a check and balance on things, I can certainly understand a blanket csd rule, however AFD's are {ideally) decided on policy and not votes so if all a person is it's a secondary school keep there should be a valid rationale to back it up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. To keep sanity here requires the ability to use doublethink without suffering cognitive dissonance. I know I'm coming off as a smart-ass, and I apologize. I've railed about this and the companion problem of tiny little geographic specks where all we have is an approximate location on a map. It did me no good, and no one wants to try to figure out precisely why those two items are an exception to every policy we have and codify it. Like I said, I'll help with the mechanics of an RFC if you want me to, but I still advise against it.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts and it may well just be a moral victory but if we can use that discussion to at least prod an admin to think about the substance of the article rather then the number of keeps or deletes we will have at least gained a little. I couldn't see the sarcasm btw which means it was cleverly disguised or I was just too dense lol. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting kind of busy right now. I'll reply with some instructions and guidance in the morning.—Kww(talk) 03:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok no problem Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

First, work on the text for me.

1. Write a neutral description of the issue. Some paragraph that lays out the basic of the issue: high schools have separate articles when no one can demonstrate that they are covered in independent sources. This needs to be extremely neutral in tone, and no one should be able to read it and have any idea what you think of the practice.
2. Write your opinion of the topic. Some paragraph that expresses how you feel.

Once you get those done, we can fold it into RFC format.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to take your advice, I appreciate the help but right now I really don't have the emotional capital to invest in a losing battle. It is still somewhat galling but it is what it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Drake Bell

Hi there. I noticed that you recently made a major edit on List of songs recorded by Drake Bell. I think what you did was great (removing all unsourced material), but I personally think that was just a little too big, because most of the unsourced songs that are not on any album actually do exist. Would you like to maybe reconsider reverting your edit and help out adding references to those songs that you removed? Thanks! JaciFan 00:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaciFan (talk • contribs)

Blocking Is Ineffective

I was going to post this at AN/I, but I have been trying to avoid drama as much as I can. Perhaps you forget how blocking him goes...

• 1. An admin blocks.
• 2. Within minutes there is an unblock from one of many, many admins.
• 3. He calls for the blocking admin's miserable, pointed little head. Threatens to leave all us morons behind with this horrid mess of a 'pedia unless the admin is stripped of all adminly powers, pronto.
• 4. The blocking admin doesn't get desysopped... and he doesn't leave as threatened.
• 5. Nothing changes! We do the "hokey pokey" instead. Again.

As Yogi Berra said: "It's like déjà vú all over again." So please don't block. Because it is futile. Doc talk 08:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• More importantly, Eric had already clearly said he wouldn't revert again on his talk page, so it would have been abusive. As for "idiot", they were calling each other names and it was on a talk page, there was no single guilty party here. When experienced editors act like children, sometimes you have to just let them fight it out among themselves. The biggest mistake was filing the ANI, which took a simple disagreement and turned it into a shoving match. That should be apparent if you actually read all the information and follow the entire course of the event. It isn't about futility, it is about fairness and the damage done when we jump to blocking in situations where there are better alternatives. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• • @Dennis: Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. That's why it keeps happening again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • What does make a problem go away then? Obviously blocking doesn't work. Maybe something else does, which is what I've been working on. Putting all personal feeling aside, blocking when someone is equally rude and had pledged to stop reverting would have been gratuitous and more disruptive in the long run. The goal is to find solutions, not retribution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The solution is to reblock Eric every time it happens, block every admin that unblocks him, take them to arbcom, and get them desysopped. Unblocking Eric Corbett demonstrates that someone is unfit to be an admin. I don't care if Eric says that he will be nice about a particular issue on a particular day, because he will do it again the next day. This issue will not stop until he's gone, and that's not going to happen until the sensible admins act en masse and take care of the admins that enable this problem to continue.—Kww(talk) 14:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I've been working with Eric for a while now and I would argue that the signal to noise issue has improved dramatically in that time. Of course, it is my nature to engage an editor rather than block where I see a potential benefit for Wikipedia, as I do here. Like I said, I've spoken out publicly against his actions, and I certainly have in private as well. I've never unblocked him (although I did make the final indef block of the Malleus account, ironically), but think the better solution is trying to work with editors to get them to change their methods, as I have (although you can't see those off-wiki efforts). Hanging the threat of block over their head isn't helpful, and I would argue that threatening to take anyone who unblocks him to Arb is uncivil and designed to have a chilling effect. You are just saying "I want Eric blocked and will do everything I can to make that happen and punish anyone who gets in the way". You shoot yourself in the foot here and clearly demonstrate an unhealthy involvement and bias. Meanwhile, I will continue to engage and continue to persuade him to stop the occasional name calling, which I might note, is much more rare nowadays. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It's neither bias nor involvement, Dennis. That's a method of invalidating admin's opinions one at a time as they try to deal with a disruptive editor, and the reason that WP:INVOLVED specifically excludes admins that deal with an editor only on an administrative basis. I have no bias against Eric: I simply don't believe that good contributions buy the right to behave badly. If there were an editor that turned out three featured articles a day and called someone a retard once a week, I would argue for banning that editor as well. That I have no tolerance for this form of misbehaviour does not speak to bias. What I am saying is not "I want Eric blocked...". I'm saying that admins that enable misbehaviour on the basis of good contributions do Wikipedia a disservice. We only have a few dozen really badly behaved editors on the project, and getting rid of all of them, regardless of contribution level, is the best step we can take. It's frightening to me that I'm accused of bias against Eric when I only wish to hold him to the same standard that I hold any abusive editor.—Kww(talk) 15:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
            • You and I agree on many things, but not this. I consider you involved based on these and previous statements and I'm very convinced that many other admin would agree. I would suggest that you if ever thinks he needs blocking, you should take it to ANI for a community decision. You are smart enough to know that if you ever blocked him after the things you have said, it would be an ugly, drama filled affair at ANI afterwards and you know this could be be avoided. If he ever gets a block, it is doubtful that I will be the one to unblock him, but it would be very unwise for you to be pushing the buttons in regards to Eric. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I'm certainly not quick to do it, although I feel I would be within the letter of policy by doing so. I hope you recognize that for you to unblock him in the event that he gets blocked again would be even more problematic, as you certainly do have a favourable involvement with him.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                • • (edit conflict) You misread my actions, as have others. I just spoke out against Kiefer's block at ANI and on his talk page. Some mistakenly think he is my "friend", but he is neither friend not enemy to me. I just spoke out for Russavia being thrown on the "ban" list. I certainly am not his friend. Just as I spoke out against the block of PumpkinSky two days ago. On more than one occasion as of late, I have spoken out against crat/admin when proper process or expectations weren't followed. There is nothing I have ever said for Eric that I have not said for another Wikipedia editor, and if you look at the totality of my involvement with "bits" on this website, it is very clear what my objective is: to insure equity in dealing with editors and take a close look at how we act as admin. To try to insure we are really objective and fair. Why do you think I have patrolled ANI regularly for a couple of years and one of the first to speak out on admin issues, pro and con? I can also point to discussions where Eric has chewed on my ass, or voted against me in discussion including my own RfA. I get along with Eric because we have mutual respect, not because we agree on everything. We disagree as much as we agree, but it does prove that someone can get along with someone they disagree with. I understand that you misread my objectives, but that is what it is, misreading. I would argue that I am the most active admin in getting Eric to compromise and comply with community expectations. A string of blocks had the opposite effect. I decided to actually get to know him, look at the stuff he does that no one seems to notice, talk with him about issues privately, work on a few articles together, and actually pave a positive path forward. I would argue that my methods have produced much better results than threatening him and threatening any admin that unblocks him. I've just chosen to use a carrot instead of a stick. And no, I would not block someone for calling another an idiot (PumpkinSky was quickly unblocked after "pompous ass" was considered not blockworthy, btw), nor for 4RR when they already said they won't revert again. We are not the civility police. Sometimes, experienced editors are dicks to each other. We don't have to inject our admin bit in every bloody situation. THAT is disruptive, more so than calling someone a "pompous ass" or an "idiot". And if you really have been paying attention over the last 6-9 months, then surely you have noticed positive things. Not perfection, but measurable change. Stand back far enough to view the big picture and tell me, which method will create a better encyclopedia? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • The method that creates the best encyclopedia is to quickly and efficiently rid ourselves of disruptive editors, without extensive counseling, mentoring, and behavioural management. When someone doesn't demonstrate the ability to follow our behavioural or editorial guidelines, we need to eliminate them early in the process, not after months of anguish and effort. And yes, we are the behavioural police: that's our role as admins: not content creation (which we may do as editors), but looking at editors behaviour and dealing with it whenever one of them fails to follow our behavioural policies (of which not being dicks to each other is one of the most basic).—Kww(talk) 15:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                      • Sorry, but you are gravely mistaken. If that was the case, then we wouldn't need escalating blocks, the first would be indef and insta-ban. You have a very negative view of human nature, friend, one that I do not share. Humans are not so disposable. To imply that mentoring and counseling are worthless shows you have lost touch. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                        • I didn't say "abandon them on the first screwup", which is what you seem to have read. I've unblocked editors and worked with them to be productive when there were signs of hope. With an editor that constantly misbehaves the same way, there's a time to quit, and it's well before the six month mark.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                          • I see hope. I can point to partial success. I clearly see a net positive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Re the fifth post up: Kww, it's frightening to me to see you lose your rag to the point where you'll say "The solution is to reblock Eric every time it happens, block every admin that unblocks him, take them to arbcom, and get them desysopped. Unblocking Eric Corbett demonstrates that someone is unfit to be an admin." Anybody who started blocking admins wholesale for unblocking a particular user would soon be blocked themselves, and you or whoever did it would then hardly be in a position to take them to arbcom and "get" them desysoped. "Get"? What's that, delusions of grandeur, or just your dream of how Wikipedia ought to work? I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I can not believe I voted for you for arbcom. That'll teach me to be more careful. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC).
          • It's not something that I'm about to take as a unilateral action, Bishonen, but this deadlock needs to be broken somehow. Arbocom's afraid to act and there's always a handy admin to unblock him regardless of how poorly he behaves. I'm sorry you feel so disappointed in me: my campaign was clearly a campaign of applying all policies equally to everyone without favouritism, and my stance on this issue is a fairly predictable consequence of that perspective.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You, Kww, are likely a monster that has been safely caged. You are not a vested contributor with a one-way pass. So why not just piss off, and never consider any of this? You have been strongly warned. Doc talk 07:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me! Spitfire (LeAnn Rimes album)

I have been working MY A** off on that page not Walter Görlitz and you're going to block ME from editing it? I don't think so! He needs to be blocked from coming onto the page and starting the crap not an IP address that has done pretty much all the work on the page. THAT IS UNFAIR AND WHY CAUSE I WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING AND MAKING THE PAGE LOOK GOOD AND HE WANTED TO TAKE OVER OH HELL NO! THE WORLD DON'T WORK LIKE THAT SO GET WALTER Görlitz AND BLOCK HIM FROM EDITING NOT THE ONE WHO DOES ALL THE WORK ON THE PAGE!

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at 184.58.19.105's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re Self Control other versions

Fine - when time permits I will restore the list with the versions for which sources are available. It's not a question of my "wanting it back": comprehensive information on various versions should as much as reasonably possible be featured in any article on a song, and is more likely to interest interested parties than the minutia of the formats of release for the versions discussed in the body of this article. And I honestly fail to see why the lack of sources justifies deletion rather than tagging with the "unreferenced secton" template - if that template shouldn't be used in this instance then what is it for? The "Dealing with unsourced material" section of WP:CITE states: "If an article is unreferenced, you can tag it with the unreferenced template, so long as it is not nonsensical or a biography of a living person, in which case request admin assistance. If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the citation needed template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. If a claim is doubtful and harmful, remove it from the article. You may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless it is very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to the talk page either. Use your common sense. All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed from articles and talk pages immediately." That's Wikipedia's stated policy on "Dealing with unsourced material". And there's nothing to support instant deletion of material such as the Other versions section of the Self Control article.--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed": however as WP:CITE explains in a case such as the Other versions section of the Self Control article - which is not the biography of a living person - not being sourced, resolving the issue via tagging as unreferenced section should have been attempted prior to removal. Again - if that template shouldn't be used in this instance then what is it for?--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you may confusing what editors have the option of doing versus what they are allowed to do. Removing material without tagging it may not be "nice" or "best practice", but it is permissible. If it bothers you, I would recommend contacting the removing editor or starting a dialog on the article's Talk page; perhaps they are amenable to reinserting the material with the appropriate template, but as near as I can tell you haven't approached them about it. DonIago (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ghost Protocol

Again. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Images question

Hi Kww, why can't we readd the pictures that were added before by a 'block evading editor'? I mean if the images are of good quality and under a good license, what's the problem? ;) Cheers, Sofffie7 (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Does it means we are not allowed to add a possible good picture that a blocked editor added in the past, only to prevent him from evading his block? I don't understand lol. If you check my history, you'll see I had started readding the 'controversial' pictures on Owen Wilson, Jessica Szohr, Rose Byrne, and Vince Vaughn... You might as well undo them. I won't mind, though I think it's a bit stupid not using recent pictures because a bad editor/IP used them before. --Sofffie7 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Ps: as I didn't know whether you were watching my page, I replied here.

List of songs recorded by Drake Bell

Hello

Why You corrupting?

Most of the songs of Drake Bell is not recorded (yet) But that does not mean we have to erase everything. If you switch the recent edits, you will see that my version (13:12, 24 June 2013) is a precise and clean from unnecessary additions. I would like you to return it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.189.242 (talk)

my edit warring?! You really looked at recent edits? I'm the one who deleted the unnecessary additions (and sometimes erroneous) of JaciFan Feel free to look at my User talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.189.242 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

whatever dude..

I'm not going to argue with a 50 years old how edited playlists of forgotten child stars

I just tried to improve the list because i was fan of this singer as a kid (what you cant say..) But if you dont want to I really dont care...

I have better things to do46.120.189.242 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ARUBA Page: like I said, van der Sloot was a DUTCH LOCAL........why delete? Dennyboy34 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparent mistake

>>Don't know what you were trying to do, but I'm pretty sure this wasn't it.—Kww(talk) 22:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)<<

Of course - do forgive me: as far as I was aware I was just updating the Other Versions section & couldn't figure out why every time I previewed I got an error over there being no Reflist. I honestly have no idea how virtually the entire page got blanked: as far as I'm aware I only accessed that one section for editing & never even looked at the balance of the article. But I don't mean to abdicate responsibility. Is my face red!--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Some assistance please

Hi there. I noticed you blocked User:Bordoxx as a sock of User:Boljom, both edit warriors at Unification Church and related articles. Please also do something about User:Borovv. The similar editing style and user name gives me the impression this is the same editor. If that is not enough, see this topic ban that the user is constantly violating.--Atlan (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Socks at AIV

Hi Kww. I don't remember which report this was and I went through my recent contributions and I don't think I commented anything related to "Refer to SPI" at AIV recently. Can you give me the user/IP name of the person reported so I can look over what I did again? Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 02:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah that's fine, I was a little confused since I've seen a bunch of reports since then and I couldn't remember which one that was. And thanks for the clarification, I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. Best, Spencer^T♦C 02:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Protection of Vertigo (Olivia Lewis song)

Hi Kww,

You protected Vertigo (Olivia Lewis song) in 2010 due to an SPI on Xtinadbest. The archive shows that the last SPI report was April of 2012, I was wondering if you would consider lifting the protection as the need appears to be stale. Regards, Crazynas ^t 18:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ping? Crazynas ^t 08:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Carey 14th album

Hi Kww,

Why do you refuse to let people change the title of Mariah's new album back to Fourteenth Studio Album? She herself confirmed that "The Art of Letting Go" is only a song title and not the album name, as did Roger Friedman with her label Island Def Jam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.5.144 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That source wouldn't do for anything related to the title: not specific enough. None of my reverts on "The Art of Letting Go" were related to the quality of edits, it was just housekeeping as the page was being edited by a banned editor.—Kww(talk) 00:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Article at AfC

I saw on Matt723star's talk page about the issue with the article that he keeps recreating which you were involved in. He created Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/The Most Popular Girls in School if it still an issue. SL93 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

/* Elizabeth Grant correct D.O.B */

Correction made to D.O.B Elizabeth Grant was born June 21, 1985. She logged three copyrights with the United States copyright office. Two made in 2005 and one made in 2012. You have to submit your D.O.B as a copyright claim is a legal government document and Elizabeth Grant submitted her date of birth: go to http://cocatalog.loc.gov and search for; grant elizabeth woolridge select 'search by' option of name. Wikipedia is source for accurate and factual information and the source is a copyright government agreement. Deneuve15 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I stated that 20 years old sounds a bit old for Lana to have in fact started her career since 2005 was her beginning of her active career, although I'm well aware of the fact that she started writing at 18 years of age, there is no set year for this so it's possible it could have been 2004 but it seems no one knows for sure, however there is now an updated info saying "she signed her first recording contract when she was 22 years old with 5 Points Records in 2007", these references here were made in 2012, although the age from 2007 is not mentioned there but in one of the articles her age at the time still states as 25, do you know whether the birth date is 1985 as Deneuve15 keeps insisting or as recently mentioned in most articles these days 1986? I see the reason you blocked him is because he did not get consensus with the birth date, and really birth dates shouldn't be messed with, I wonder who started this rumour, personally I wouldn't be in here if it wasn't for the sudden changes a week after her birthday. Zak Hammat (talk) 1:45, 27 July 2013 (ASST)

I think it's quite possible that Deneuve15 is right, Zak, but that doesn't really matter without a good reliable source. We have a lot of cases where actresses and singers try to pretend to be younger than they are and spread false birthdates over the net.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see now, well it's just a one year difference between Lana so I'm not sure this should matter too much, as what you stated Deneuve15 could possibly be right, I was saying that birth dates just shouldn't be messed with because it's really confusing, with and the reason why it is set to 1986 is because that is what is mostly out there, pretending to be a year younger sounds possible and it's just everyone's assumptions Zak Hammat (talk) 20:44, 27 July (ASST)

Your comments at WP:AN

Well said. — Scott • talk 17:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For this talk page post, which is probably the only thing that prevented me from retiring. SamX‧☎‧✎ 17:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer

Is that a good block, if that IRC log is accurate? Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If I presume the IRC log is accurate, Kiefer's response is still over the top. At worst, the IRC log is a tasteless joke between two people about a third whom they dislike. Kiefer's is a direct physical threat combined with a direct insult.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but could it not be argued that Kiefer's reply is merely a threat of violence in reply to one? Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It could certainly be argued. He can try to persuade the community that that's the case, but I don't buy it.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer's is a direct physical threat combined with a direct insult - gee, the way I see it, Kiefer's response was a fully normal response, though a bit of a tasteless joke, to what appears to be either a) threats of physical violence and insults, or possibly b) two sneaky admins conniving in how to get Kiefer in trouble. Have you had contact with them?

Regardless. This needs to be reviewed at ANI. And I this must be like the twentieth time in recent history where I am simply amazed that you are allowed anywhere the block button Kww, or the other admin tools for that matter. Too bad we don't desysop for outright and obvious stupidity.Volunteer Marek 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw no reason that such an obvious block required community discussion, Marek. It never ceases to amaze me how little self-control people here have when it comes to communication.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that you "saw no reason" is exactly part of the problem here. It never ceases to amaze me how little self-control or even reflection some admins have when strutting around with their block button. Pretty clear indication they shouldn't have them in the first place.Volunteer Marek 00:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have unblocked Kiefer Wolfowitz. Explanation is here. Fram (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A short block for insults may have been reasonable, especially if coupled with admonishments to other parties. Kww assigned a non-existence threat to my sentence "X is welcome to Y", an admittedly opaque sentence written late at night, as a justification for the 3-month block. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

removal of lucy liu's racist comments

you removed an edit with a very reliable source; a youtube video of her saying the comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Liu&diff=prev&oldid=517877459

...

You're not sorry

I wish you wouldn't say you're sorry when you're not. Don't be sorry for what I did, be sorry—if you're sorry at all, which you're clearly not in this instance—for what you did. Saying you're sorry for how somebody else feels is an annoying mannerism that you would do better to shed. If you do it for politeness, it's really not working. You might perhaps read the very short essay I'm sorry you screwed up. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

It's quite correct, actually. It genuinely makes me sad that you feel the way you do. It truly perplexes me how you do not see that supporting people that chronically misbehave damages the project.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, in that case it's not just an annoying mannerism to comment on the way I feel, it's an annoying presumption. I don't really want to be told how you feel about the way I feel. Your sadness is no affair of mine. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

Arbcom filing notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Offsite comments and personal attacks and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

#Beautiful (Mariah Carey Song)

The song charted on the Brazil billboard hot 100 airplay I just need you to give me the official website release. Thank youFidel 23:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

#Beautiful (Mariah Carey Song)

Hi, the Lebanese Mix FM is the Lebanese Official airplay top 20, you can check its official article on Wikipedia concerning the #1 hits since 1996 - 1998... Just wanted to check if I can add the chart position of #Beautiful to the chart list. [here the chart position] Fidel 12:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Summertime_anthem

Brexx again?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Uncertain. Monitoring.—Kww(talk) 06:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits feel very very close to Brexx, just that not leaving any edit summaries. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Alan F. Horn

Hi, thanks for correcting my bad edit on the article. It happened because I'm struggling with the new visual editor and would really like to turn it off. Do you know how by any chance? Shalom11111 (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Billboard Brazil

Hi. the information I've been were copied and saved from the site Billboard.biz or prints of physical magazine. Diamonds was # 12 on editing a note on February and March (issue # 38) which featured three months of HOT100 because sometimes the Billboard Brazil used not to publish in January, perhaps for vacation and bring 2 or 3 months of Hot100 Airplay in the next edition. The position was # 15 in the April issue (number 39), which was related to HOT100 March. I would not edit the page Diamonds because someone had already placed at # 12, actually I opened to copy the similiar code to edit pages of other songs and clicked save wrongly. Finally, the problem is that sometimes the peak of the songs are not updated on the website of the American Billboard as the one you showed me or are updated with delays. The billboard Brazil is still young (4 years) and still thinks more on selling physical issue, ignoring a bit to put data HOT100 Brazil Airplay on the internet, unfortunately. But I only include actual data. Regards. Thissz (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

ARTPOP has a release date!

Hi! ARTPOP finally has a release date, so can you please move the article Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Artpop out of the incubator into the mainspace please? Thanks! ARTPOPist (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Did a bad move again. Why don't you ever learn from your mistakes Artpopist? You are simply disruptive and waste everyone's time. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that was my fault. And do I sense a hint of animosity? It was a simple mistake, its no big deal. Please don't be mean. If it wasn't for me, that incubated article would not exist. ARTPOPist (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Moved again into articlespace, although I'm not sure it belongs in articlespace yet either (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Glen Campbell videos

Hi, an editor called Hyacinth added a BLP notice to a (merged) videography article called Glen Campbell videos, apparantly because you told her in this discussion (User_talk:Hyacinth#Infobox_single): "Do not add information about living persons to any article unless you can provide a source" (which is true, but doesn't mean one has to start adding a BLP notice to every album, single or discography page for living artists on wikipedia). Any idea what is going on? Thanks. Lumdeloo (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP notice, all I saw was a "citation needed", which would appear to be true. Some will argue that video credits aren't contentious, but that's only true until you get one wrong and deprive the proper person of credit for his work. I'd go ahead and find the needed citations and let it drop. If Hyacinth goes on some kind of spree tagging thousands of articles, that would start to get disruptive, but I don't see that we are at that point. BTW, Hyacinth is a "him".—Kww(talk) 15:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The BLP notice would be (have been) on the talk page, not the article.

How would tagging articles as requiring or missing something you said was required or missing be disruptive? Hyacinth (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's one of those things that I don't fully agree with, but a lot of people seem to believe to be true. They see the tag as some kind of insult to the people that created the article, so, even if it points out a valid problem, they get upset if they see too many of them. If you sat down with your computer and began adding a citation needed tag to every reference to an artist or director that wasn't properly credited in Wikipedia, I can promise you that people would start calling your edits disruptive. In general, if someone has the time to tag thousands of articles, it would be better for him to use that time to actually correct a lesser number of articles.—Kww(talk) 22:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The BLP notice is indeed on the talk page. I think it's strange to add it to a videography article. As I said, if that's is correct then every article about a release by a living artist should get a BLP notice, which is, to be frank, nonsense. I get the feeling that Hyacinth is using the article to continue a certain discussion between you two. If either of you can give me a good reason why it should be there, I'm fine with it. Otherwise, I will remove it again. PS: The citation needed tags are not a problem as far as I'm concerned. I will look for the citations needed. Thanks! Lumdeloo (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The BLP tag certainly isn't wrong, as Glen Campbell is, indeed, still alive and material on that page has to conform to BLP. What people tend to forget is that nearly all articles that we would consider "pop culture" have BLP considerations. Since it isn't wrong, I'd leave it there.—Kww(talk) 22:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's not "wrong" in a pure theoretical sense, but practically it sure doesn't make sense. I hope that sentence made sense! :) Moving on... Lumdeloo (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

User page blocked

my user page is still showing as blocked any chance you can undo this?Deneuve15 (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Page blocked. Not able to edit / CD-single covers

Hello, Kww

I'm trying to keep the Ana Johnsson Wikipedia page updated, but I noticed that you blocked some pages (for exemple: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catch_Me_If_You_Can_(song)&action=history , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Way_I_Am_(Ana_Johnsson_song)&action=history , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Break_Through_Time&action=history ) and I wanted to ask you why, what was wrong with those pages and why am I not able to edit them anymore. I'm asking you this because I don't understand the reason why they are blocked and I'm hoping that you can clear me this up. Also, I have another question and maybe you can answer me. Is there a copyright if I try to upload a CD-single cover? Because sometimes I upload CD-single covers and they are OK, and other times I upload them and I get copyright warnings and I fill up all the credits sections. Hopefully you'll have time to answer to this.

Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.

Cozican5 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox person

Please revert your recent change at {{Infobox person}}, for which no consensus has been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DFTT

TCO is trolling and you're just feeding him. For as long as you've been around, you should recognize this. Start another thread. Stop opening my close. PumpkinSky talk 19:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to tell you this was road to nowhere.PumpkinSky talk 17:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Resignation discussion at WT:ADMIN

Please either undo the close, withdraw, and allow a neutral third-party to close it, or redact your final barb "I think that's a shame, as I know of no other job where a person can quit in rage one day and come back the next with zero consequences". You and I both know that Wikipedia is government by WP:CONSENSUS, and stabbing your fingers in the consensus' eyes in a closing statement is certainly not respectful of the consensus formed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Re: [10] - it isn't a job, we're volunteers. I was going to make that comparison in my comment at the thread, but I'd hoped it was obvious. Specifically: people who volunteer for other charity-work often quit in frustration, and are welcomed back when they're able to return. Volunteer janitors, in particular - It's called the mop for a reason. –Quiddity (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note that I did not lobby for making it an absolute impediment to getting one's bit back. My recommendation would have made it a community decision as opposed to bureaucrats following a rule which essentially forces them to restore the bit, Quiddity.—Kww(talk) 17:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Deneuve15 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

unlock Brooke Shields

It has been 2 and a half years. Unlock it. Thank You. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The article has never been able to survive unvandalised for any significant period of time without protection, so no.—Kww(talk) 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Put that thing on it where edits are delayed b/c have to be approved before they go live. To just lock the article forever is a disservice. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. You'll have to forgive me for not finding a demand from an IP that has been blocked for BLP violations a particularly persuasive reason to reduce protection on an article.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I was being polite in asking you since you locked it. I didnt want to go over your head. But since you wanna throw out smart ass comment you have shown how you are. Keep thinking you matter bc you locked a page on wp. In reality you dont matter. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute comment

Hi. If it's no bother, could you weight in on this post of mine regarding another editor's content removal? I'm not expecting much understanding from them, so an outside opinion would be greatly appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin Status

Now that my block is over, I wanted to ask you that if I do execute a policy of rigorous honesty will I have a chance one day of becoming an admin? Leoesb1032 (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's never easy to become an admin on this site, but yes, with a few years of good behaviour, you stand as good a chance as anyone.—Kww(talk) 13:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, from now on I'm changing the way how I look at everything on Wikipedia and I will only make useful contributions. Leoesb1032 (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please help?

Hello Kww! I was wondering if you could help me out with this user, who keeps adding the gossip website HollywoodLife, as well as iTunes, as "reliable sources" for genres on the article Stars Dance. I have already explained to him why this is not allowed, as well as leaving a friendly reminder on his talk page, yet he continues to show blatant disregard for WP:RS. I know he is new, so if you could please help me out, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, next time I'll try to keep my patience instead of jumping to the revert button. Anyways, thank you for taking the time to respond. Cheers. (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you help me understand please

Could you help me understand please (besides linking me to the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) as I have already read all that. You just disconnected the image i uploaded via the uploader and attached to the article Joe "Tiger" Patrick. I asked in the teahouse for help and still waiting for a response. I filled in all information required for the free use clause and still need to add something else but I have no idea what it is asking me to do? Can you tell me the exact reason? It may help me to know what I have to do next. Thanks TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 17:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's no possible way that the explanation given could qualify that image as "free use" on Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

How do i delete the file from wikipedia altogether? Can you do that for me then?TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 17:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For making an especially difficult block of KW. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To my opinion, such “gifts” are utterly inappropriate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate? It's not grave-dancing, and it's not celebrating the block. It's not even a statement about the necessity of the block: it's thanking someone for having the cojones to make a difficult block in a difficult situation, rightly or wrongly. Nevertheless, it's not your place to make editorial complaints about a gift to the receiver of a gift - that's far more inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it "difficult" to make an inappropriate block? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute with an IP

There is an IP that has been reverting my edits to Gracias Por Estar Aqui. I have pointed out to the IP (who I suspect is a sock puppet of Sc30002001) that the upcoming does not satisfy WP:NALBUMS because of its lack of confirmed release date and track listing. It's gotten to the point that the IP is now resorting to name calling and ignoring the guideline for WP:NALBUMS. I don't want to resort to AFD, but the IP has been keeping me trouble so that's why I'm telling you this. Erick (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar

I knew the policy but didn't read it but I eventually did after you reverted the edits with link to policy. Thank you, my attachment with the article might have affected my thinking. I don't know how I can repay you this debt but I sincerely hope to. Today I know how important Tea-house discussion is and how it can save a new editor. Sorry for my remarks, I wasn't thinking straight. Hope everyone understands. ---$oHaM ❊  আড্ডা  06:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Missed talk pages

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that when you deleted a few articles that I PROD'ed you forgot to delete the talk page. They are: Bojan Gjorgievski, Alex McQuade (footballer), Danilo Tomić, Aminu Umar, and Kostas Vlachos. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions.
Message added 04:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Added them, thank you ---$oHaM ❊  আড্ডা  04:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj discography

Thanks for blocking the Nicki Minaj discography page. An edit war was never intended on this side. KaneZolanski (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I see why you blocked the page but can you please look into it before the expired date because I think that I had a valid and reasonable point as to why the section could be allowed to stay on the page even though a videography page exists. Thank You. JACUBANHELADO (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In no way was I trying to insinuate that by you blocking the page you were "sideing" with me, that would be stupid. I was simply thanking you for blocking the page so that a discussion could take place without further edit warring. KaneZolanski (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi KWW. I had opened a section for discussion on the Nicki Minaj discography talkpage in which I explained the Issue days ago and KaneZolanski has not yet responded even with contacting the person on their talkpage. Protection has NOW Been Lifted and In an effort to NOT Edit War Again I Need To Know What To Do. JACUBANHELADO (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks For Your Help. JACUBANHELADO (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Charlie (July)

Hi. He has returned and now edits as 86.147.126.86 (talk · contribs). Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 16:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Followup on infobox person

Hello KWW. Thank you for following up on the discussion about the influences fields at the infobox person. I don't know if you saw but the instructions for how to use those fields are still part of the Template:Infobox person#Parameters section. Also I don't know if you want to close the discussion on the talk page or not. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse

As others echoed at the Teahouse question for the person who wanted to inquire about the redirection of a man's article, your response was very bitey and not generally in the very polite tone that Teahouse hosts try to respond with. It's not really a big deal, but in tne future, try to explain a bit nicer. One of the big things of the Teahouse is to try to improve editor retention, so making it an environment where they can be told what's wrong but at the same time feel welcome and nice is key. Thanks :) ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Stars Dance source

Hi! I want to ask you something. In this source, i'm sure that some content is a copy/paste of a past edition of the Wikipedia article of the album which source was changed so now isn't valid. I think this rest some veracity to the source and make this not reliable. What do you think? Thank you so much.Justasaddream (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what content you believe to be a cut-and-paste, Justasaddream.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The text is "Musically, the album is rooted in electronic, garage house and dubstep, while also containing strong elements of techno, disco and pop genres." I'm 100% sure. Thanks! Justasaddream (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's plagiarized. No doubt. That should factor into decision making. Please discuss any content changes you wish to make based on this on the article's talk page first.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

TH Re:Use Of Cover

Hello Kww,

I added the low resolution newer-versions, would you delete the previous versions? I would be eternally indebted to you for your service. :)

• File:No-One-Killed-Jessica-Cover.jpg
• File:Delhi6albumcover.jpg

Regards

---$oHƎM ❊  আড্ডা  12:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WER talk

Hello Kww: A notice that you've been mentioned at a discussion occurring at WikiProject Editor Retention, located here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Come & Get It

Hello! I want to ask you something: In this source the song Come & Get It by Selena Gomez is described as tribal electropop. It's okay to put in the infobox tribal-electropop? I think it means electropop in tribal-style and that is incorrect to put tribal-electropop in the infobox because it does not exist as a genre. What do you think? Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justasaddream (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I hope you don't mind with my inclusion in this, but with anything else with regards to sources, you either put down what the author said, or you don't use the source. If you personally believe the author to be misinterpreted, it's best to leave the genre as it is and gain consensus from other editors on the talk page before changing. As with the source you provided, it specifically calls it "tribal electropop", so that's what you would put in the infobox, if it said "tribal influenced-electropop" or "electropop with a hint of tribal", that would be a different story, but it isn't. Just because Wikipedia does not have a page for it, doesn't mean it "doesn't exist as a genre". So please, gain consensus before making changes to an article, and contradict from what the source says. (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback - User talk:Launchballer#Singlechart

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Launchballer's talk page.
Message added 18:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC) by Launchballer. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eric Corbett unblocked

[11] What an extremely sad, little person you must be. Corbett had been pointlessly blocked for ages and the decision to unblock was quite clearly for the benefit of the project. That project is something that most us are here to improve, not spend half our lives enforcing ridiculous rules and judgments. You really need to get over yourself - edits like this [12] make the project appear narrow minded, spiteful and downright pathetic. I recommend that you amend your ways and grow up - fast. Otherwise, find some other hobby in which to indulge you yourself.  Giano  19:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Darkeclipse3

Coulda at least came up with a better name.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) took care of it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

IP question

Is 76.126.32.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just a standard dynamically allocated IP from Comcast? In other words, is there anything unusual about it? Assuming it is "normal", what range is it part of (and how do you figure that out)? Finally, is there a way to figure out which IPs in the range have recently edited at Wikipedia? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a part of 76.126.0.0/16, an enormous range of Comcast addresses. You can find that under "route" on http://ip.robtex.com/76.126.32.86.html which gives 76.96.0.0/11, while http://wolfsbane.toolserver.org/~overlordq/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?lookup=76.126.32.86 shows 76.126.0.0 - 76.126.255.255 and 76.96.0.0 - 76.127.255.255 . Of those three ranges, 76.126.0.0/16 is the tightest. All of the range contributions tools I used to use are broken because of the transition away from toolserver. You can look them up a /24 at a time by searching the contribution of things like 76.126.32.* on the contributions page. That's supposed to work with other sizes of ranges, but I've never gotten good results.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what "a /24 at a time" means (I can't calculate ranges that easily), but when I tried 76.126.32.* on a contributions page, I got no results; shouldn't I have gotten some?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You must have the preference disabled. Preferences->Gadgets->advanced and check " Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms ". IPv4 addresses are 32 bits long, usually written as four bytes seperated by periods. The notation 76.126.32.0/24 means "Treat the first 24 bits of this address as fixed, and use all possible values for the last 8", i.e. 76.126.32.0..76.126.32.255. Look up "CIDR" with Google for examples with pictures.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That works now. Is there any way to see only contributions that are recent? You can go back historically, but I can't see a way to restrict the search to, say, the last month or last couple of months. Does the /24 range then mean a maximum of 256 addresses?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There used to be better and fancier tools that did that, but I lost all of mine in the migration from toolserver. Perhaps DeltaQuad knows of a good one that still works. Yes, a /24 has 256 addresses.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The only tool I know of is this one. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Kww,

I know you're not especially happy with the state of VE, but I still wanted to thank you for the template hack to disable VE on a per-page basis. It's a good hack to use exactly as the template documentation suggests, until we have a better per-page switch. Thanks, also, for your constructive comments on the feedback page.--Eloquence* 05:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I'm not attempting to enter an edit war. My last edit summary requested he go to the talk page, where I have started a discussion. Rusted AutoParts 16:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the tip. But hopefully he himself doesn't revert before discussing. He'd be doing the same thing. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(Leaving this here as well as the discussion was split.) For whatever it is worth, the mass changes of infobox images to these (often inferior) Comic Con versions is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Massive changes to infobox images.2C redux. I am of the opinion that it is common courtesy to discuss image changes first. Nymf _{talk to me} 18:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom request

I've made an example proposal in response to your comment; an approach where SA does not need to interact directly with pseudoscience pushers, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

VE RFC

Any chance we could get a sitenotice for this, d'ye think? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's see how well attended it is first. I'll add it to the list of centralized discussions.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your addition to the RFC

I added that question just before I went to bed and after I woke up there're already discussion in that section. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to remove it right now, or just move it to the talk page? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi there! I was wondering if you could help me request for adminship? It'll be nice learning from someone who already ran for adminship! ChicagoWiz 00:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Need some help with a strange Notifications thing

Hi there - the messages you left on my talk page generated a partially Dutch email for me. Do I have your permission to post my notice, which refers to you by username? And do you by any chance have Dutch set in any preference? If you're interested, it's T54298. Risker (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Adminship

Thanks for your help! I'll try to work hard for this, but I'll eventually accomplish my goal soon! Thanks again! ChicagoWiz 01:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: Translation help

It is literally translated as "Hay una petición de comentarios en curso en cuanto a si el editor visual debería ser/estar* habilitado para nuevos usuarios y editores anónimos." It can be freely translated as "Hay una petición de comentarios en curso en la cual se discute si el editor visual debería ser/estar* habilitado para nuevos usuarios y editores anónimos." (There is an ongoing RFC in which is discussed if the Visual Editor should be enabled for new users and anonymous editors.)

The "ser/estar*" verbs in this particular sentence have a little difference in their meaning (in Spanish, in English the meaning may vary), as both forms are grammatically correct. In my opinion, the difference between "debería ser" and "debería estar" is that the first means something like "it should be enabled"--it is not enabled but it should--and the later is like "it should have been enabled"--VE had to be enabled for all users, but it is only active for registered users. This Yahoo! Answers question can help you to understand more the difference between them. I think you are referring to "it is not enabled but it should", if it is the case I would suggest you to use "ser" and not "estar". I hope this helps you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for organizing Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC. It seems to be a popular forum for people to express themselves. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Default State RFC

Just wanted to say thank you for expressing how I feel so well in the RFC. Red Fiona (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

^{Superscript text}

Reply

Alright, just tell me why this is an option. Also, why are you always happy to permanently block me? That's rather abusive of your admin rights. An indefinite block is definetly not at all a fitting punishment. Rusted AutoParts 20:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

the return of Brexx?

We think this could be Brexx again? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Style

I have to say, I like your style. Keep up the good work, IRWolfie- (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Cluebot

Yeah, Twinkle did that automatically. It appears from page history that Cluebot created the article. Beerest355 Talk 16:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi, there, after appealing the block you gave me and being unblocked, am I allowed to remove the block notice from my talk page? --MatthewHoobin (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :D

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For allowing me to realize a bit more of what not to do on Wikipedia. --MatthewHoobin (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Crazy Kids certification

Sorry, but Crazy Kids is gold because it has sold 552,308 units, and the gold certification. Is when a dong sold 500,000, it's not my problem that RIAA dont update the new certifications, example: Ke$ha - Die Young sold 2,500,000 and in the RIAA's website there's no any certification for that song, the same with We R Who We R and Blow, but it's Ke$ha and we all know that songs habe certifications. Sorry, but i'm not lying. Wikipedia is based on truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablogarciadaz (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wild card contribution check question

Kevin, see 76.126.140.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you substitute an asterisk for the 123, you get a bunch of hits, none of which includes 123 itself. Why?

Completely diferent topic. If you have a moment and can look at this discussion to see if a range block is feasible, that would be helpful. It seems to me that the range to catch all would be too broad because each IP has a different third set of bits, but maybe I'm not looking at it right. Also, do you think those IPs are really static as geolocate says they are?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, I noted your comment here and would like to ask if you would care to comment here ? Thanks. - thewolfchild 03:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll try this again... would you care to comment on this issue? (either on the link above or here) This is something I have seen you taken a stand on previously. As I oppose your opinion on this and intend to take action on the articles related to this issue, I thought you'd like to speak up now, instead of doing so with reverts. Thank you. - thewolfchild 01:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

24/Seven (Big Time Rush album)

A few days ago you protected articles about songs by BTR due to the addition of dubious charts. This user has now moved to 24/Seven (Big Time Rush album). Can you protect the page? Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say thanks for sharing your alternate opinion at WT:VE.

I don't actually care what the outcome of the discussion is, but I do care that anyone interested in it feels free to join the discussion, no matter what opinion s/he holds. When "everyone" has the same opinion early in a discussion, it can be hard for some editors to publicly disagree. Your comment, by not agreeing completely with everyone that posted before you, may encourage others to share their real opinions. So, thank you: I appreciate it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

LEAVE ME ALONE.

Stop trying to tell me what to do and dictate the words I choose on a Wikipedia page. You are working my last nerves. Do me a favor and please leave me the hell alone. Thank you and have a good day. Dbunkley6 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I hereby award this barnstar to editor KWW for: "People don't seem to realize that what they normally see here on Wikipedia is my warm, gentle, and fluffy side." - that made me LLOL, easily the funniest thing I've read on Wikipedia all year. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Charlie (August)

He has returned as 86.145.156.165 (talk · contribs), per this undid of this undid. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

He has returned as 86.146.144.82 (talk · contribs) per "Born This Way" revert. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

[[13]]

I would appreciate your input here. Do you think a 1RR should be attached to any unblock? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of 1RR restrictions unless there's a chronic problem with an editor walking up to the 3RR edge. If you want to try unblocking him to see how it goes, I'd do so without restrictions.—Kww(talk) 15:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Geena Davis protection

Hi,

I see you protected Geena Davis a few times in 2012. I just have a few questions, not questioning your actions. Now, first of all, im confused, when i hover over the lock, I get the message that the article is semi protected until October 17, 2012. When you go to edit the article it shows that that is old information from the Chase Watson SPI, that may be a technical issue, i'll see where I can report that.. It seems that you SP'ed for a year, is that usual? Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The expiry date in the template was wrong, and I've fixed that. When I'm dealing with a blocked user that has been evading blocks for years, yes, a one-year protection is pretty typical. Block lengths are determined both by the frequency of the trouble and by how persistent the perpetrator is.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, NP. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Mathiassandell

It didn't take long: Special:Contributions/85.76.121.199. Thanks, Kww. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 11:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh: Special:Contributions/85.76.123.64. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 20:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Single network

Hello. I see what you mean with the Single network rule. However, there is a problem: I cannot find a suitable Turkish chart for foreign songs. There is a Turkiye Top 20 from Billboard Turkey, but their website is down, nor does it appear on any search engine. I therefore think Virgin Radio Turkey is the most suitable. If possible could you research and look into the official charts for foreign songs in Turkey? Thank you. --Kimberlylambert (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

So far as I know, Kimberlylambert, there are no good charts for Turkey. There are a lot of countries that there aren't any usable charts for.—Kww(talk) 20:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Kww. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sock puppet

Despite being reverted and warned several times by other users, TommyMerlyn15 (talk · contribs) insists on adding rowspans and other incorrect formatting to sortable filmography tables. Not only did this person start using a sock named Arrow615 (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago, they also use both accounts concurrently. SnapSnap 18:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

First IP evasion. SnapSnap 00:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Disable VE templates

Hi there :) I wanted you to know that this major bug, which could be a reason for adding those templates, is now fixed. It seems to me that they are actually included in articles having troubles with tables, like these. Any other similar discussions I should know of that you might have read in these days? Thanks! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kww,

WhatLinksHere shows two transclusions for {{Disable VE top}} but six for {{Disable VE bottom}}. Is that intentional? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

{{disable VE top}} is usually substed.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - FAC

Hello Kww,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

IP question

Kevin, please look at this post. Is it technically possible for the same individual to be using both IP addresses? The blocked IP is a dynamic IP from Chile. The currently-editing IP is using a corporate IP address in Canada. The only way I can see it is if the Chilean person is hooking onto the Canadian proxy server, but I would have thought that possible only if the proxy server were open. Thanks for checking.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no doubt it's the same person from the editing history. Look at the block log for 75.98.19.140: it's obviously a long-term abusive editor of some kind. Neither appears to be an open proxy, but the Canadian IP is for a company that provides internet services for railways and subways. It may be a case of an IP tunnel from from the railway station server in Chile to a main hub in Canada, or that that the Canadian was using an open Chilean proxy to edit through in order to prevent his IP from being blocked. One way or the other, 75.98.19.140 has now been blocked for three months.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move

Greetings, Kww. I have volunteered to oversee and close the WP:RM discussion currently taking place at Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move. I have also agreed that, given the contentiousness of the issue, it would be good to have a panel of admins close the discussion as a committee. Your name was suggested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move, and I would be quite pleased to have you involved, given your solid record in carrying out your adminship. I intend to draft a proposed closure once the RM has run its course, and present it to you and the third admin on the committee (I have asked User:BOZ also), for evaluation and revision. Please let me know if you are interested, and cheers! bd2412 T 02:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know when you are done.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! bd2412 T 03:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have created a notepad in my userspace where I have made a tally of !votes and put down some thoughts regarding the arguments raised thus far. So far this is very rough, and may contain some errors (User:SlimVirgin has made a tally that is somewhat different from mine, because she has discounted votes of apparent SPA accounts on both sides), but please feel free to make any comments, corrections, or adjustments that you think are merited. Of course, the discussion will not close until Thursday, August 29, at 15:30 UTC, so this is not an urgent matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up that this discussion will close in about 12 hours. My plan is to close it right on time, put the headers and footers on, and indicate that the result is PENDING. I have updated my sandbox draft with the latest votes, and a brief summary of the rationale behind each vote (I think most of these are self-explanatory, but let me know if my abbreviations are too cryptic). Whenever all three of us are available thereafter, we can discuss and determine what consensus there is, and what it means. Given the breadth of this discussion, and the passion on both sides, I think we should try to come to a unanimous agreement on the closure if at all possible. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The move discussion is now closed, and I have moved it to Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request‎. I am open to discussing the closure anywhere that suits you and User:BOZ. bd2412 T 15:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

Good day, kww! I noticed that on Aug. 5, you undid my addition of Oprah's Next Chapter to Lohan's television filmography. Your logic was that it was a talk show, which is not correct. You also stated that "talk shows are meant to promote films..." Actually, the project is a television series. Not a special, or a talk show. While I appreciate your input, this does belong in the section, and I was correct. It is not my intent to come across as rude, but I'm assuming you can relate to how frustrating it is to have legitimate edits "undone." I look forward to working along with you on future articles, including Miss Lohan's. However, if you could go to my talk page with the issue before undoing my edits, I would really appreciate it! It just really stinks to have your work vanish with a click, especially since its not like I posted libelous info. Things like filmography should be a little more open to discussion, in my opinion. Thank you, and have a beautiful day! Mpo90 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Eddie Nixon's talk page.
Message added 17:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warning

Hello!

I removed a comment from my talkpage. You are not allowed to reincorporate material to another user's talkpage after they have removed it. This is directly against policy. If you do it again, I'll report you. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks and accuse me of deception. As stated to the other user, my being here may well be temporary. Please do not use personal attacks and behave uncivilly. Kww, you've already broken policy by incorporating material back on my page and in the same breath are trying to tell me not to break policies through personal attacks. Please stop! AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your behavior of jumping in the way you did with reverting talk pages and nasty accusations of deception has been totally disrespectful. As I've just said several times now, I am not sure if I will be editing here for very long and your nasty accusations are convincing me that I should not quite frankly. I have been hired for a new career that I will be beginning soon which may earnestly cut down the amount of time I have here, not that it's any of your business. And I probably won't dedicate my time to Wikipedia because of aggressing behavior exactly like yours. AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Mathiassandell

Caught one. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 11:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

What criteria do you use to determine which userboxes with which images should and should be not be deleted? - thewolfchild 22:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Userbox images

I don't mess with userbox images as a rule. Copyrighted material being used outside of article space is a different matter, though: copyrighted images can only be used in article space.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)chose

Ah, but you chose to mess with mine. The question is, why? Why that particular one and apparently none of the other thousands of userboxes found all over Wikipedia userspace? What's the difference?
(asked here, answer here) - thewolfchild 22:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can point me at copyrighted images being used in a userboxes, believe me, I will go on a deletion spree. There used to a bot that took care of it automatically, and I have no idea why it either missed yours or has stopped running. I saw yours because I checked your contribution history.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Tiyang, Visual Editor and IE10

I think I've found the reason Tiyang believes he has been able to use VE in IE10. Per this talk page, Tiyang (apparently a retired person with fewer than 500 edits) has been testing a guided tour called "The Wikipedia Adventure" (TWA) that simulates edits. Having tried using IE for that tour, I can confirm that it's not really clear what's happening. The walk-through attempts to launch visual editor by browsing to veaction=edit, but in IE the VE hides the edit^BETA tab almost instantaneously, and in the end seems to make the edit for you using its own javascript. As TWA is pre-alpha and the code has changed significantly since Tiyang did his test, there is plenty of scope for good-faith confusion. I've tried to apologize without making a lot of noise about it. - Pointillist (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Pointillist, you apologized very nicely and it wasn't really necessary. Thank you! I apologize to you for incivility. I am a she and there is no way you could know that, so please don't apologize, ok? I need advice about a Template (will post later at your talk page). Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Kww, I obviously need your help! Please look at Ocaasi's talkpage Archive 5. Scroll down to #128, The Wikipedia Adventure. This is where I mentioned using Visual Editor with Internet Explorer 10. Ocaasi explained that it will only work to a certain point. I tried it earlier today and made a comment at a talkpage it created. That page, and probably every other page it created, should be deleted. I am very concerned that Administrators will have many pages to delete as Editors test VE. I will stay away from Visual Editor. Thank you. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Trouble (Natalia Kills album)

Hello Kww, I've started expanding Trouble (Natalia Kills album) and two anonymous IPs started to revert my edits replacing my texts with theirs. One of the IPs I contacted via its talk page but I recieved no answer and the reverts kept happening. What should I do about this? Thank you in advance Pedro J. [talk] 11:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hot100brasil.com

Perhaps you noticed this already, but I've copied your editnotice text into a template ({{Hot100brasil.com}}) and transcluded it onto all those editnotices. Nyttend (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail.

Hello, Kww. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- cheers! bd2412 T 16:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

I randomly came across this unblock request, and found 3jz01bcs and Studiomusica  Unrelated, and thought I would let you know. This of course does not prove that one of them is not socking on their own, but it's doubtful they are the same user. Also ping Daniel Case. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking on the task with the other two admins in resolving the RM issue at the Bradley/Chelsea Manning article. I know that this was a difficult task and applaud all three of you. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kww. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mariah is back

Now as a 217.43.161.146 (talk · contribs), per Cherish history, and the beautiful messages left in my talk page. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 15:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

S/he still editing, can you reblock them, thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

TheREALCableGuy

I have proposed a community ban of TRCG here; they have had a very heavy sock weekend and are obviously not going to wait six months and come back here and be a good editor any longer. Nate • (chatter) 20:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Help regarding article title

Hey Kevin. I was wondering, should the new Miley Cyrus song "Wrecking Ball"'s page be titled "Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song)" or "Wrecking Ball (song)"? I had created a redirect to the album page from the former as there was already 4 songs listed on the disambiguation page. They don't have articles (yet) though. 五代 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A thank you

Hi Kww, I've been back for a few days now. Thanks for dealing with Mathiassandell socks while I was away and had to use my alternate account. I appreciate what you did. Best. Acalamari 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus IS a singer-songwriter.

Miley Cyrus writed 29/43 of her songs released under her own name, MILEY CYRUS. Wich is a 70% of all of her songs. You may not consider her as a song-writer but officially she is. From her first studio album she writed 8 of the 10 songs that are on the abum. On her second studio album, she writed 8 of the 13 songs on the record, and 2 of the songs that she didn't write on that record are covers. On her first EP, she didn't write any song of the 6 songs and (one is a cover), because it was released as a promotional vehicle to promote er line of clothes nad its not even an full album. And on her third studio album she writed all of the songs except for one, wich is a cover. On her lastest recordwich will come out cotober 8, she writed the two songs that are out of the album, and she mentioned that she writed all of her songs on this record. So SHE IS an SINGER-SONGWRITER. For examples Birtney Spears or Selena Gomez are not one, because she write like 2 songs of her albums. --Raúl Romero (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC) oh and one more thing 4 of the 14 songs published under her name that aren't written by her are COVERS. So that means that she only BUYED 10 songs on her whole carrer to make ir her own songs. SO she IS a SONGWRITER. --Raúl Romero (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please provide a reliable source for these changes. We cannot take what are currently unsourced statistics and form our own opinions on what constitutes being a songwriter. Unless reliable sources call her a songwriter, we acnnot call her a songwriter. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Cherub

Hi. I tried looking but can't find. There must be MOS rules in christianity topics similar to the pbuh rules. SlightSmile 23:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about inclusion of R&B Bubbling Under

I just want to double check with you if R&B Bubbling Under... chart peaks can be added to R&B columns. STATicVerseatide has been adding a peak coming from R&B Bubbling Under... section to Rick Ross discography. Sometime ago I remember you mentioned somewhere that the columns for Hot 100 and other charts should not include Bubbling Under... peaks. I just wanted to know if it's still correct to follow that rule? User: STATicVerseatide doesn't seem to think so.--Harout72 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Charlie (September)

He still as 86.146.144.82 (talk · contribs). Thanks for the block. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Kurtis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kurtis ^(talk) 23:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Kww.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Billboard/Nielsen "worldwide" sales

Hi. Just so you know, neither Billboard nor Nielsen claim to track worldwide album sales. Neither of them is even close to being capable of doing so. What Billboard promotes is what Billboard gets paid to promote. When it comes to worldwide sales for a particular album, I'd tend to believe what the record label has been legally obliged to tell its shareholders, than what some random Billboard contributor has to say on some random article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Chart links

Hi Kww :) Could you help me with the chart links on the "Loved Me Back to Life" article? I'm talking about Belgium, Switzerland and France and the chart table. When you click on the sources, theu don't lead you to the page with the single :( I don't know how to fix it :( --Max24 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to do those manually. The Hung Medien sites use an obsolete encoding for the accented characters, and Wikimedia software doesn't support the things the templates need to interface to it.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Intervention

Seeing that you are involved in the discussion is there a way you can intervene over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop#Perceived harassment? I see a very angry editor cussing out Tarc for his comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind it has been dealt with, have a nice day. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Manning Case

I am cautioning you just with regards to making statements that are clearly inflammatory and will simply make what is already a difficult worse. You aren't the only one, nor is it restricted to one side but I won't allow the case to devolve further into rehashing of the same inflammatory comment and counter-comment that brought this case in the first place. Banning parties from case pages is something that can be done if it is the only way to maintain some sense of decorum on the case pages. Please be aware of that. Seddon ^talk 09:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Check

Hi there. Can you check whether User:Dan56 and User talk:12.168.46.153 are somehow connected? This is why I'm worried.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Our edits in the last few days alone overlapping should dispute that suggestion (ex. their's, mine on 20:54, 13 September 2013). Just some IP being a wise ass with a grudge. I've reverted many of those. According to Google (searching "What's my IP"), mine is 24.186.145.125. Dan56 (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the disturbance, I thought some IP was stalking him. Best wishes.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

"a group of editors that isn't skilled enough "

You mean "aren't".

Plural.

Just sayin' 88.104.27.75 (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. "Editors that aren't", "a group [of editors] that isn't". The collective noun takes a singular verb. I'm complaining about the skills of the group, not saying the membership criteria for the group is being unskilled.—Kww(talk) 02:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

RFAR:Manning naming dispute - Formally added as party

The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk 18:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Mathiassandell

He is back, just to inform you in case admin actions have to be performed. He has edited as 91.154.104.79 (talk · contribs) and 91.154.108.17 (talk · contribs). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZyngFing

Hey, Kevin, if you would, please take a look at this report just for the purpose of illuminating the nature of 218.248.13.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There are many variables in my head as to how to handle the IP, but the Geolocate turned up stuff I've never seen, so, naturally, I turn to you. :-) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see your comment on the SPI report. Naturally, I had to look up WP:SOFTBLOCK. If I understand it properly, it means that the IP can't edit as an IP but a named account can edit if they're using that IP address; is that right? Then, I assume based on the notation that you did a range block, right? Final question is why? You don't really say in your report comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a fairly tight range (a /26 is only 64 addresses) but it's a university. That small of a range is likely to be one dormitory or something of the sort. I don't to make it easy for the ZyngFing to make new accounts, but I don't like to hardblock ranges as a first step. If the softblock makes the problem go away, it's enough, and it allows other editors in his school to edit.

If they trusted me with checkuser, I would have looked at the range to see what accounts were using it. They dont, so I can't, and that means that I try to be a little cautious.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should've looked at the Whois (for the university part). The Geolocate looked really strange. I assume I'm right about all my other questions above because you didn't say no. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A very active blocked proxy

I have over 8,000 items, plus talk pages, in my watchlist, and the majority are now lit up with the same edit by a huge variety of IPs, apparently connected to this proxy you have blocked:

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 187.208.150.144

I have begun to populate the category, but I have to leave now. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a spam attack, so the quickest way to stop this is likely to blacklist the archive being used. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty deeply embedded, which makes the spam blacklist a real pain. I'll try to filter out new additions with a custom filter to at least keep the problem from growing.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Filter in place. Let me know if you see new additions. We'll need a bot to root out the old ones.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm reverting the ones I've found. They are the ones I've added to the category. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Care to check 144.76.45.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for proxiness or possible involvement? (Is there an SPI for Rotlink, or whatever his name was?) Three reverts now, on very different articles. Could be someone who cares for us, of course. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• My guess is just an editor reverting back changes because they look good to him. It's worth seeing whether we get an worldwide undo storm starting up. I can block those if I have to, but right now my filter is very specific to the bot pattern.—Kww(talk) 23:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

New OpenCart article coming

I have written a fresh OpenCart article; its notability has increased over the last couple of years, and deserves inclusion. I intend to register, so I can create the new article stub in the next few days. Message to you here given your role in deletion of previous versions of the article. 194.144.210.184 (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, here I am. "This page is currently protected. ...If you feel this page should be created, please raise the matter at deletion review," so, what is the best way to proceed? I can put the new article draft up on my user page if needs be, for example. OldEcomGuru (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And here it is. User:OldEcomGuru/OpenCart_article. OldEcomGuru (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to go to WP:DRV and discuss your new article vs. the old one. You've based the new article on press releases and discussion of a single security flaw in the product, so I would still argue against having an article.—Kww(talk) 01:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for OpenCart

An editor has asked for a deletion review of OpenCart. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OldEcomGuru (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User:ScotXW

I am not linking to the userpage to avoid echo notifying them, but can you please have a word with the user. Their attitude and comments are not appropriate (I removed the box entirely (GNU is not a kernel...) and started working on the section "Game theory"; please do bother somebody else with your shit; obviously you are paid for doing it;. I would prefer we head this issue off at the pass before it becomes more problematic. Thanks, Werieth (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

please join discussion on talk page

• [14] is where I started a discussion based on the dictionary definition of the word unusual, which this entry clearly meets. Dream Focus 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Kww,

I am asking that you reconsider your proposed course of action (using common.js to suppress VisualEditor).

Acting hastily to actively damage the experience of users, numbers of whom have repeatedly given anecdotes of better editing experiences using VisualEditor would be in violation of long-standing practice about not breaking the software, and be an exceptionally bad idea.

Further, looking over your code and having quickly discussed with colleagues, we are extremely concerned that this will place a significant amount of strain on the servers, while not actually accomplishing what you're (presumably) aiming to do.

I ask you as a partner in improving the project to consider not doing this. Your long experience as an admin here is noted, and I’ve always respected you - I’m dismayed that you’d consider this course of action when the WMF has expressed an interest in finding a compromise solution that would work. To pursue this without even considering compromise solutions, or reaching out to us, strikes me as unnecessarily adversarial. We are, and remain, open and willing to discuss actual solutions with the community. This one, though, is not one that we can support.

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Much as I'd like you to do this (I'd certainly back you up), this is what I'd do - start an RfC for its implementation. Make it clear what the outcomes are, and run it for a shortened time (say 14 days). Post it at CENT and watchlist notice, and frankly what I'd do is post it at ANI, AN, and Jimbo's talk as well for full visibility. In theory, the result should be a consensus to implement it.

• Alternatively - if you're feeling bold - just implement it, I'm pretty sure that the worst that could happen is that it's reverted. The WMF/ArbCom etc desysopping someone for implementing a community consensus would make them a laughing stock. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Philippe - I've generally agreed with you in the past, but this is how it stands - The developers have disregarded consensus. There is a local way to implement that consensus. Thus it should be implemented, as consensus. The developers can either help out with a server way to implement it, or better code, or the not-so-good code will have to do. Consensus is not compromised after it's formed, Wikipedia is not a "let's compromise when there's already a clear consensus". By the way, I'm not sure calling the community's consensus a "non-solution" or not an "actual solution" was the wording/implied statement you wanted there. The community has taken a stance, and they're probably not budging. Thus, an administrator has taken it upon himself, per policy governing administrators, to implement community consensus. The WMF can either help, or hinder by inaction. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 17:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Philippe, the response from the WMF VE product manager does not seem consistent to me with the concepts of partnership and compromise you espouse here. It reads me more much like a tl;dr "how nice for you, we're going to do it anyway." NE Ent 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Re: User:Kww/anonpatch.css: this will need to go in MediaWiki:Common.js, not MediaWiki:Common.css, of course. While you're manipulating CSS, you're doing so via JavaScript. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Kww, I'm not sure we have agreed on much in the past, but you absolutely deserve this admin barnstar for all your work these past few weeks around the VisualEditor, and for finding a way to implement community consensus. Kudos! Andreas JN466 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Piling on. Good work. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Same, thanks for the good work to keep this encyclopedia in good shape. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 19:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Heartfelt thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

	The Golden Wiki
	I never give awards to people here, but I will absolutely make an exception today. You deserve nothing less. Well done for standing up for the community. — Scott • talk 23:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for your boldness in ensuring that the will of the community is heard. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

+1 —rybec 16:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Aspects#Your_reversions_are_becoming_equally_disruptive

The user has continued the revert, add section to talk page process. I am tempted to request a NFC topic ban to stop these re-insertions without meeting policy. Werieth (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't roll it out yet

Don't roll it out yet; I think I found a typo (though I find it hard to believe nobody else found it...) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing a curly brace for the end of the first if statement; if I'm reading it right, it will not do anything for anyone that is logged in with an edit count of greater than zero. Am I reading it wrong? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, I am reading it wrong; I didn't see what you took out of the original, only waht you added. Never mind. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not supposed to do anything with editors that have edited, no. It disables the preference for new editors, but doesn't force it off for anyone that has actually edited.—Kww(talk) 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I totally misread things. Carry on! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible RfC

What do you reckon on User:Dpmuk/JamesForrester as an RfC?

There's no possible benefit in going down that path. None whatsoever.—Kww(talk) 00:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? Genuinely interested. I get the impression that too much power is in one person's hands when it comes to VE. I'm realistic enough to know that this won't change the project lead but am hopeful it may lead to more oversight. Dpmuk (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Because we aren't his employer, even indirectly. I have no reason to believe that he doesn't do exactly what Erik Moller and Sue Gardner want him to do. When it comes to Visual Editor, I know from personal conversation with Moller that James's actions are in accordance with Erik's wishes. Oversight doesn't help when an employee is already doing what his boss wants.—Kww(talk) 00:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well they've kept that disappointing quiet if that is the case. If so I've go from being annoyed at James to feeling sorry for him. If such a willingness to ignore the community is entrenched right at the top of the WMF I fear we may be heading for User:Dpmuk/Withdraw Labour (which I drafted some time ago) or something equally extreme. I accept we're some way off but unless the WMF fundamentally changes how it interacts with the community I think something that extreme is inevitable. Dpmuk (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for hiding VE

Thank you for the patch to hide VE, and that is the best "broken code" in the world:  to allow opt-in after only one edit was a brilliant feat of engineering. I still believe if we pull together as a community, then we can improve many important aspects of the site. For example, most wp:edit-conflicts are simple to auto-merge, and the MediaWiki diff3.c utility could be easily modified to allow edits to adjacent lines without triggering "Edit conflict" (currently limited to 1-line separation). However, we need to set the edit-Save operation to perform a database read-lock on the page, because 2 edits within the same minute both read the same (unlocked) prior revision, and after the 1st editor merges to the prior revision, then the 2nd editor overwrites the 1st editor when he should have merged with the 1st editor's revision, waiting after a read-lock. Although WMF does not seem to care, numerous hot-topic articles and busy talk-pages get edit-conflicts, such as the Talk:Bradley_Manning page in recent weeks. Similarly, we could set the wp:expansion depth limit higher, such as 41/40 to 50 or more. There are many important simple changes we could make, if we take a stand to focus on major improvements, rather than push a complex tool (mis-)used by 3% of editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the habit of tinkering with WMF supported files. Wikipedia is an amazingly complex tool, and I don't have the test facilities to ever feel comfortable tweaking these things before going live. The change to common.js was one thing: it was so small that I was able to precisely predict how big of an impact it would have. I knew how to test it in small scale, and I was set up to test it from multiple computers as soon as I put it live so that I could revert it if I had to. Doing it live like that was an unpleasant step, and one that I wish WMF had not forced me into.

When you get into actual C source files, you are not only getting into things that I don't have the test facilities for, you are getting into things that I don't have the permissions for.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77, do these things already have feature requests tracked in Bugzilla, by the way? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• There are several Bugzilla entries: @Biosthmors, as entries about wp:edit-conflicts (EC), including for Talk:Bradley_Manning (posted by SlimVirgin in August 2013), and the various WMF responses have been either "edit-conflicts are good" to remind you there are other editors active (others discussing Manning, who knew?), or "VE edit-conflicts are an interesting case" not used for talk-pages nor 97% of edits (but let's focus only on VE) or "we did not write diff3.c" to know what to improve, etc. Meanwhile, computer scientists or others have even studied "weave merge" to allow words to be changed in paragraphs as another editor has moved those paragraphs erstwhile (by tracking shifted lines as if numbered), but that is the far future, and I just want the simple EC fixes, such as to edit adjacent lines (or adjacent phrases on the same line) or to stack multiple replies at the same line into LIFO order ("last-in, first-out") to allow an editor to insert a "===subtopic===" (as reply) but the next editor replies at the same line with a reply auto-stacked above the nested subtopic. Most users who care would re-read the finished page, to ensure their changes were saved/formatted, and then spot another editor's nearby text, yet anyone too busy to re-read is also too busy to redo edit-conflict text when another editor changed an adjacent line, or inserted a reply (or list entry) at the same line. The text-logistics show only a minor risk of interleaved text, but great ability to handle many active editors, such as 30 people all replying to a survey at the same line numbers, auto-stacking all 30 replies within minutes, rather than delaying some as "Edit conflict" to retry perhaps an hour later. Imagine using that in wiki-classrooms, asking students to all answer within 9 minutes. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez

Three years passed since semi-protection has been enabled. Is amount of edits too high to consider "pending changes"? --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

PC is a complete waste of everyone's time and effort. I've unprotected the article, and will monitor it for a while.—Kww(talk) 17:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I am writing to thank you for participating in talks, proposing changes, and executing community consensus related to the Visual Editor. I will not comment on what you have done with respect to the Visual Editor and I neither support nor oppose anything that anyone has done related to this issue, but I sincerely appreciate your participation in the community process of discussing improvements for this tool. So far as I have been able to determine, I think that everyone agrees that you are acting in accordance with community guidelines when seeking consensus and participating in discussions, and as this seems to be the case, I support all the good things you do. I appreciate the way that you show respect to other community members, the Wikimedia Foundation, the general readership, and our common goal of developing the best possible free online informational resources. Forgive my vagueness in this intended complement but I have not been following the Visual Editor case closely and I am speaking as best I can with the information I have. I recognize you for having spent a lot of time advocating for the Wikipedia community and I am grateful for that. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User: Brexx

I have seen this name being used in some of the blocks as sockpuppets, and I saw you just blocked one user. Any pointers on how to note his/her reocccurence again and report it appropriately? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Enable your e-mail for a bit, and I will share some techniques with you. I don't want to tell him how to get past me.—Kww(talk) 06:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@KWW: How on earth can you give advice to others when you cannot properly spell? Your spelling is atrocious and you should take up some lessons on the English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdatruthwriter (talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Brooke Shields

There must have been edit warring in August 2013. Would that interfere with "pending changes" request that I intend to do? Should there have been temporary full protection? --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. Why are you making all these unprotection requests?—Kww(talk) 19:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well... in order to make less impact on technical servers, perhaps? Also, number of indef. semi-prot. pages is huge. Besides, I've done a general request in WP:AN. --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see some specific analysis as to why you think the situation might have changed with these articles. Roughly 00.03% of Wikipedia is indefinitely semi-protected, so I have a really hard time seeing this as a pressing issue. In my case, most of the articles you will find that I have indefinitely semi-protected are articles where PC failed during the trial.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What "specific analysis"? You mean amount of history logs? --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The articles all got semi-protected indefinitely for a reason. No admin does it for fun. As an example, though, there might be some Disney children's show that got vandalized heavily while it was on, but now has gone off the air. You could reasonably argue that because there aren't thousands of seven-year-olds arguing about the plot each week, there won't be trouble any more. Things like that. But just saying "it's been sixteen months, let's do the same thing we did the last time and see if it hurts less" doesn't seem very productive.—Kww(talk) 01:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

... Were you for or against "pending changes" addition when it was proposed? As for "seven-year-old" stuff, why else barring anonymity from editing a page for five or ten years? Besides vandalism and content dispute? --George Ho (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think PC2 is useful, PC1 seems to be useless. As for your question, these articles got the way they are because of chronic problems. Every time protection was removed, the problem came back. Eventually an admin decided it wasn't worth the trouble. As for the ones that I personally have put on indefinite semi, most of those are from the initial trial of PC. The PC protection had to be removed, and I had to decide whether to unprotect or semi-protect. For an article to wind up indefinitely semi-protected, that meant that I saw that the article had been semi-protected for a long time before PC was applied, and that every IP edit during the trial had been rejected. Those articles stand very little chance of ever being successfully unprotected, and PC is of no value if every IP edit is rejected. So, what you need to do is look at each of those articles and come up with a reason that the problems may have gone away.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

PC2 is no longer active right now; attempts to revive it failed. Indef. semi-protection would rob unregistered editors of editing priviledges, but vandalism and edit warring are primarily blamed for robbing the priviledges. In the case of Brooke Shields, she is... not that famous right now. Unfortunately, content disputes got in the way, making PC pointless. But I know there are other semi-prot. pages not suffering from recent disputes. --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Visual editor

I stand and applaud you. Well done. And thank you. --Tóraí (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you are mentioned here. --Tóraí (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

More indef. semi-protected pages

3 (Britney Spears song) has been protected from unregistered editors for three years. There are more at Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages. --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Specific reason, as you were hoping: I'm sure that many unregistered editors wouldn't harm the article, would they? Besides, I bet that Spears is losing fame, and that her songs are less played than before, so odds of vandalism would be low, right? Also, not all anonymous editors are vandals or socks. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If you look through history, you will see that I protected the article because it was being targeted by Brexx. If you look through my logs, you will see that I block one of Brexx's socks every week or so. Your argument didn't address the reason it was protected.—Kww(talk) 00:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I forgot... Even a sockpuppet can use an autoconfirmed or confirmed username and still vandalise the page. But is that what semi-protection is for? --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It's one purpose, yes.—Kww(talk) 00:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Keeping Up With Brexx

I've noticed that you've blocked a number of Brexx sock accounts and addresses. One thing I'm curious about is: how do you manage to keep up with this user? He/she seems to take new disguises quite frequently. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

He's actually pretty easy to spot, so it isn't too much work.—Kww(talk) 05:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

True. What I meant was: is there a way to ban all his disguises at once and from ever returning with new ones? One moment you ban one of his socks, the next he creates a new one. I have a feeling he won't stop on his own anytime soon. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If there was, I would have done it 300 disguises ago.—Kww(talk) 16:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Fenton, Michigan

You oversighted several edits to this article including addition of downtown redevelopment discussion and links to buildings articles from image captions. Please restore those edits and/ or undo your oversighting. If you want to undo the merge of content regarding Silver Lake that's fine. I can proceed with it once the AfD is completed if there are no objections (I haven't seen any) but you oversighting has disrupted both the AfD and the work improving the Fenton article. Notice for example that someone had to revise their comment in the discussion because you undid the merge by means of oversighting. If you have a content objection that's fine. And yes, you are correct that if/ when a merge is carried out the history has to be preserved. So if you have a substantive argument against doing that you should express it instead of carrying out unilateral action. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for taking care of Grounelzee. I'm thinking it's one of those K-pop fans that have descended (or maybe ascended) into trolling Dr. K. and me. But I don't think "Ultimate notorious editor" is connected: they strike me as a newbie (with POV and poor citations and all that) who got dragged into this because Grounelzee started reverting Me and Dr. K. on random articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning being that K-pop fans would revert you and Dr. K, while "Ultimate Notorious Editor" would only have reason to hate you, Drmies? I can see that logic. He hadn't started up on Dr. K yet when I blocked him. Do you think UNE stands any chance of making productive edits?—Kww(talk) 14:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No, UNE's edits didn't follow mine or Dr. K.s.; they're on their own. As for your last question, probably not. :) Drmies (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually had the unblock screen up, Drmies, but couldn't make myself press the button. That username and content makes me think he's likely to be a disruptive alternate of somebody, even if I can't put my finger on the guilty party. You have my blessing though: if you want to unblock him on the grounds that he isn't Grounelzee, I won't object.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is overdue!

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Pedro João, hereby award you with the Original Barnstar for helping me grow as a Wikipedia user and teaching me what to do on Wikipedia - I may have not known at the time that you were helping me, but I do know. For every removed fanmade image I uploaded on Wikipedia, for every disputes we've ever had; this is for you. Thanks. ρedro talk 16:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A Nobody, again

You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody. Seems clear to me. Deor (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Image of Jeet Ganguly

I've taken this snap at a Music Concert ! (Mitrabarun (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC))

• Most probably, it is not true. Reverse image search and TinEye check showed the image was netcopyvio (i.e. widely available in internet). --Tito☸Dutta 03:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Obi-Wan said I should put down the stick.

Could you let me know if you think I went over the line on the Chelsea Manning move proposal page? I was trying to advise Obi-Wan not to find ways to meddle with the header, but it only seemed to provoke. I thought I was showing mild disapproval, not a stick, but I can tone it down if you think it's unhelpful. __Elaqueate (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you went particularly overboard, but it probably is best to just let the discussion drop. The competing versions are gone, the blocks are expired, and the discussion is proceeding smoothly. There's no benefit to continuing to argue over it,Elaqueate.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I do hope it works out smoothly, despite the showboating. It's better for the project. Thanks for the check-in! __Elaqueate (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding submersibles

Hello, Can you please specify from where it is copied ? As it is my own article. Thank You ! (Mitrabarun (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC))

Image

Then this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nirmalananda.JPG) is also copied from www.vivekananda.net/PDFBooks/Nirmalananda.pdf‎ www.gurusfeet.com/guru/swami-nirmalananda www.mediander.com/connects/.../swami-nirmalananda/‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	for implementing the communities consensus over VE -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And we're back

In case you hadn't seen it yet: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sophisticated_mass_vandalism_from_IP_ranges.3F. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you need some diffs or some IPs just let me know. --Pgallert (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Legality of archive.is question

You have raised the question of whether there is something illegal about archive.is. That raises the question of what law. US federal law? California or Florida law? WMF is subject to those, but there is no reason to think that archive.is is subject to them. We don't even know where it is. The TLD is in Iceland, and the domain is registered with the Icelandic registry, but its registered address is in Prague, Czech Republic, and one of its name servers is in Lichtenstein. Your concerns that the operation is strange are well taken. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You would be hard put to find a jurisdiction where using malware to compromise someone's computer and then using it as an open proxy was legal, Robert.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow. Just wow. Now archive.is is "using malware to compromise someone's computer"? You have no right to say that on WMF property, and to do so constitutes a violation of WMF and Wikipedia policy. You have no proof. These wild accusations are beyond your scope as a Wikipedia editor, and as an administrator. You are within your rights as an editor to dislike apparent multi-IP editing which appears to be done to circumvent blocks, but beyond that, you must stop with these unsubstantiated allegations. They're wildly irresponsible, and they put Wikipedia in a bad light. Of course, it's too late, you've already strewn around plenty of FUD for the rest of us to try to illuminate for what it is. You are now an active, negative, burden on the Wikipedia community, until and unless you recant these legal threats. That's not just me saying and believing it, it's Wikipedia policy: No legal threats. By stating such claims on WMF property, you put WMF at risk for a lawsuit, and you'd better bet WMF legal will have something to say about that. If you think I'm wrong, you should invite WMF legal to the discussion. --Lexein (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

So Lexein, do you have an alternate explanation for how Rotlink can appear to be editing from thousands of different residential connections all over the planet? He may not have set up a botnet, but he's certainly using one (you can rent them, actually). I suppose there is an outside possibility he's using something like flash proxy, but I find Kww's conclusions entirely reasonable. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable-sounding argument based on shady linguistics does not constitute proof. Where does this "thousands" notion come from? I've been shown evidence for about 100 or so. And where does this "Rotlink can appear to be editing from"? Where's the proof that it's Rotlink? Similar edits summaries? Similar links to archive.is, and oh by the way archive.org? That's pretty thin evidence. I could log out right now, make five similar IP edits, with identical edit summaries, and by User:Kww's logic, I'd automatically be labelled a bot, because Kww doesn't have WP:Checkuser privileges, so all he can do is guess. This is NOT the Wikipedia way, and I find it thoroughly distasteful. Hey, here's a plausible scenario: Rotlink pissed someone off, and they're doing this to discredit and ruin him and archive.is. I'm extremely disappointed, and getting angry, that this blizzard of IP edits is happening, but they're happening on the minutes or hours scale, not the seconds I would expect from a true attack botnet. And I really want to hear from Rotlink about what the hell's going on, because archive.is is just on the verge of legitimacy, starting to get reviews and mentions, and plaudits for supporting the Memento standard. Gah. --Lexein (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Podcast

Hi Kww, thanks for your comments. I invite you to be on the Wikipedia Weekly podcast next week to comment and clarify those issues that you brought up. The tracking of the chronology of all this, without real centralized, threaded discussion is incredibly tough, and we always work on the best information we have at the time that we can glean from things that are read after the fact. We welcome those who want to make their positions and interpretations clear. I would also like your views on how you view an understanding among the veteran editors, WMF employees, chapter participants and newbies can create what constitutes "community consensus."

The "community consensus" phrase was used over and over again in the RFC to declare a quasi "will of the people," which was accepted as a trump card over WMF actions, without much pushback. But as I said on podcast, I'm very skeptical claiming this as a valid consensus that imbues individual actors with such authority. The community has more communications channels than ever, with constituents living in different geographical and virtual spaces. Without the implementation of a system of "public notice" and widespread engagement in debate and comment, in what way can "community consensus" be declared in any meaningful way on one set of pages in the corners of Wikipedia? How many people know how to navigate the labyrinth of RFC, Village Pump, Administrator's Noticeboard, Talk pages to understand the progression of these issues? (I will also note that pushback against the addition of "social media" features in Wikipedia by certain loud community voices may be a hindrance to getting a wider audience for determining consensus.)

Also, in an era where every year sees fewer and fewer en: regulars, and administrator numbers dwindling, shouldn't the concerns of potential new editors be seriously taken into account, and their user experience in coming and staying? The only ones in the position to study this in any systematized way are the WMF and other NGO/academic partners (such as UNU-Merit, who did early user editor surveys). The mistrust of a small cache of power users of the WMF leaves some significant casualties: attracting potential editors, engaging new editors and retaining existing editors. After being in the editing community for ten years, I think the blasé view that the complicated technical editing environment and unfriendly community norms in Wikipedia is no big deal (and that it's OK to keep bozos out) is stronger than ever. And that's worrying. But I invite you to the dialogue.

Let me know if you're interested. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

archive.is abuse filter

Is blocking use of archive.org by newbies necessary? Shortly after you made that change, an IP reported a false positive related to it, an IP that looks certainly unlike Rotlink. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty uncomfortable relaxing it right now with Rotlink's activity level. Let me look at it tomorrow to see if I can make it more precise.—Kww(talk) 06:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A) Please say "excessive Archive.is-related multi-IP activity" if you must, but cease accusing Rotlink without proof beyond the mere circumstantial. That's just over the line of appropriate administrator behavior. B) Do relax the filter a bit, please: regardless of the Archive.is controversy, Archive.org use should not be blocked, if done with correct use of templates, and for the purpose of appropriately recovering actual deadlinks, unless the filter is tuning out blatant copyvio or malware archived pages (quite valid reasons), IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism/copyvio websites

Can you blacklist weaponplace.ru and topwar.ru? They post articles from Russian magazines without permission or even attribution to the original source/author(s). I posted about these at EL/N a while back, but nothing got done. I see dogswar.ru, which is the same boat, is already blacklisted, so this seems the appropriate course of action. Thanks. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Chloe

I'm thinking this is nothing more than a troll who just lunged on something; I doubt they have anything to do with Jesus (and I doubt they'll fight the block or request an unblock). I do have the feeling that recently I'm seeing more of this stuff, the Vgleer case being one of the more obvious ones. Thanks for the block, Drmies (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A curious decision

Hi Kww, I have to admit that I am surprised to see Synthwave.94 unblocked. This user has not accepted any responsibility for any of the conflicts they have caused and has systematically refused to learn from more experienced users or accept advice. They still don't understand why they were blocked in the first place, don't understand WP:SYNTH or WP:MOS. Their last response to questions from admin regarding accepting mistakes was "I had learnt far enough from other editors so far. I'm not waiting for anything else. I've got everything I need in order to improve any song article and I'm ready to continue what I've been doing so far, because I know it's the perfect way to improve song articles. Bjelleklang, I hope you are more comprehensive than other users I met so far and that you will unblock me after this series of errors made by other users." I fear this will end in tears. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for revert to remove the libelous content from the Casandra Peterson talk page. This editor seems to have a history of quick trigger finger and using warning templates to intimidate. They edits had clear summaries, were to remove libbelous content and not in anyway vandalism. I was also issued 2 warnings in quick succession for edits made before the first warning another violation of policy on handling vandalism. 74.4.198.186 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I have been consistently impressed with your efforts to inject common sense into the discussions regarding the Visual Editor and Flow. These projects will be great enhancements to the Wikipedia experience if the powers-that-be take on board the constructive criticism and feedback you and other editors have offered. Keep up the good work. 28bytes (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

More than 1000 edits...

More than 1000 edits and thanked 3 times !
More than 1000 edits and more than 1000 edits entirely kept !!
More than 1000 edits and not a trouble at all !!!

What am I talking about ? I'm talking about this.

I've continued editing Wikipedia, but on my language-speaking Wikipedia this time, and here are some proofs my edits are actually helpful & constructive :

"tu apparais souvent dans ma liste de suivi, ce qui est une très bonne chose, c'est cool ce que tu as fait pour les classements."
→ "you appear in my watchlist very often, and this is a very good thing, what you did for charts is cool"

"continue ce que tu fais, je trouve finalement que je t'embête pour rien. Oui, c'est très bien ce que tu fais, j'ai beaucoup d'articles de chansons dans ma liste de suivi et je te vois tout le temps passer !"
→ "continue what you're doing, I finally realize I annoyed you for nothing. Yes, what you do is very good, I've got a lot of songs articles in my watchlist and I can see you all of the time !"

I imagine it can be quite hard to imagine this kind of situation, however this is the truth. This positive messages come from my talk page.

While I've been editing here, I've been learning how to improve songs articles as efficiently as possible. Look at the differences before and after I've been improving each of these articles. Look at Bad (before/after), Macarena (before/after) or We No Speak Americano (before/after). This is what I'm really able to do ! This has nothing to do with my very first edits. Don't listen to other editors who missed an essential detail about me. I've been edting over 150 songs articles like this on the French-language and I can do the same on the English-speaking wiki without any problem. If everyone trust me, hundreds of songs articles would see the same benefits from my edits. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Excuse me, but if I'm not mistaken, it's MY talk page, and you shouldn't be reverting MY edits on MY talk page. It's a barnstar, an image formatted for a barnstar. I won't revert back, but you should no this now. Rusted AutoParts 19:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The fair use policy prohibits use of copyrighted material on talk pages. If you had bothered to read the reasons the image was removed, you would know that.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

My point is it's MY talk page. Don't revert me. Request me to remove it. Rusted AutoParts 19:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And my point is that no one had to ask you, because your opinion on the topic made no difference. Elocke removed a policy violation, pointed you directly at the policy if violated, and you chose to restore it without discussion. Given your history of edit-warring, it wouldn't have been a stretch for me to have blocked you right then. Your talk page is not your personal property to violate policy on as you see fit.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't reverting to keep it, I was reverting because you have no right to revert the owner of the talk page. Its fine that it has to go, but being reverted by someone on my own talk page is not something im standing for. i was under the impression that it was fair use as it was in barnstar form.And always threatening to abuse your admin rights (yeah, you do) every time I have a dispute with someone, I will have no choice but to scoff. Sorry, but I don't appreciate being stalked by you anymore. If you have me on your watchlist, kindly remove me. Rusted AutoParts 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It continues to amaze me how resistant you get to things, RAP. It doesn't matter why you restored it. The removal was correct and per policy. Your restoration was not. I threaten you with blocks because it seems the be the only thing that makes you conform to policy, and I monitor your talk page and your edits because you tend to be a disruptive editor. I'm not going to stop watching your edits or your talk page until I'm convinced that you will conform to policies on your own.—Kww(talk) 20:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I can report you for harassment. How's that for conforming? Anyway, the image is gone, the matter is over. All I ask is you stop stalking me. I'm allowed to feel like im not being monitored all the time, so please, stop watching my edits. Rusted AutoParts 20:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to report me for harassment, RAP. I think that anyone you attempted to report me to would quickly determine that I was simply performing my role as an administrator. So long as you demonstrate a lack of willingness to obey our policies on image use and edit-warring, I will continue to monitor your activities and intervene when I see fit.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There are countless editors on here who can do the same thing you pledge to persist on doing against my will. There are many admins here who can call me out on any wrongdoings, I don't need you to act as my babysitter, my parole officer, whatever you view yourself as. I find it to be rife with bad faith, grudge harbouring and outright stalking. It's unfair and rather dirty. So for the final time, cut it out. I didn't ask for you to watch me. Cut the leash and move on with your life. Rusted AutoParts 20:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Conform to policies for a few years and ask again, RAP. There's no rush about these things.—Kww(talk) 20:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Few years? Nope, your bullying ends now. I have zero problem with compling to the norm, but I don't need you to forcefully hold my hand the whole time. Can you just for once, assume some good faith in me? I don't like being watched, all I want is to be able to conform without being followed around the website. Can you do that? Be reasonable? Also, what are you writing that's causing some reference issue red link at the bottom each time you reply? Rusted AutoParts 20:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that, RAP, is that the reason we are talking right now is that you were edit-warring in material that directly violated policy despite having been told why, and are trying to cite a policy about talk pages that doesn't exist in an effort to justify your actions. You were doing so this morning. You still haven't shown that you even understand why you were wrong. What reason do I have to believe that you are suddenly going to change?—Kww(talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Because no one has confidence in me. I can easily cruise throu my time on Wikipedia if people had confidence in me. I admit, I get passionate in these types of disagreements. But hell, I DO contribute positively. I make articles, I shut down vandals before ey run rampant. It's not like I'm JUST edit warring. It makes me feel persecuted knowing I'm on an editor's watchlist. I'm not the finest of editors, but sometimes it's acknowledged I do what I do in non-vandalistic ways. Rusted AutoParts 20:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC

Hello Kww! Recently I've been seeing a anon IP with IP addresses near the range of those listed on Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. The anon IP user are posting up archiving links to http://wayback.vefsafn.is/ as the archive link thing. I'm not sure if this is related, but it could be. The archive service uses .is domain names. However the services uses the Wayback Machine, which is legit, however I'm very curious. The IP I seen were:

• Special:Contributions/113.21.76.161
• Special:Contributions/117.219.161.81
• There could be more

Both IP addresses traces to India, the same ones listed with the RFC, all have which seems to have the same edit summaries with, "(fixing web references (dead links))". I'll update you with this event. You could feel free to move this discussion to the RfC, I was not sure where to place it. ///EuroCarGT 00:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've taken steps to filter these as well. Thanks, EuroCarGT.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lucy Liu Chinese name

Hi there, I saw you reverted my edits on the Lucy Liu article. I thought there were sufficient source(s) to back up my edits. Here's an article from the Guardian, which states that she does have a Chinese name. And even though it doesn't provide the pinyin of her name, if you do a Google search, the majority of Chinese newspapers refer to her Chinese name. Maybe it's because Liu doesn't have a middle name - most American-born Chinese/Canadian-born Chinese people have their Chinese name as their middle names. But it doesn't negate the fact that she has a Chinese name. How do you argue Michael Chang and Connie Chung's Chinese names? Yes, their middle names are their Chinese names, but what about the characters? How do we know their Chinese names are those specific characters? I don't see any sources that prove that - unless you do a Google search and see Chinese newspapers actually use those names...

Anyways, please let me know what you think. I apologize if I do appear to be aggressive/angry. This isn't an angry message - I just wanted another person's opinion. Thanks!--Guat6 (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The issues are always ones of importance, use and sourcing. Connie Chung was born a Taiwanese national: there is undoubtedly a birth certificate on file somewhere that actually describes her as 宗毓華. It's a verifiable fact about her. Lucy Liu, on the other hand, is an American national: her birth certificate, drivers license, passport, etc. all use "Lucy Liu", and you won't find an official document anywhere that actually describes her as 刘玉玲. Your source says that she toured using "Liu Yu-ling" as a name, but you haven't got a source indicating that she used 刘玉玲. It's original research to try to combine sources, and, at best, "Liu Yu-ling" would be an alias or pseudonym, not a name with legal force.

Michael Chang looks to have the same problem as Lucy Liu: i张德培 is not an official name of any kind.

You can get wrong answers by applying logic. For example, I actually have a Japanese name that I use for business and I don't use the modern official spelling: I use ケビン　ウィリャムズ instead of ケヴィン　ウィリアムズ because I prefer the syllable count of my version, and I'm old enough that ヴィ was unheard of when I was young. Any Japanese paper that ever wrote about me would undoubtedly use ケヴィン　ウィリアムズ. That doesn't make it my name.—Kww(talk) 06:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Block evasions (again)

Hi Kww,

You issued an indef block on 13 May 2013 to Claus Michael2 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. I think he may have returned under a new name, see Claus Michael3 (talk · contribs). The editing history and creation of user pages within article space are identical, which makes this case a very loud quacker. Wesley Mᴥuse 20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Polish chart change adress

I ask you to change name of chart for Poland (Polish Airplay Top 5) to Polish Airplay Top 20 because ZPAV today change form of chart. New adress for chart is http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/airplay/topairplay.php?idlisty=1107 (Number 1107 is chartid). Old is http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/airplay/top5.php?idlisty=1071. Sorry for my english ;) Mihelpl (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion

Hi. On whether the CSD guideline should mention nominators checking interlinks I think it would be helpful to take a break for 24 hours and let others speak, don't you think? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I repeat that I would like a moratorium for 24 hours, please. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Notifications bug

Maybe this is another example of bugzilla:54639? Helder 20:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Charlie (October)

He has returned as 86.160.9.65 (talk · contribs), per this. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Per this and many unsourced changes, it appears he changed to 86.143.88.0 (talk · contribs). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Hi, Kww, can you please semi-protect Avril Lavigne albums and singles, and I think that contributors or unregistered contributors did vandalism the music genres without sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.252 (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

Hi there Kww! I wanted to let you know that I responded to your message on the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment discussion page. Another editor, Maproom, also thought that my version treated Ramtha as if he were real, though there is no concrete evidence to prove this, so I went ahead and made a few changes to my draft in places I thought you might be talking about. Will you please point out any other areas you're concerned about?

Still, I'd like to share with you the same thing I told Maproom:

My intent is certainly not to present Ramtha as if he is real, but instead to provide an accurate account of the school's teachings in a neutral way. In articles for new religious movements, such as Cao Dai, beliefs are clearly labeled as such, but once labelled, are discussed as if real. The intro to the article for Tenrikyo, for example, contains the sentence "Followers of Tenrikyo believe that God, known by several names including Tenri-O-no-Mikoto, expressed divine will through Nakayama's role as the Shrine of God…" Note that it doesn't say, for example, "...allegedly expressed divine will…" or something similar. This is the model I was trying to follow.

Did you have any other specific thoughts about my draft? Calstarry (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Synthwave.94 still at it

Synthwave.94 (talk · contribs) has resumed the antics that got him blocked, with no course corrections at all. He's slowed down a bit, but since he was unblocked, he's systematically revisited every article where he was reverted and re-introduced his changes. For example, see Come Back and Stay. He's repeatedly tried to add "blue-eyed soul" as a genre having picked it out of a quote in an Allmusic article, and "pop rock" without any source. He's been reverted by two different editors and he's just gone in and added them again. --Laser brain (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me what is wrong about re adding a singlechart ? Or about changing dead links ? I don't see anything wrong about it. And I'm not genre warring. Both "blue-eyed soul" and "pop rock" are Paul Young's main music genres so it would be wrong to think these two genres are erroneous. The first one is clearly mentionned on the reference I added while the second one is not a "middle ground", but a genre widely used by this singer. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The real question, Synthwave.94, is why you keep putting material back in when you know other editors object.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Why ? Well, I thought you had understood what it's about. I often spend more than 30 minutes to improve ONE article, so you can easily imagine I'm extremely frustated when I see all my changes have been reverted in a few seconds ! Why do you think I do so much changes in only one edit or two ? Because I know I can go beyond what other editors are able to do. Changing genres is only one of the numerous changes I'm able to do and you should be clever enough to understand a lot of articles have been entirely cleaned up thanks to me. The few thanks I've been receiving clearly highlight it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That's completely missing the point. You've been reverted on the "blue-eyed soul" issue multiple times, Synthwave.94. What steps have you taken to get others to agree that you are right? Whether you actually are right is beside the point.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thought you were talking about all the recent articles I've been editing, but anyway. OK, I directly added "blue-eyed soul" with a reference which didn't describe "Come Back and Stay" as "blue-eyed soul", but with a "blue-eyed soul vocal style" and I didn't discuss it on the talk page. I did it because I wanted to respect WP:V (as usual). Yes I understand what you mean, I have to talk about it on the talk page if I want to add both "blue-eyed soul" and "pop rock" and to make other editors agree with me. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo Talk page discussion

There is a discussion that has begun about you as an admin and your deletion of articles on Jimbo's talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That thread has now been moved up to be included with the original and not a stand alone, but I feel you should still be notified.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Avengers: Age of Ultron

I normally wouldn't do this, but I invite you to join this discussion, subsection "And we're back". An editor simply refuses to accept consensus. Rusted AutoParts 19:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please intervene. I've started an ANI, but Cole is still at it, and is now on my level of uncooperativeness. Rusted AutoParts 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Arsten took care of it for now, RAP. I'lll keep an eye on the talk page and article.—Kww(talk) 05:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCC policy problems

I'm sure you're not following the defunct discussion on the notice board, so I thought I'd repost my last comments here. I think I bring up some valid points. The following graf is an exact repost:

Well this might not be the place to bring it up (and I know it won't affect this particular case), but some of the NFCC rules are just idiotic. Book covers, for example: they're useful in articles, but using them is usually against the rules and they get taken out, even if they're low-res images. I've never heard of a publisher objecting to them (and if you think about it, why would they?), and they're plastered all over the internet by reviewers and others, some who use a courtesy by-line and others who use them without any acknowledgment whatsoever, but for some reason Wikipedia can't use them. Publicity photos are the same way. One could make the argument that the subject or creator doesn't want them to be used for satirical or denigrating purposes (like as drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa), but not hosting them on Commons doesn't stop anybody from doing so with them being freely available elsewhere on the Internet. A lot of wasted time and energy could be diverted to better purposes if there was a common-sense policy in place.

I think of lot of policies that were put in place to protect WP in theory have in practice turned out to be detrimental and contribute to the amount of wasted time editors must spend on dispute boards. Copyright law is meant to protect copyright holders from exploitation by those who would illegitimately profit from pirating the copyrighted works; it is not and never has been to stifle criticism, discussion, and education. The overreaction of WP on purported copyright violations in reality just feeds the control lust of those who live to enforce rules. If WP adopted some common-sense policies it would go a long way to making this place a lot more attractive to content editors. And the lack of content editors is WP's big problem, not rule enforcement, IMO. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A Nobody

Comments from 143.105.13.12 seem to match his usual tone if you feel like checking. TTN (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Love Will Save the Day (Boyzone)

I saw that you deleted the page Love Will Save the Day (Boyzone). I don't recall User:Pesf or his possible sockpuppets editing the page after his block. I'm not sure if it actually was one of the sockpuppets, (one of the possible 30), I just wanted to bring to your attention that the page may have been incorrectly deleted under the G5 criterion. If this is not the case, just give me a heads up on it. Thanks. MrScorch6200 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Julianluiz was certainly a Pesf sock, MrScorch6200, and he created the article.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I didn't recall that. MrScorch6200 (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Kww is mistaken because i have no idea who this pesf is but i am just an ordinary user of wikipedia who has been trying to create a page that KWW continuously deletes because he thinks people who creates the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bz20 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Will_Save_the_Day_(Boyzone) pages are sockpuppets. Please can these pages be created and my block be got rid of! 80.47.202.12 (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mariah (October)

S/He is now editing as 86.170.121.176 (talk · contribs) per a, b and c histories. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

archive.is

I tried to add some references to article Carbon print and an automated filter disallowed it. Problem is with archiving website(archive.is); removed it and insert original solved the problem. http://archive.is/B0Kuw is archived and http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Carbon/carbon.html is original link. Try without login.-- 117.216.71.4 (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Archive.is_RFC; didn't know about the issue with archive.is. I always archive links I insert, and mean no harm. I have nothing to do with RotlinkBot. If you know reliable archive website please link here. I asked the question above on another admin's page and he point me here. I was trying to add reference for many days, and cant find what the error was(Please note it on the filter message).-- 117.208.219.184 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

VE still puts nowiki-wikilinks one month later

I just fixed yet another garbled wikilink for a nowiki tag (cut nowiki dif564), added by the VisualEditor on 24 October 2013, the one-month anniversary of removal from the top menu, in new article "John Cowan (computer scientist)", who ironically co-authored XML 1.1, a forerunner to wikitext markup. VE is still putting garbled nowiki tags in pages, in late October 2013, even after 6 months of knowing it was a major bug corrupting articles edited 99% by wikitext source-editor. I had suspected VE would still be defective 30-days later, and I estimate at least 100 pages still contain VE-corrupted text. I cannot emphasize enough how wise you were in September 2013 to remove VE from the top menu, and reduce the planned disruptive editing fostered by VE. BTW: I am now one of the 40 wp:template editors fixing protected templates, and many improvements are being made much faster to major templates. Anyway, thanks again for detering VE corruption to numerous WP pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Recording dates

A source was provided on February 2, 2010 showed by article interview that LL Cool J and Lopez worked together on October 16 and 17, 2002. The link expired in December 2011, but it doesn't mean that anyone dare lay the burden of proof on me to go find another one after everyone had 1.9 years of access to the link to confirm its validity. Again, that source was live and present for essentially (a remaining) 2 YEARS, so for one to now just decide at the last minute to delete it due to the dead article link, is absurd. That should be done all across the board on Wikipedia then. I've known that from the Backstreet Boys Wikipedia main page issue in early 2010, your conduct towards me is very negatively biased and not objective one bit, especially regarding how you chose to handle that situation poorly. I let that go years ago, but I necessarily won't swallow such a thing again, as deleting information due an expired/dead link/source is unacceptable to me and Status doing so is also questionable. When that supposed policy is not fully applied across the board in other articles on Wikipedia. If that was truly Wikipedia standard then, random deletions of information would be occurring all over Wikipedia based on dead links. I endlessly encounter articles, in which they have interesting statements with a citation next to them. Often clicking on those rather proves to be useless in having a dead or redirected link, due many years passing since them being cited.

My first instinct is NOT to go and delete or "clean-up" the information provided because of a dead link. I will leave it alone or do my own research to re-confirm its validity. You knew very well why I reverted the removal of the "All I Have" recording information by Status and saw my explanation towards that, yet chose to disregard it on supposedly being "unsourced". When in the first place, it should have NEVER been reverted by Status without further analyzing where it came from. I do not like pettiness and will point it out when I see it, as I do not care to go wasting time, money (pay-per-view archives), and effort doing research of deeply/privately kept background information, for it to be treated as mere poppycock. For all the reverts you are more focused on doing, why haven't you corrected the incorrect "March 10, 2003" release date that contradicts its December 2002 Hot 100 chart debut? I can only figure, it's only because I didn't add it myself of course--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

IP activity again, archiving links

Hi Kww, just to let you know: I see a few IPs in my watchlist again, performing the archiving of dead links, this time to http://web.archive.org:

• ‎111.119.163.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎111.119.186.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎115.186.111.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎115.186.90.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎139.190.156.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎182.178.116.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎39.32.116.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎39.45.154.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎39.47.91.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Pgallert (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protect Jamiroquai all pages indefinitely

Sorry for interrupt. Can you please semi-protect Jamiroquai all pages indefinitely, including main articles, albums, singles and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.177.84 (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)