User:Kuru/archive-2009

List of Project Management Software

Kuru, you seem to be the primary moderator of this list. Is the Work Management column here to stay? It doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry. I believe it should probably be deleted, but I'll defer to you. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.142.150 (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Si - it's been bugging me. I'll drop a note on the article's talk and see if anyone can provide a specific definition of what that entails... Kuru ^talk 01:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much for the unblock, again I am sorry for that, I won't do it again. In fact I'll help you guys fight it now Take Care! Creez34 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

request for page protection

Hi, can you protect my user page please? An IP has repeatedly vandalised my page. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 17:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the source IP for now. If he rotates IPs, I'd be happy to protect it. Kuru ^talk 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 17:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Someones doing it again. Please can you protect my page. I have a feeling it's one of my brothers friends. He's logged into my old account and keeps vandalising my page, just look at the history. Can you protect it please? I don't know how many accounts he has. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 19:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for now, if any more aged accounts appear I'll upgrade it to full protection for a short time. Kuru ^talk 19:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Undoing vandalism

I'm a new user here. I was wondering how you undid the edit to Aída Álvarez so fast. Is there special wiki software you use, or are you just a quick "undoer" to vandalism? Seeing as you're an admin, I'd expect such practice. --Readopedia (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

The recent indef blocked editor User talk:BadmanfromJamaica is still vandalising his own talk page. This is a sock of User:MysteryViper as you will see the similarities if you check evidence page here could you protect the page please, thanks. BigDunc^Talk 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 21:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible you could change the last comment I made on the page funny and all that it is that's not what I said thanks. BigDunc^Talk 22:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Missed that one; should be good now. Kuru ^talk 22:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats brilliant thanks a lot, I have no doubt they will pop up again in a day or so. BigDunc^Talk 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi Kuru is there anything more that can be done with this editor and their socks as it is getting that whenever an account is blocked they return a continue to vandalise my page and others thanks. BigDunc^Talk 19:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Si. I've filed a checkuser request to clean up and see if there is an easy IP range to block. Kuru ^talk 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats great thanks very much. BigDunc^Talk 20:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

UDACommander that explains how I got on his radar, I was wondering who it was. BigDunc^Talk 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't see your post

About the sockpuppet before responding to the second unblock request or I probably would have extended the block. Ah well. It doesn't much matter. We'll know what to do with further vandalism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Si, will just watch. I've actually placed Carlos Mencia on my watchlist, of all things. Kuru ^talk 03:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

HEB

Kuru you sent me a letter about HEB. I have a same IP address as someone else. I did not do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.90.98 (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You sent this to me "Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to H-E-B, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia" I am not the one doing it. It must be someone that has the same IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.90.98 (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you did not make the edit; please ignore the warnings. Kuru ^talk 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Moses Allen

Thanks for fixing the page I created for Captain Moses Allen. This is my first try, just trying to get some hometown history on wikipedia.

Not a problem, just be careful with the cut and paste.  :) If you need any assistance, please let me know. Kuru ^talk 03:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Creez34

Hello Kuru. Creez34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:HPS345

Please do not prevent users from editing their own user talkpage by protecting the talkpage, as you did at User talk:HPS345. There is a block setting that allows you to prevent users from editing their own user talkpage while they are blocked, without protecting the talkpage. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason I can see of to edit that user's page. If you could expand on your reasoning, It'd be appreciated. Kuru ^talk 00:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add the page to Category: Temporary Wikipedian userpages. -- IRP ☎ 02:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that happens when no blocking template is used. I'll watch for that in the future before protecting. I manually added the tag to that one for now. Thanks for the heads up, and for your rather relentless work in vandalism patrolling over the last week or so. Kuru ^talk 04:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Foundation for Rural Living

I am the website administrator hoping to build a Wikipedia page . Some information will be borrowed from website and edited as project continues forward. Is that okay?

Julianfernandes (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Timesheet

What is your reason of deleting the pacific timesheet as a resource page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasontrend (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For the exact same reason it was deleted previously. You've made no indication why this is a notable piece of software or company, and include no reliable third party sources for the information. Kuru ^talk 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

hi Kuru are u indian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.70.109 (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping clear up. --John (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Kuru ^talk 12:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hello Kuru, You recently deleted a page on 'Duolog' which is the company I work for. I wanted to put this entry into Wikipedia because I note that many of the other companies do so also. I 'tried' to remove all 'marketing blurb' and stick to just the facts and links to relevant technologies. Can you perhaps highlight the offending material and give me a second chance to republish. regards, 83.71.128.35 (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Dave Murray

Statements such as "enable rapid integration of today's increasingly complex ... designs", or "eliminating bugs, shrinking design cycles and reducing the risk of costly delays and respins" come off as simple marketing bluster. There were absolutely no reliable sources to back up any of the statements or claims in the article, and you have a significant conflict of interest in the article. Correct the sourcing, and eliminate the puffery, and there should not be a problem. Kuru ^talk 12:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hellow Kuru, I'll remove these references. Where can I get the original content? if you undelete, I'll change immediately... ta - Damurray1 (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Dave Murray

I've restored the article and added a tag so that people will not delete it immediately. Please address the third party sources first. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 13:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kuru, I've deleted the non-factual material. Can you please review. thank, Damurray1 (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Dave Murray

Thanks. I've added as many third party, non-press release sources I could find to back up the assertions in the article. Looks good to me now. Kuru ^talk 00:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

TIGER 21 Entry

Please view the Vistage International entry, as it is a competitor, yet the entry remains listed even though it is the same type of organization.Heathereoconnor (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

eric manlow

In recent research about the plymouth whalers and there relationship to the NHL carolina hurricanes.I have stumbled across Eric manlow. this topic has been deleted. I am a novice wiki user and do not understand the reason given as to why thus topic was deleted. please revaluate and determine the need for this be it just or otherwise.

The purpose of my interest is very trivial, no substantial importance exist only my desire to prove weather the NHL canes and the relationship to the OHL Whalers (same owner) has resulted in any ethical wrong doing. we are talking about a pro sports team getting a slight advantage. no earth shattering huamnity adjusting controversies only a small matter for hockey fans to debate when other more interesting topics do not exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.135.244 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like something I deleted in 2007 - the content of the article was "Related to the Manlow Family Of Albion. Played for various hockey teams. Gillow wears glasses". The article was removed because it did not make any assertion of notability, i.e. played for a professional team or some sort. There should not be a problem with the article being recreated provided there is some claim to such. Not real sure how the "gillow" bit fits in. :) Kuru ^talk 04:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I apologize

My little brother keeps using wikipedia I try to tell him to stop, he just say Noooo. Forgive me for the unconstructive edit. 68.231.64.36 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding new terms, 'real estate'

Kuru I have read your note on the removal of my defintion of real estate. I should like to add extracts from The Encyclopedia of Real Estate Terms. In particualr, the definition of 'real estate' is incorrect in one ofr two pages and could be improved on. I am unclear how to set about this. Like you i use Wikipedia, especailly as a first port of call and when I see an entry that is in my sphere of expertise I should like to make chages. Any help in figuring out how to do this effieciently would be of help. Damien Abbott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien Abbott (talk • contribs) 03:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with correcting the existing definition, but please do it in your own words. Replacing entire sections with massive quotes that cannot be altered is not exactly what Wikipedia is all about. If you'd like to release your quoted material under the GFDL license, then that's great, but I seriously doubt that was your intent. Rewriting the lead paragraph with your knowledge of the topic would be fantastic; we would be honored to have you here as a contributor. If I can help in any more specific fashion, please let me know. Kuru ^talk 03:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Kuru I have added a more succinct definition and a explanation in my own language. I think this also covers the error regarding 'real estate' and 'real property' that was there before. I can see what a GFDL licence is, but am not clear how to obtain this for the use of extracts from my publications. I think with my knowledge I can improve on some of the definitions in Wikipedia, especially when I see erros or ommissions. In some ways it is a competitor to my Encyclopedia, but no doubt we can all benefit from both publications. Thanks for your help. Damien —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien Abbott (talk • contribs) 00:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

dermatology online journal

why would you delete the wiki entry and claim it is advertising. it is not a revenue generating product but a source of information. it is supported by public founds and is the equivilant of the california digital library in that it offers information to the public. if you delete the DOJ wiki, then you should delete the cali dig library entry as well. no one stands to gain from the entry financially, but people can discover options for information on dermaotlogy via wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorjor111 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's wonderful. "A ground breaking peer-reviewed journal dedicated to providing high quality peer-reviewed material. It is unique in the field of dermatology ..." is simple adcopy. You may want to read our policy on neutral point of view before attempting to add the material again, and please source any claims. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks. but why did the whole thing get deleted. it took me some time to dig up the first reported cases. can you re-post that part at least.

also, i sourced the support from public funding/public support i.e U of cali and the dig. library. can you repost those.

i can work on it from that point once those parts are back up with the references.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorjor111 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A mindless pursuit of spamwar and its civilian casualties.

If you are going to delete a link that offers the public information on something, you need to replace it. Do we want to offer information here or just fill pages with meaningless words that will not aid in anyone’s quest for information? That link gave a list of demerit points for Traffic Tickets in Ontario. So unless you're going to post that information on Wikipedia, why not allow the link to stay instead of just mindlessly deleting it? You are denying access to information and decreasing Wikipedia’s effectiveness at spreading knowledge and helping people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt bry (talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You've spammed the link to your promotional site many times, ignoring many warnings, and I really can't see the critical importance of one region's point system in helping to understand an article on "traffic tickets". If you feel it is necessary, find another source that meets our external link guidelines. I'm sorry you feel that our pages are filled with "meaningless words"; feel free to contribute to the article, but do not add any more links to your own sites. Kuru ^talk 15:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please move Baby Zhang to Zhang Hanyun

Can you move rename Baby Zhang to Zhang Hanyun please. I tried to move it, but there was a error moving it. The moving of Zhang Hanyun to Baby Zhang is a bad idea and Zhang Hanyun is the real name of the subject. Can you move (rename) the page. Thank you. Jet (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

72.225.189.72

This person is still making personal attacks toward me on their home page using extremely crude language. They are supposed to be blocked from last time they personally attacked me, yet still are posting attacks on their page. I want them blocked for a lot longer than 31 hrs, this is ridiculous MrShamrock (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Si. I just saw your re-report on AIV. I've blocked his ability to edit his talk page and reverted the latest threat. If he pops back up on that IP again when the block expires, please let me know and I'll personally block it for a more extended duration. Kuru ^talk 03:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been accused of vandalizing.

I just got this message saying I vandalized Crackdown's Wikipedia page, but I haven't. In fact I've never even been on that page. Also, the date says May 13, 2007, why am I just getting this message now if I did vandalize a page? The only editing I've ever done, to any page, are little things like adding a link, fixing a typo, etc. I'm completely Wikipedia illiterate. Kimishim (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing on your normal talk page. Did you forget to log in? There may have been some messages on the talk page of the IP address you edit with. Regardless - if you didn't do the edits, simply ignore the message. If I can help you with anything, please let me know. Kuru ^talk 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Spider-Man, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cookies

		Cookies!
		For your anti-vandalism work, and the restoration of interwikis to Colin Powell has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Martin451 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I totally missed this when you added it a few days ago! Kuru ^talk 01:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Credit Karma Removal

If I am reading the logs correctly, you removed the Credit Karma reference from Credit Scores. We were quite happy that someone from the community thought enough of us to enter our name in Wikipedia. In your comment, you suggested our site was "non-notable". I wanted to point out our site is the only one where consumers can gain access to their credit score for free with no hidden fee as often as they wanted. While CreditKarma is not large, I do believe we bring innovation to a market full of deceptive "free" services. All our context is custom and build to help consumers.

According to our Google logs, users from the Wikipedia link have a 12.66% bounce rate (that is incredibly low), complete registration at over 40%, and view more than 10 pages in the session. To me, these number suggest we are a good resource for Wikipedia users. I hope you will take a minute to learn a bit about our site and reconsider your edit.

Best Regards, Ken Founder & CEO, Credit Karma

(22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreditKarma (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your interest and reasoned query. Your site is not a suitable reliable reference; and the addition of promotional material serves little to assist in an encyclopedic article on the topic of "credit scores". I'm glad you're happy with the traffic, but we're not here to provide a directory of services. If you'd like to use the article's talk page to propose some neutral addition of material; please feel free and let me know how I can help. Kuru ^talk 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I believe our value to the topic "Credit Score" is that our site provides a credit score for free with no strings attached. The ads on our site is how we pay for it. With that said, I can certainly understand your position. Thanks for taking the time and check our site. I'm a big fan of Wikipedia. Keep the the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreditKarma (talk • contribs) 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

This user may be using many accounts to edit i would really like if you could investigate it. Thank you Kyle1278 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of Accounting Software edit

I made edits to this page (and was continuing to) to include links to several sites that have good comparisons of accounting software packages and are thus relevant to this topic. I noticed you removed these links. Can you advise? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.66.86 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed one link that was a very low content comparison site today; is that the one? When you say links that makes me think you're talking about a multiple removal from a long time ago? Since your IP has no other edits, could you clarify the link you think should be added - that may help. Kuru ^talk 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am referring to the one edit I made now. I was planning to add a few other specifally relevant links as well (i.e. accounting software reviews and recommendations). Based on what I read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links, wouldn't Wikipedia users and the community find it useful to have multiple external links of good comparison sites that complement this article? The description on the Wikipedia External Links article referenced here seems to indicate that valid links to comparison sites specifically for accounting software should be acceptable in this case. Thank you again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsrinivasan (talk • contribs)

Ah, sorry, you were not logged in for that first note. Since you've posted the same question on the article's talk page, I'll post a response there - thank you for your patience and cordial reply. Kuru ^talk 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I did respond to you there as well (if you could take a look), regarding adding a few (I agree, it shouldn't be a laundry list) sites that do effectively compare accounting software products. I hope you are OK with this. Thanks again.Rsrinivasan (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mayme/Rebecca

Hey, thanks for swatting that fly for me. Somewhere in Wikipedia lore, we should have the following fact immortalized: if your first edit begins "I am not a sockpuppet", you're almost definitely a sockpuppet.GJC 23:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just freaked out by the careful use of apostrophes in paragraphs devoid of any other aspect of punctuation. Neat. Kuru ^talk 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Enixx is acting up again.

Check out User talk:Enixx and his recent edits. Better block him permanently. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked indefinitely. Those are just notices from the cleanup of his messes. Kuru ^talk 01:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cana

You were an early contributor to the subject. There is now a revived discussion of the article, and your participation would be welcome. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Factoring (finance)

I noticed you have contributed to the factoring page. I added a note in the history section about Walter E. Heller, feel free to remove or change it. Mwalla (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Your comment on a new article for Document management system

Hi. You removed an empty link.

I now have created a new article to follow the link: User:Beljoost/Archivista

But before I redo my previous action (this time with a corresponding article) I'd like you to look at it first. So it does not get removed again. I based the article on texts from their website.

As this would be my first article I'm not sure how to proceed. I guess I should delete my user subpage and recreate the text as a subpage of the DMS article?

Beljoost (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. My sole objection was based on the absence of a corresponding article, so there is no chance I would remove your link again. The article you have written may attract criticism since it has no third party sources independent of the company that verify the claims in the text. Adding those kids of links will help avoid problems in the future; an example would be like this. Once you're ready, you can use the move function to move your article in the right place; or just let me know and I'll move it for you. Please let me know if you have any other questions! Kuru ^talk 13:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added two other references besides the one you suggested. I also moved it so it's now an article on its own. It took me two tries, but I think it now is OK. Thank you for your support! Beljoost (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Might want to slap a 'user cannot edit page' on User talk:Coopyeer33

If I know his type, he'll probably do that to his page until he's locked anyway.

Edit: Yup. Got it in one. HalfShadow 02:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thought about that right after I hit the button - you're right. Fixed. Kuru ^talk 03:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not hard to see coming, really. Hardly a 'Sherlock Holmes' moment. Still...*smokes pipe and looks proud of himself, then begins coughing explosively* HalfShadow 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

List of optical disc authoring software

I saw you removed a lot of entries from List of optical disc authoring software which either simply linked to the respective webpage or linked to a non-existent article. I was wondering if there is a rule about this anywhere and if it's okay to remove such entries I find in other lists. Thanks! --Odie5533 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no global policy on the topic that I am aware of; WP:LIST provides guidelines. Typically, consensus is formed for each list whether or not redlinks are worth adding. On some topics, if there is no reasonable guideline established for inclusion, you could be forming a list with millions of entries (List of companies of India for example). Others have become a simple spam magnet by creating a simple directory with no inclusion guidelines. List of optical disc authoring software is fairly borderline. Kuru ^talk 13:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification?

Hey Kuru,

I was just wondering why you reverted the Marketing wiki back to how it was while I was still editing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.93.178 (talk • contribs)

I didn't - you can see the edit history here. You can ask user Ckatz (talk · contribs) why he reverted your edit, but it is likely due to the promotional external link you added - one I would have removed as well. Kuru ^talk 01:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And which you have re-added. I've removed them for you again, and will add a note to your talk page to be clear. Kuru ^talk 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah ashley jackson`

why would you just delete my page? it wasnt even near finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (sic)98 (talk • contribs)

You'll need to start with something a little more substantive than "was a quiet girl". Thanks. Kuru ^talk 15:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Options

I edited the options page to add in asian options (which is very very very widely known but lacking) and russian options. Why is it gone now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.86.130.1 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay

Okay, I'll remember for next time. Sorry, I've just used a lot of Wikis where vandals are talked to like that. § The Black Void § ^Talk _Contribs 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A Little Help

I tried and have miserably failed to be the mediator between two users, Planecrash111 and JustSomeRandomGuy32.

There is accusations of sockpuppetry by Planecrash of RandomGuy. Warning Templation abuse on both. 3RR violations on both. Personal attacks from RandomGuy to Planecrash. Back and forth swipes at each other. Essentially a good ol' war of two users.

I tried to put them each in their corners with this post I sent both last night and it seemed to work, but today they are back at it.

I know it will probably end in blocks for both, but I need some help. Obviously this is something for an admin and not a non-admin wanting to help. :( - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 14, 2009 @ 03:48

Now we have an accusation of sockpuppetry from RandomGuy to Planecrash. They are circling the drain in my opinion and nothing I can do will help. Failed on this one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 14, 2009 @ 03:51

Since it appears you are out, I have pushed this to ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 14, 2009 @ 04:04

Indeed, I had retired for the night. I'll review and make sure this had a resolution. Kuru ^talk 12:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the bubble tea!

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Haha - thanks. Hopefully it was raspberry flavored tea!... :) Kuru ^talk 19:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Link removal from SWOT page

Kuru, you removed the link to Free SWOT analysis generator. This is not low-content promotional link - in fact this is a great tool for anyone constructing a SWOT analysis - it gives a lot of insight into the analysis. Try it yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.190.66 (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the entire page is simply covered in promotional adcopy for your services. I see little insight and a simple form for creating a template. There's very little content to justify the advertising. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 21:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of sources

Hi there, I saw that you changed a bunch of the edits I made, specifically removing a good number of my citations. Could you explain what the policy is here? I'm employed as a financial analyst and I personally verified the veracity of the information from the sources I linked to. My feeling was that the Wikipedia articles on the financial subjects I was editing did not do a good job of explaining the terms in practical use terms. The Wikinvest sources I linked to had a practical focus without getting too technical. I would not have linked to them did I not think they provided key insight lacking from the articles, and I would not have cited them were they not verifiably accurate. In places where I haven't found good reliable sources online for discussion of the terms, I've been using accounting/finance text books, but these are in physical form and I presumed it would be easier for users to read through to the web pages. I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, so if you could help me understand how I should be doing this I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

-Sean Andersean (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersean (talk • contribs) 22:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Sean. We can't really source/cite to other wikis as they change all the time and are effectively self-published; simply cite to the underlying sources which you've identified as verifiably accurate. They don't need to be online. My apologies if I was not clear in my comments about this; I'm sure it looked confusing! Please let me know if you have any other questions I can help you with... Kuru ^talk 22:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No reply to my complaint about link removal (No 11 on the list)

Perhaps you just missed it?Shep (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: User::72.188.226.0

Hello Kuru, just a quick message to thank you for blocking the above user. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Kuru ^talk 02:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution

Hi Kuru, sorry to bother you, but you have helped sort out problems on the pages in question before.

Could I ask that you read the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library ... from 'Removed external links' down?

In a nutshell a chap appeared and chopped 4 external links. Normally I regard this as a good thing: you will see from my log that I do chop plenty of spam links myself. However, this case isn't so clear.

Funnily enough, of the 4 sites he deleted I agree with two (the article and itil.org.uk) although I haven't stated this. But the other two are rather more fundamental, and in my view at least should definitely stay. The problem is that the opportunity to debate properly never arose. He never sought consensus even when asked and simply kept deleting, and frankly was rather rude (some of which he has editedout).

His arguments to delete have ranged from "vague ownership" (which would rule out half the links on Wikipedia!), through to not referenced in the article, and even that there is a link on one of them to a commercial website (yet he retains another that actually sells materials).

There is an irrationality there which I cannot debate with. I don't understand it, but as background, the ITSMF and the Community are direct rivals in terms of being the major ITIL membership bodies, so I can't rule out that this is a potential feature.

I just don't want to be embroiled in this, but feel that I should try to protect the integrity of the article. I am hoping that you will review it, as I think it does require a high level intervention, which hopefully all parties will respect.

Sorry to be a bit of a pest! Thanks if you can help though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarygal (talk • contribs) 19:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look asap. Kuru ^talk 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you: appreciated. I would like this to be sorted out and the article on your the radar of awareness before I retire from editing (ref the discussion page itself). BinaryGal (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kuru, it would be helpful to know if you have decided to not intervene in your capacity as admin considering the 3O process and the ongoing WQA raised by another user for User:Binarygal with regard to bad faith on this ITIL page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies again; I've had little time to do anything other than log in and flip though recent changes over the last week or so. I will read through the material as soon as I get a chance, but I'm not one of those admins who is going to read the last entry and make a snap decision just to feel useful. I would also warn that I'm usually pretty conservative on external links, so you may be asking for assistance from someone with a built in bias. Kuru ^talk 00:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with just getting the page and the background on the radar with you for the future, more than with the links themselves, which I think are pretty clear in terms of validity. Ironically, my edit history will confirm that most of my edits are actually clearing up spam, so we probably share the same perspective. I just feel that it is in the best long term interests of the article to have someone with your experience aware of the various interests in play here, and thus the possible motives for some of the activity. Thanks. BinaryGal (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

You blocked an IP, User:72.23.157.116 for 3 months in January. As soon as the block expired, he's vandalised again, see [1]. I see no reason to tolerate this vandalism only IP, and I ask if you could permanently block the IP. Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's really creepy when they pop right back up like that. Fixed. Kuru ^talk 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Credit Karma Removal

Kuru,

Since our last conversation someone else was nice enough to put a link to the Credit Karma wiki page. It made it through multiple edits (including yours) and then an anonymous user removed the link citing a corporate link when in fact it goes to the wiki page.

17:11, 6 April 2009 69.0.72.1 (talk) (11,026 bytes) (→United States of America: removed corp link - advertising) (undo)

I don't want to revert since I don't know the proper protocol.

Kind Regards, CK

00:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreditKarma (talk • contribs)

Map request

Hi Kuru. I noticed that you created a lof the maps that adorn the various Texas river articles, and I was hoping to talk you into creating a new map for me. I've been working on Fredonian Rebellion, hoping to take it to FAC in the next few weeks. The article would be much improved with a map that shows where the rebellion took place. This would need to cover most of East Texas, with the Sabine, Red, Trinity, and Navasota Rivers present, as well as the Gulf of Mexico as the southern boundary (and probably the city of Nacogdoches, if possible). I can add shading later to show the boundaries of the Edwards grant and the Municipality of Nacogdoches, but I am map-challenged and haven't been able to create the initial map. If you can do this, I'd be happy to return the favor by copyediting or reviewing of your current favorite article(s). (If you have a favorite Texas history article I could also bump it up on my improvement priority list.) Thanks for even considering the request! Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kuru. I just wanted to let you know that I'm planning to nominate this article at FAC next week. If you aren't able to get an image created by then, don't worry. I think the article can probably pass FAC without it, and if you are able to make one later I can always add it in. Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

copyright issue

Hi Kuru,

What do you recommend be done about the copyright issue you raised about the "Loan Comparison" article? I believe the article contains some genuine content of interest to wikipedia readers with relevant sources but I also understand the main source is a copyrighted website. Should I get a license from the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obeaudel (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

National Basketball Association

Hi, as you may already know, various ip accounts are repeatedly inserting the Bryant-James Era nonsense in the article. I've warned him several times and started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#User:Rdicicco2, in which editors have agree that this is inappropriate. Could you do something about this? It is evident that he will continue based on this. Thanks—Chris! _ct 22:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can see it is the same user reverting; we can post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I concur that the heading is silly; but this is a content dispute and since I've reverted him a few times I cannot use my own administrative tools to resolve the situation. If it persists, I'll post a note somewhere. Likely he'll simply get bored at some point. Kuru ^talk 11:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks—Chris! _ct 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Television Radio

Dear Kuru, Here is my manual request for unblocking I am sorry for abusing all those accounts and i won't do it again because it is wrong and i shouldn't have done it and also you block me for a long time and i want to be unblock because i am sorry for what i did and i hope you read this message and understand i am sorry and it won't happen again and that is all i have to say Television Radio76.223.91.199 (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

The above comments were posted by user:69.209.226.53, who has admitted being a sockpuppet of blocked User:Television Radio on his talk page. As someone who has watched this sad sockpuppet soap-opera saga from the beginning, reverted many of his edits, and participated in all 4 SPI's for this user, I would urge you to look thru the SPI and archives carefully before making any decision on unblocking Television Radio, or any of his aliases. Today alone, even after being warned of a possible 3RR violation, he proceeded to revert the same page 2 more times, and was blocked on 2 separate IP's. Personally, I see no redemption for him at this time, but that is only my opinion. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A sound opinion. Kuru ^talk 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Television Radio

Dear Kuru, Can you unblock Television Radio because he is sorry for all that stuff that he did and it won't happen again because Television Radio can't edit pages on Wikipedia because it saids on second thought a manual request for unblocking is needed here and here is the request I am sorry for abusing all those accounts and it won't happen again and also i try to contact you by email but it did not work so i figure to contact you is through your talk page and i hope you read this message and realize i am sorry and it won't happen again and when you read this message i hope you decide to unblock me. Television Radio76.223.91.199 (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.205.114 (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment 14 minutes before this IP posted this request, they blanked the SPI for Television Radio. "Won't do it again"? I have my doubts. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

...and then went on to continue the same edits. I've received no e-mails, and the account works fine. I'm sorry, but your actions do no line up well with your promises. Please limit your editing to placing an unblock request template on your main account so that another administrator can review the block. As it stands, I have no intent of unblocking. Kuru ^talk 23:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Kuru I am seriously confused

You are considering PMP Institute a spam. and you removed it Why did you remove the PMI Reference?

I trully feel that you are trying to dominate the topic I might be mistaken can you please explain to me your point of view? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muminshawaf (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. My comments have been included with each edit, which I presumed you were reading since you were also leaving edit summaries. The link you are continually adding is not suitable as either an external link or as a reference. As an external link, it is simply a promotional page for a vendor selling PMP training. It is covered with google ads, and provides very little content. As a reference, it is not a reliable source, such as a published article or peer reviewed paper; there is no backing to the claims made on the page. You have also been adding this same link to other random articles over the last few days; ergo the warnings. Please cease adding that link. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 00:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider this a good source then?

Thank you for your input.

The information I am providing is correct you check some of these resource

PMI.org for the PMP Qualification.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3610564/Rita-Mulcahys-Tips-on-Passing-the-Pmp For the table you removed about PM questions percentages see page 7 please. I think Rita is a very known publisher. and the information is similar to what PMP Institute is posting and similar to http://becomingpmp.blogspot.com/2007/05/pass-mark.html. http://www.rmcproject.com/about/20051130-pmp-exam-scoring-changes.aspx

I disagree If the source has Ads on it's pages it should not be considered. That makes the pmi.org not a reliable source. Their pages is packed with ads

I also disagree If the source offers products on their website we should not consider it. That will also make pmi.org unreliable source since they sell books membership and other material on their website.

I have an argument for you. If an author add any information to a post. I should not remove it unless I can prove that it is invalid. Then before I remove it I should discuss it with the author to get his point of view. I think that is a more suitable way to approach changes.

I really think the information I have on that post is correct. Few resources agrees with me I picked 2 references you did not like. I believe that does not give you the right to remove them unless you can give a solid prove that the information is insufficient. And the resources are scam artists. An education provider that provide FREE services does not make it unreliable. And the pmi.org since they have Ads and sell services does not make it unreliable source in my opinion.

I have no doubt at all that you have nothing but good faith. But I feel I am getting very intimidated by your approach with me.

I would really appreciate if you please allow me to enter my contributions freely in that post since the information is sufficient. If you can prove that any of the information I am providing is incorrect please let me know what is wrong and I will personally change it.

My best Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muminshawaf (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You can read our policy on external links here. You can read our policy on reliable sources here. Blogs are not acceptable. Sourcing directly to material at pmi is fine for non-contentious material; they are the originator of the product. After looking into it further, you may want to also read our conflict of interest guidelines at WP:COI, since you appear to have a relationship with the "education provider that provide FREE services" link you continue to add. Seriously, feel free to add of the reliably sourced information you want, but you will be blocked if you continue to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your site. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I think it looks really cool...

		The Special Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Special Barnstar for your development of this template. If it were up to me, I would replace {{uw-block3}} with this one! Matt (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.. :) Kuru ^talk 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hi could you please Can take action against the constant vandalism on the Dennis Kucinich Page? It appears people keep changing Dennis Kucinich's name to elf and keebler. Possibly semi-protecting the page would be a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theownedpilot (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Appears to have already been protected. Kuru ^talk 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Project management

Hi, I noticed you just made some improvements to the Virtual project management article, which still has a long way to go. I have adviced that new user to start this article and would like to give him some time to work on in.

Now I wonder if you could talk a look at the Project Management Institute article as well, and give your opinion here about the changes I (with some help) have made to the article. Do you think it is enough or could you propose some more imporvements? Tahnk you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Virtual project management is quite the mess; probably created simply as a promotional vehicle but I'll assume good faith. I've looked at and watchlisted PMI; odd that I didn't already have it on my list, I could have sworn it was at one time. I've noted my comments there - I see little in the way of advertising that would support that tag after the changes you and Centrx made. Kuru ^talk 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment on the PMI article. Maybe you can keep the article on your wathclist as well to avoid this article is becoming a mess again. I think next time we should confront PMI personal at once, when the try to add the lastest development.

I agree about the Virtual project management all te way. My arguments to keep it in place are, that the subject seems notable enough, the initial editor has some talent and I want to give the editor some time to improve the article himself. If he doesn't respond in a week or so, I will probably improve the article myself. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise Asset Management

Keep up the good work reverting advertising links on the EAM page. They seem remarkably persistent!

Jschwa1 (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your claim of vandalism on the Rackspace

Please find below the definition of Wikipedia Vandalism:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism

First, are you aware that Rackspace's publicly known policy is to send root passwords via email? Second, doesn't the fact that you deleted the statement thinking it has to be vandalism prove the validy and importance of the statement? Thirdly, are you now or were you ever and employee, affiliate or have any vested interest in Rackspace? Fourth, don't you think the statement is of use to people who want to lean about Rackspace and therefore a good contribution to Wikipedia? Lastly, please explain why you think stating Rackspaces public policy is vandalism. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.242.121 (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Color commentary such as "convoluted" and "claims security" sounds like your own personal conclusions. Silly slogans such as "Fanatically unsafe!" is simple vandalism. Please cease those types of edits. To answer your questions: 1. No; it should be simple for you to provide a reliable source to that effect. 2. No. 3. No. 4. Not really, we're not here to provide a platform for your own personal consumer advocacy. 5. As above. If I can help you with anything else, please feel free to ask. Kuru ^talk 22:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts?

I find myself in the middle of a low-intensity revert war from which I have been unable to extricate myself. User:Jonfriesen has been inserting links into Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver for going on a couple of weeks. This links are inappropriate for the article and in most cases should be wikilinked. This actually started when user was inserting links to a particlar real estate agency into Buyer brokerage and has now carried over. The issue dows not appear to be eligible as a WP:3RR given that the user comes by once a week or so. Nor can we necessarily blacklist the links since several would be appropriate in articles about particular firms. Flowanda User:Robocoder and I have all weighed in and gotten no where with this individual. Any ideas? Even though the reverts are infrequent, edits on the article are so infrequent that the reversions are starting to predominate the edit history. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kuru....

for removing all my contributions....and not advising me after the first one... it is quite clear you just went through my (minuscule) list of contributions and decided to get rid of the lot..I assume that any contributions I make from now on will be subject to your scrutiny?

It is funny how the pages I contributed to still have citations to other commercial sites or sites who take paid advertising from 3rd parties (hence having value in traffic to that page), yet mine have disappeared. This makes me believe that you have taken a personal dislike to me, that you have decided that you think I'm one of these Wiki-abusers that you're so angered by, your actions and your personal statement on your page lead me to believe that some of your decisions were influenced by your obsession to clean up Wikipedia, and not with the level of information on those pages. I shall be sure to use another Wikipedia account from now on. :) Scratchweasel (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'd prefer me to add a warning every time I revert an edit of yours, I'm happy to do so. One usually suffices. Kuru ^talk 23:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

72.230.130.84 block

User: 72.230.130.84 was blocked for 31 hours, yet is back today vanadalising more pages. Just letting you know. Trista (unable to log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, seems to clearly be the same persistent disruptive editor; I've extended the block. Kuru ^talk 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

NEW as of 24 June 2009 - 72.230.130.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is right back vandalising the CSI: NY page again. I have reported this, but as thre is a backlog, I am hoping you may be able to react to this quicker. I also warned them, but see warning does little if any good with this user. (My own opinion) may be a much longer block will help?!? (permanent is what I would like to see as they have very few if any good edits - but I know that is a last resort. I bow to your judgement on what should be done) Cheers. Trista (user Triste Tierra - unable to log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

re warning

Hi Kuru

Just got a warning fom you re cash management posting. I was trying tohelp your many visitors, and have nothing to gain from them downloading our latest Cash Management Guide, which is free for all to view.

Sorry id I have missunderstood the Wiki rules, but the number of Student and others who contact me each day are usually very grateful foir this type of information.

Regards Robin86.151.169.64 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the link goes straight to a "buy copy" or registration page. You seem to be adding your link to multiple pages as well; please refrain from doing this and read through the links I provided your on our guidelines and policies. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 11:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Babyboomer57

The user is continuing to add links to his site and not engage in conversation at all. What do you think? Blocking or putting the site on the meta blacklist? - Taxman ^Talk 11:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left him a final warning and removed the latest batch of links. I usually only use the blacklist if he starts using multiple accounts and hits multiple articles after the primary account is blocked... Thanks! Kuru ^talk 11:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That was productive. :( I've blocked the account; hopefully he will engage on the talk page. Kuru ^talk 12:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't notice he had used a another account and some IP addresses to vandalize my user page starting yesterday too. Anyway hopefully this sticks since he knows we can blacklist it. - Taxman ^Talk 13:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kuru - Trista valiantly fighting the vandals again.

66.67.66.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)is once again engaging in changing CSI: New York's Lindsay Monroe to Lindsay Messer, even though there is no citation, has been warned numerous times, and has even been blocked for violating 3RR. Others have reverted their edits before I could act, but I have no doubt they will be back in a few hours when they think nobody is paying attention. Reporting does little good, as you know unless they have edited in the last 45 seconds - ANI will do nothing. May I request assistance from you? I appreciate anything (stern warnings, blocks if necessary, etc) you are able to do. Cheers, Trista (User Triste Tierra - not able to log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Kuru - I reported this person, but another admin labelled it "malformed". Does that really mean "you didn't do it right, so I'm ignoring it."? Please understand it is sometimes difficult to get every little thing right on Wikipedia - and even though I realize reporting people is not really easy to prevent abuse of the process, this attitude from an admin makes people like myself who are trying to do the right thing want to give up entirely. Thank you for all your assistance. Trista (User Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much - if you deviate from the format they're looking for, it will not be acted on. Sounds harsh, but I've watched that notice board myself in the past and it is very time consuming to research ambiguous requests and people are very hostile if you get it wrong. Give me a sec and I'll look at this. Kuru ^talk 16:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So, yes; reporting this to AIV is useless since this is a slow vandal. There is no overt 3rr violation, so even a properly formed request there would be of little use. He had a final warning for this obvious vandalism, but the only two edits after that were fairly trivial. If he does anything blatant again, let me know and I'll block him for an extended period since it's clearly the same person at that IP. Thanks for keeping an eye on those articles. Kuru ^talk 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU for not biting me for not understanding how to get the edit numbers in there. Almost every other admin has been alright on this issue. This particular one seems to be a stickler for Wikipedia rules as interpreted by him. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why this website getting special favours from you ?

Regarding Retirement_Planning Page of wiki

You deleted a website from external links that I added, on the pretext that it is promotional content ,has Google ads etc.

If this is the parameter than how superretirementplans.com meets those standards as it is filled with all kinds of ads,the content is very low and the website has very low ranking in google .In fact the website is made purely for advertisements and affiliate marketing.

I don't understand why you kept that link in the external ,is this website immune to wiki policies or you personally have some liking for this website ? Boomer577 (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)boomer577

As previously mentioned, I'd be delighted to review any other links you spot that do not comply with our external link guidelines. That, of course, has nothing to do with the link you spammed. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 11:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

listing 'online database'

Hi Kuru, If you could look at this link and see if you think it is appropriate to to add to the list of Online Databases: http://younicycle.com. It is an online SaaS Suite that allows users to create within their Schema, their own db with as many Tables as they need. A wysywig query editor is also built in for left, right, full, inner joins, expressions, etc.

I thought I'd ask - before I add it - and it gets deleted. Thanks. Hemmahemma (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Hemmahemma

Microsoft Dynamics NAV

Hi, you protected this page back in February due to spamming, but there is a new user on the talk page who wants to make good-faith edits to the page. I don't think it would hurt the page to unprotect it, so I'm asking you to do that. I can watch it myself to keep out any spam. ThemFromSpace 20:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the heads up - I seldom semi-protect indefinitely; it must have been in error. I've unprotected it. Kuru ^talk 03:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Key Performance Indicator

Why did you undo my edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvanraaij (talk • contribs) 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You can see the article's history here. I've removed what appears to be personal advice and commentary that was sourced to what looks like a blog and moved other parts of your additions to other sections. If you have any specific questions, please let me know. Kuru ^talk 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism at my username. Nice job infef-blocking that vandal. Apbiologyrocks (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Help!

OK... I was using a page on the Wiki, and it has been edited and the editing is horrible. I do not want to maintain the page but it looks more like whoever edited it wants to obfuscate information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_project_management_software

I created a note on the page but have not gotten a response from any of the parties so I do not know if I am helping out or not.

The document is NOT easier to read, and does not separate the applications into Open Source vs. Proprietary -OR- Desktop vs. Web. I think this is a huge mistake. Both designations make the document much easier to do research with regard to a specific set of criteria. So if I were doing my research today, I would have to go to ALL open source software to find out which applications support a web based collaboration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showflash (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you left a message there six hours ago; you may want to wait for people to see the message you left and respond. I've left you a note there. Kuru ^talk 01:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking julianspace. We were reverting his edits. Is there anything we can do for you?(Zaxby (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Thank you!

Thank you for helping us put 203.49.249.212 to justice! Personally, I'd say that 31 hours may be too lenient, but no matter! I'd be eager help you with anything as well!DaL33T (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

31 hours is as far as I usually stretch a first block. If the same editor continues with that IP after the block expires, please let me know or post it to AIV again and we'll extend it. Kuru ^talk 02:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

31-48 hours tends to be the 'standard' for first locks of an IP. Of course, if it's a proxy, this amount can change drastically. HalfShadow 02:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sym X webpage

The main picture is absolutley horrible. Not one of the band members is clearly shown. I added a picture from their website, the source is not questionable. It is an official picture from their website at www.symphonyx.com If you will not allow me to put a decent picture of the band up, then can you please take it into your own hands?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CantoV (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the image was superior, but we're not allow to host images that are in violation of copyright. You can read more here. You're free to take your own image, but please do not upload images you find on the web; the instructions on the upload page are pretty clear about this. Kuru ^talk 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thank you very much for responding to me. Also, if I'm not being a bother.. I attempted to link the "Music Videos" sections to their youtube videos. The youtube videos are hosted by their record label SPV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CantoV (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Metric

I apologize for the confusion. My goal in reorganizing the Metric disambiguation page, was so that I could easily fix the links to that page. Most of the links to "metric" referred to the metric system, but I didn't realize that I had improperly fixed several links to "metrics", until I had already gone through quite a few. Please feel free to correct any of the mistakes that I made, and again I am sorry for the inconvenience. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fredonian Rebellion Map

Hi Kuru. I got a little distracted from Wikipedia in the last few months (new baby didn't allow me to sleep much) and I'm just now able to edit more. I'm digging back into the Fredonian Rebellion. The last we talked, you had sent me a map that I thought looked pretty good. If you are satisfied with it too, could you please upload it? I'm anxious to finally include a good map in that article. If you were waiting on me for something, please remind me - I'm so far behind in email its ridiculous. Thank you!! Karanacs (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do - let me dig it up. Congratulations - been there before! Sleeping in two hour shifts takes a little getting used to... :) Kuru ^talk 01:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Accounting software

Hi, i think the web page xxx can be a contribution in the description of what very look like some accounting software and not for promote this web site, only because i try these software and i very like is approch of comptability. But sorry i think i specify the wrong link last night, these one more describ the accounting software. ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accounting_software&diff=284195163&oldid=284165942 66.130.235.142 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't need a link to a commercial pitch page to describe accounting software. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 21:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Customer Relationship Management spam?

Hi Kuru,

I understand why you deleted my first addition to the CRM content as it had a link to a company which I am related to. I was ignorant. My bad.

However, your second deletion just seems to be defiant of good content. I add Social CRM and Simple CRM definitions which are emerging, distinct, and quite valid forms of CRM. There are entire conferences being held on these two forms of CRM. Maybe you are a real expert in this industry and disagree. But I doubt it. When I actually am an expert. And as an expert, I have a right AND obligation to add content that is relevant to the topic. Further, you marked my second entries as SPAM! Why do you feel they are spam?

How about you message the author and request changes to content rather than simply deleting content around which you may or may not have any expertise. Justify your marking of spam or I will request that you are blocked from making further changes to this article.

RobASchneider (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edit re-added the same spam link that has been added about a dozen times to the article. If you'd like to add your commentary to the article; please add the appropriate references. If you add that link again, or any other promotional material about your company, your edit will be reverted. If you'd like to constructively add neutral, cited material to the article, I'd be delighted to assist. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the crmscribe.com link (but I see it in the edits link). I don't even know who or what that is. If that was added when I performed the UNDO then it was accidental. I agree that my first edit had another link (shame on me) but in the second edit, I removed it and simply kept the definitions of the two additional CRM classes. Instead of deleting an entire update, it seems that a more constructive thing to do is just remove the offending piece of content. Would be much more efficient.

RobASchneider (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense - you have my complete apologies. Your earlier edit and the appearance of that other link made me assume correlation. Feel free to re-add your material and I will assist in the sourcing. Kuru ^talk 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for the confusion!

RobASchneider (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing the vandalism from my talk page. CardinalDan (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Gary O'Neill

how am i adding adverts ? there was no hyper links ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikioneill (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding promotional material about yourself in the middle of an article about an Irish soccer player. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 01:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Double-entry bookkeeping system edit

Hey, You removed an external link explaining Double entry bookkeeping system marking it as "rmv low content link". I am assuming that you read the linked article. The article is going to be expanded to cover more details about Liabilities and then the Accounting equation. I'm guessing it would be high enough content then. Rahul 69.141.164.183 (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Super. Good luck with that. I'd prefer you not add any other promotional "how to" links which steer visitors to your products. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 18:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Check http://onyem.com/hdoubleentry.htm . More content on Liabilities has been added with a follow up article on the accounting equation. The promotional text has also been deferred later and to be frank is minimal. Let me know if I can add the footer link to the site from the wikipedia page 69.141.164.183 (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have not been clear. We are here to create detailed articles on wikipedia; I am not here to help you develop or promote your blog. Please consider updating the actual content of the article here with your expertise on the topic; links to cursory overviews that simply overlap existing content and include commercial plugs are not acceptable. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 11:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Guidlines on use of maps

Your maps are GREAT! I am working on a project that has been contracted out from the federal government. A map of the Buffalo Bayou watershed would be very useful in this endeavor. Could you give me more specific guidelines on how to properly credit you for your fine map? Thanks a lot. Bfoaz (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Leadership edit

I'm new to the wikipedia format, rules, regulations, etc.. I'm sorry if I did something bad.

I had been doing research recently for a presentation at a leadership conference, and I had found that the work of Steve Rice would complement the Paul Birch topics. I was merely adding a clause to elaborate and hopefully hone the statement about Birch's theory about support and goodwill and how it differentiates leaders from managers. Rice's work and observations were directly linked to Birch's theories on these topics as he chose to focus on how a leader would garner support and earn goodwill -- the culmination was the theory of the empathetic leader.

I'm new here, and I don't understand how some people can be listed on this page and some cannot. There are obviously tonnes of research out there on leadership, but the Wiki entry only uses a few. I don't know how to go about "validating" Rice's work; it would be almost as hard as validating my own work, and even then, I'm not sure how to prove who is the better source for refining the definition of leadership. Paul Birch did fine work, but there are many others that could easily take his place on this page, and even now, he's not supported in the citation section.

Any help would be most appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.20.223 (talk • contribs)

I think you've got a good feel for the problem. The article on leadership is a bit of a mess due to the ambiguity of the topic, and, indeed, the tonnes of "research" on topic. This makes it a bit difficult to determine what to include and what not to. At a minimum, then, we should at least stick to our policy on verifiability (you can read it at WP:V) and include citations for any additions. Birch appears to be well published - I cannot find anything easily from a "Steve Rice" that discusses Brich's work. A citation to your assertions would certainly be a good start. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 15:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Apologies for the inconvenience. Rice's work won't be officially published until later this year, and given the subjective qualities concerning the construct that is leadership and its ethereal, unquantifiable nature, I can understand your edit. It was a bit of whimsy that prompted me to post, but I'll be back later since Rice's work has had such an impact on my own. Sincerely. Cavan Canavan --ps-- Hope San Antonio's treating you well; I've only made it as far south as Austin from Dallas.

Wholesale Ban on the Academy of Management?

Hi Kuru - I thought I'd take this to your page rather than writing more on Mr. Olie's. I recently received a message from another colleague of mine that attempted to provide a link to the Academy of Management's OM division on the Project Management page (om.aomonline.org). I think you might have a misunderstanding of the role of universities in the development of project managers. We actually have programs in place to train these professionals - and I'd have a hard time identifying any groups (aside from PMI) that have as much of a vested interest in developing people for these jobs. I'm just going to kindly ask you to reconsider your view on this issue. Wikipedia of course is certainly not the first place that project management researchers look for information :), but it is likely a source for those who want to pursue these careers. I'm not sure that cutting off the awareness of higher education resources for the field is to anyone's benefit. Thanks for being reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll gladly review the link; could you assist me in what resources are provided there? Links to the hundreds of project management "boards", "institutes", and "certifiers" pop up frequently to drive traffic to their respective programs - and just about every business school in the country provides some minor or cert in PM. I'm making no such accusations for your endeavor, but you must understand the problem we have with spam here. I'm afraid that despite quite a bit of of exposure in the field, I have not heard of your academy being in any sort of notable role in project management, and a casual review of the site revealed nothing of immediate value. If you can point out something usable to the users here, I'd be happy to review. Kuru ^talk 02:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Kiru - You'll find that the Academy is actually the largest collective of management academics out there. The Operations Management division is the arm of the Academy that has represented Operations Management over the last several decades - and actually consists of those trained in 'management' (e.g. rather than 'engineering'). Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Also - just to help - a review of the articles in the associated journals (Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Operations Management, etc., ie. those that are actually listed by the Financial Times as notable publications) should reveal a long history of research into Operations Management, Project Management and Supply Chain Management - The three wiki pages from which links to the OM division of the Academy are relevant yet have been removed. I do understand how three identical links on three separate pages on a single day might bring up a SPAM flag... but I didn't think that spacing these additions out over a longer period of time made much sense (and of course didn't suspect academic links to be registered as SPAM). Once again sorry for the timing of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear, I am familiar with the academy in general, just not with their work in PM and why it would be notable. My actual question was related to resources available at the link to the general public - all links from a general article should be providing a resource that is accessible; which the links there currently do (with the exception of the spanish PM association link which should probably be removed). Could you show me what is provided at the link? Thank you for your dialog. Kuru ^talk 20:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah - Ok well, as far as accessible content is concerned I hope that in browsing om.aomonline.com you will find all of the content to be accessible to the public (no logins required). All of the material is relevant to the Operations Community there - see links to journals, manuscripts, newsletters, job postings, conference information - all links on that main page. We also have a video library newly available (again to the public, no login). Now, that's a general argument for including the link on Wikipedia's Operations Management article (although that link has been removed). If you also scan the contents of past programs and the award winning articles (and job and video links) you will also find content specifically of interest to both the Project Mgmt and Supply Chain communities (again links on both those articles have been cut). After you have a chance to look for this content please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing it. I haven't heard of any access problems from om.aomonline.com , but maybe it just hasn't been reported. Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really having to dig deep to find material directly related to PM, and that's usually on links external to your site. I don't see how conference layouts and job boards expand on the knowledge in the project management article. I'm sure your site is great, but I'm about 20 years out of my supply chain days, so I'm not sure how comprehensive the coverage of that topic is. I don't see how this link helps project management, but you may want to post your insights on the talk pages of articles that are a little more germane. Rapidly applying a link to several tangential articles, and your clear conflict of interest, are what triggered a perceived problem; please be careful and read our COI guidelines before proceeding. On a personal note; you can see the state of many of our business related articles, it may be well worth your time to help build them up a little with your specialist knowledge. It's what we're all really here for - to add content. Kuru ^talk 23:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I won't psuh the issue on PM if it doesn't appear obvious, but in looking over the site do you really think that there is an argument for not including a link to our group under "Operations Management"? (where links to other, distinct groups such as INFORMS (who are modelers not empiricists in OM issues) are permitted). This one I just can't understand from anything other than a "one link doesn't fit so no links fit" argument. I again understand the reactionary dynamics of policing Wikipedia, but in the larger scheme of things, it just doesn't make sense to selectively omit the link on the "Operations Management" article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 17:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a follow up on the removal of the link on the Operations Management article (see above) - Thanks - *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No opinion at this time; if the link has already been removed there as well, make sure you start a discussion on the talk page of that article first and see if a discussion starts. If one does not develop, then add the link with a note in the edit summary referencing the talk page. Please be as patient and professional as you have been on my talk page.  :) Kuru ^talk 02:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Have followed your suggestion on adding a talk element. There was no counter-argument posted, so I proceeded to add the link. However I was told by MrOllie that I still couldn't post (because I am affiliated with the group - Although I doubt that those posting the INFORMS link were not already members). So... with this new criteria, I'll just wait for someone else in our field, likely a member of the Academy (which I hope I don't need to prove as 'notable' any longer) to make the post. I'm fine with this of course - though loosing a bit of faith in the whole apparatus... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendoly (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Block

Hi Kuru, just inquiring about your recent block of this IP address. I cannot see any recent vandalism; all but one of the edits in October have been vandalism. Any ideas why you might have done this? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, giant error. You were the last person to block and this new pink banner thing confused me. I do apologise, my friend! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

List of project management tools

Dear Kuru! I am very much confused on your deletion of MindDecider's reference in a project management software table (List of project management software article). I may understand the deletion of MindDecider's main article (although it automatically means that you must delete vast majority of similar pages without reliable sources). Am I right that Wiki is about providing full information on various subjects and various activities, so MindDecider has a full fledged right to be listed in the software table just as dozens of very much poorer and worse described tools do! It is NOT against Wiki rules and guidelines! You have deleted the MindDecider's article, ok, but why to delete real existing and reasonable references that complete the topic?

Looking forward to your professionalism and understanding. Sincerely, Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newillusion (talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to provide a software directory listing; the criteria established for that page is that each entry should have a an article elsewhere in the encyclopedia. This helps address the concern for verifiability and notability. The article for that software was deleted as it could not be reliably sourced. As noted in the comments when you go to edit the article: "IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE ROLLED BACK WITHOUT WARNING.Only place entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable project management software. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not project management software will be removed. If you have questions, use the talk page. Please try to keep entries in alphabetical order. Adding unnecessary links or text to any other section (such as the "References" section) will also be removed. Thanks. Please see "Wikipedia:Notability" for information on notability for Wikipedia". I hope that clears up the removal for you. If you don't agree with this appraoch, please feel free to continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks.Kuru ^talk 11:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lans Hangschwanz et. al.

Hello. While you're at it you might also want to block User:Denmiss whom I reported to WP:ANI. Regards, De728631 (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

He has apparently already been blocked. Kuru ^talk 14:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Thanks anyway. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Recently autoblocked

Test edit. Seems to be okay? Thanks for the prompt action. Hope I'm done with autoblocks.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 03:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

shopper marketing - non-promotional edits

Dear Kuru,

I understand that my recent edits to the shopper marketing page were correctly removed as they were linked to my companies website. I do however believe that the current article is very weak on the subject. How do i go about changing the article with references to add credibility without directly promoting my company? could i upload articles not linked to my companies website? please advise.

Many thanks,

Toby Toby Desforges (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Request Concerning Anonymous Vandal

Can I ask you to semi-protect my user page and talk page to prevent this one anonymous vandal from repeatedly harassing me or vandalizing my user page with different IPs each night?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly - I set long period for your user page, and a shorter one for your talk page. The talk page protection is problematic; IPs can certainly have a need to communicate with you. I would ask that you not do activities which require you to interact with unregistered users more frequently (vandalism patrol, etc). If you do, let's remove the protection and you'll just need to deal with the random hits and we'll block the IPs as needed, or there are other things we can try. Kuru ^talk 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Digitalshoptime

'''Digitalshoptime''' user has been blocked. The user owner the comany Digital Shoptime Inc and want to write an article about he Company Digital Shoptime Web Design. We do like to have the user unblocked. We don't want to appeal to another users, so please remove the blocking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.58.197 (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to follow the instructions on your talk page, and post an unblock request with a new, non-promotional username. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 01:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Virtual IT Assistant - technical virtual assistants that provide IT project services and support.

Hi Kuru! First allow me to I assure you that it wasn't my intention to break the rules or dismiss what you had corrected. I understand how you interpreted my business site reference as spammy. I totally get that, but what I am not sure of where to find resources for my type of virtual business position that so often gets placed under the umbrella of virtual assistant. And I didn't create a wiki question on wiki answers to answer myself. However, I am the one who tried to give a good answer for it. (Even though the question was exactly grammatically incorrect.) The question popped up when I was doing a Google search for "IT assistant" to see if my website would come up.

So many people confuse what I do with the secretarial type virtual assistant and the "one size fits all" category of consultant doesn't really work either. So, a few weeks ago I decided to create my first page for us virtual IT assistants on wiki to help clear it up and show the distinction. I didn't know if I could use my press release or virtual assistant forum profile, I believe after your responses those would be useless too. I am trying to define my position as an IT professional. At the same time, I am want to be innovative by utilizing what I can to best define this business role. As a student of Business Information Systems at IWU and an entrepreneur, I want to learn how to go about establishing my position the right way.

As an administrator for wiki, you have probably seen a lot of this type of effort executed successfully. Is it allowed for me I ask for your help?Darkbluesun (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You can read our policies on reliable sources. You're correct - your press release and forum posts would also not be acceptable. If you cannot provide sourcing for your article, then the concept is likely not quite yet notable enough to warrant coverage. If it is something you've created, it would be wise to wait until you've received some form of third party coverage. I'd certainly love to help, but without sources to work with, there's a bit of a problem. Kuru ^talk 03:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, :( but I thank you for your time. I would rather have this be an "understood" position like medical assistant or dental assistant you know? But I realize we don't want a bunch of made up stuff posing as facts. I just need a place to start. I am going to work on those reliable sources now. I saw your page: Unitech Group- Am I allowed to do something like this as the corporation until I can get sources? I don't have a lot of sources here either, but that's what I get for just doing consulting under my own name to get through to graduation. Virtual IT Assistant like Unitech Group ? Thanks again from Amber :} ] Darkbluesun (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. If you're asking if you can add a page for your home grown consulting business without any sources, then no; that's a good indicator that it is not notable for inclusion. Comparing it to one of the largest companies in India is not viable. Provide third party sources and it should not be a problem. If we can't even validate the business term you added, then it should be deleted as well. Kuru ^talk 11:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize that your business page - Unitech Group is much more established than my corporation! :) (- sources.) I wasn't trying to belittle that work you did at all. It was just the only business page you had built. And looking back, it is still like comparing apples to oranges. And about the external linking, I thought that I had read that this was ok because it wasn't a referencing, just relating and didn't create any backlinks from google. - never the less I won't add it. Please give me a little more time on my term? I know I can come up with some great references.

Help, I'm uncomfortable with reality

about the zombie survival guide,m you do understand that witch, zombie, and other "fictional" being are never proved to have not existed, in librarys and various websites, voodo zombies are listed as real, and by the way i will stop when i feel like it. You can't just assume since you never have seen anything that it fictional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriorjorge (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User block

On 18 October 2009 you blocked User 150.101.100.194. If you now look at their recent contributions, you will see that it has had no effect. As far as I can tell, every edit by this IP has been vandalism. I don't know the procedure for requesting another longer block, so leave this in your capable hands. (Please respond here.) HairyWombat (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Later. Found Wikipedia:ANI, and described the problem there. HairyWombat (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Warmpuppy's at it again.

Thanks for banning warmpuppy2, but he's back causing trouble once again in the world of Johnny Test, doing thing to the article for little or no reason. Check the edit histories and it basically confirms it (Johnny Test, puyo puyo, Diary of a wimpy kid, other kid shows). He also lives in Springfield Illinois. If you can quickly take care of this so we can return to peace once again in Johnny Test land, I'd really appreciate it.

• Warmpuppy2: [2]

(Already banned, but look at his edits and compare to the other socks to confirm they're the same person. Was blocked by you for being a sock puppet of course.)

• E-Asiegbu: [3]
• 209.175.117.2: [4]

Thanks. Heavydata (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I need help, Kuru.

I created an article for Tom Healy (poet), but there is already a Tom Healy. When I do a standard wikipedia search, wikipedia goes to the first Tom Healy. How do I create a page that gives the browsers a choice between the two Tom Healys? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcczar (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I had missed this request. It appears the folks at the help desk have ironed it out for you. Kuru ^talk 15:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

I apologize for accidental revert and warning. I was using User:Ale jrb/Scripts/igloo, and I accidentally hit revert for your edit. Again, my apologies, --Meaghan ^{guess who :)} 14:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not a problem. :) Kuru ^talk 15:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Spam

I keep adding external links to articles but they keep getting blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.30.58 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed, at least. If you continue to add blatantly promotional material and affiliate spam to articles, you will indeed be blocked. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 16:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

so If I want to link people to content how can I do that?

sugesting I am promting is obsurd

promotion material ?

theres such a word as slander should you know what it means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.30.58 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

sorry for the misunderstanding

do you have a terms and conditons page or rules that I cna read?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.30.58 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You can read the links left for you on your talk page; most specifically Wikipedia:External links. Little self-published screeds pointing to a specific product or clumsy reseller/affiliate catalogs linked to primary pages is clearly inappropriate. If you'd like to contribute, please do so by adding sourced content to articles; adding any other external links before you have a clear understanding of the policies you have repeatedly been pointed to is not a good idea. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Red Star

Red Star Congratulations, Kuru! It's my pleasure to award you November 18, 2009's Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan guess who :) 01:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) You could also receive the next higher up award, the Orange Star!

Ha, that's cute. I just wanted to point out that Tiptoety and Tanthalas39 and secretly mock you and I think you're swell. Really. They told me. Kuru ^talk 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For reverting vandalism on my userpage...

Pepperpiggle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Orange Star

Orange Star Congratulations, Kuru! Within the past three days, you received the Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. You've now been chosen to receive the next higher up award, the Orange Star. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan the vanilla twilight 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) You could also receive the next higher up award, the Yellow Star!

Thanks! I just wanted to point out that Spongefrog and Rich Farmbrough secretly mock you as well. I've set them straight and demanded apologies. Really. They're also from the UK, which means they don't even put ice in their tea and they hate hockey, eh. They do have super cool accents, and good beer, so it's a wash. Kuru ^talk 03:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Star (not because Spongefrog and Rich Farmbrough "secretly mock me", but because you deserve it ;)

Yellow Star Congratulations, Kuru! Within the past nine days, you received the Orange Star and the Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. You've now been chosen to receive the next higher up award, the Yellow Star. This makes you eligible for the shiniest award of all, the Blue Star. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan the vanilla twilight 14:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Man, I'd have to tell on a lot of people to win that one.. :) Thank you very much for your kind words; it makes up for the last dozen or so death threats I've received from some of our more excitable non-contributors. Kuru ^talk 23:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Kuru! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, November 22nd, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week! December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Thanksgiving!} 00:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

With regards to User:62.31.38.42. This user is a persistant vandal and i thank you for placing a ban on his/her account. Lets see if it has any effect on there editing behaviour when the ban expires. Thanks again :) 92.9.156.170 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Week

Congratulations, Kuru! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Week" award for this week! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also recieve the top award, "Wikipedian of the Month" for this month!

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Thanksgiving!} 01:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Kuru ^talk 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

international real estate portals

I have just edited the international real estate page. I expanded on a previous entry regarding property portals and added some links to examples of such portals (none of which I am affiliated with by the way - I don't work in property at all). As these are not meant to be promotional and serve as examples I wonder why my edit has been removed? Also, if the links were not acceptable why not just remove the links and leave the basic point of the paragraph? Thanks in advance, Overseasdream (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for "examples" with external links. If there is some neutral, third party cited material about portals, that would be great, but randomly selected commercial links serve no purpose. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking my ip address!

Thank you! The unblocking was faster than I expected. Thank you for the block exemption. AshLin (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

December21st2012Freak Happy Thanksgiving! has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promate WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:User:December21st2012Freak/Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

December21st2012Freak  Happy Thanksgiving! 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Tethys

Hello, thanks for blocking this sock for me. Would you mind amending the block for the master sock, User:Tethys is hot? This account has been used to send several emails to me; if the block could be reset to disable email, that would much appreciated. Thank you, GlassCobra 00:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course; done on both accounts. Kuru ^talk 01:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi Kuru, You said I could ask a question following my RfA. Well here's one. I deleted a page 2009 in Afghanistan - no content, that wasn't a problem, now an editor has suggested on my talk page that's There's More - "Take a look at Category:Years of the 19th century in India, a whole bunch of pages should be deleted because the same reason as 2009 in Afghanistan, lack of context. Qajar (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)". I can see his/her point on a lot of those pages - especially those in the lower half (the non subcategory) - a lot are just a couple of birthdays and no content at all, e.g. 1872 in India. I would think that these pages might be better off in changed to categories of the same name. There are a few pages that are more substantial, but not many. Could you give us a second opinion?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have opted for A3:No content, as opposed to A1:no context, but that's trivial. I think the other articles fail any sort of speedy deletion criteria, so you're into the realm of content editing now where precedent and consensus are more important. My opinion is that those articles could certainly be fleshed out with notable content - birthdays just seem to be the low hanging fruit. Perhaps seeking guidance at WP:India before wholesale changes? Kuru ^talk 06:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've reverted Indian pages before - there tends to be plenty of editors who will wade in - so I know CSD wouldn't even work if valid, someone would remove the templates as fast as one added them. The pages could well make good articles if one could find enough good data. Nice idea about WP:India, I think I'll go there.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

hi

Is this spam, proving further information on the road accident fund of South Africa. You choose to ignore others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinsure (talk • contribs) 15:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding links to your company's site. There's no need for you to "re-host" publicly available documents with ads on them. I've replaced your link with one pointing to a reliable source. I'm sure that meets your desire to share this information, correct? Kuru ^talk 15:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete a link to a free resource?

I am new to Wikipedia so I hope I am not talking out of turn.

I recently edited page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization where I added a link to a free book on the relavent topic. It would appear that you swiftly deleted the link.

Surely a link to a totally FREE resource, containing detailed descriptions, pictures and authorative instructions based on 15 years practical application, would be a good thing for Wikipedia readers to know about?

Look forward to your answer. If I have inadvertently done things in the wrong way, then I look forward to your guidance.

regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by M150565 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it. The content seemed fairly trivial and there was a pitch for "customized" products. Please feel free to use your expertise to improve the article with reliable sources, but adding links to drive traffic to your web site on probably the most spammed article on Wikipedia does not seem like a valued-added activity. Kuru ^talk 23:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kuru,

Thank you for your reply.

I note your comment about the promotion of commercial content and have removed it immediately. It has been some time since we offered any such reports. You will also note that I have also placed a prominent notice on the home page of the resource stating:

"SEO Book is, and shall always remain, a totally free internet resource that exists to promote a more efficient and more informative internet." I trust you find this satisfactory.

With regard to your comment that the resource content is "fairly trivial" I beg to differ. There are many well organised chapters, descriptions, examples, and checklists. The book is the result of over a decade of experience and knowledge that previous readers have found invaluable. So to describe the resource as fairly trivial is your personal opinion, and not one held by other people.

I feel strongly that it is very much in the interests of Wikipedia readers to be able to access good quality 3rd party free resources appropriate and relavent to the subject matter.

To that end I have replaced the link on the Wikipedia page, in order that Wikipedia readers can become better informed should they so choose. I hope that the changes I have made satisfy your concerns and that will be the end of the matter.

However should you still feel that a link to this informative, authorative and free resource is innapropriate, then please refer me someone who has a higher authority in Wikipedia who is the guardian of the Wikipedia mission and values.

regards,

86.155.10.203 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems it also sells a "premium " content for for $29.95. (seo-book.info/members/join/view_membership_options.asp). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. Some things to keep in mind before proceding further;

• External links policy
  • Links normally to be avoided
  • Advertising and conflicts of interest
• Conflict of interest
  • Editors who have a conflict of interest
  • Accounts used for promotion
  • Law Of Unintended Consequences
• What Wikipedia is not
  • Wikipedia is not a directory
  • Wikipedia is not a repository for links
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising

--Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As noted by Hu12, this does not appear to be a useful link, and you do appear to have a significant conflict of interest. I'm really not here to help you improve your site for "submission". If you'd like to improve the article, please do so by adding content; not your own personal links. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 20:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by 192.12.88.2

In less than 15 minutes the above anonymous user vandalised an article, a user talk page, a user page and a second user page. Given the short time, it seems like the same person vandalised all the above pages - there was also vandalism of another article earlier today, but given the time and the different nature of the vandalism it could be a different person using a shared lab machine.Autarch (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; that's clearly the same user behind the IP and I've suspended it accordingly. Kuru ^talk 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Autarch (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

My user page was first vandalized at 20:33, 3 December 2009 by Charles Dawson (talk). I had fixed the Grand Canal (Ireland) article which was totally messed up after his edits. My user page was again vandalized at 21:04, 4 December 2009 by the above-mentioned IP (192.12.88.2). I cannot help but suspect that both acts of vandalism were carried out by the same person, under 2 different identities. I have just fixed the Talk:Grand Canal (Ireland) page, on which the templates had be broken by this user. Hohenloh ⁺ 01:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Further very similar vandalism was carried out on the Grand Canal article over the past few days by 213.114.150.204 and 213.114.147.136. Hohenloh ⁺ 02:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi protect

Can you please semi-protect my user page?? Lately it is being subjected to Vandalism like this one.

 arun  talk  13:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice; racist vandalism and hagger vandalism. I've semi-protected it for now; will not help in all cases. Kuru ^talk 03:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :)  arun  talk  03:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of Accounting Software

I have been using NewViews since 1986, it is international software with registered users in over 100 countries. Very few software companies have been around this long. Why was my row deleted ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Matcalfe (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The addition was removed as there is no article for that company. When you edited the page, you may have missed the text stating "This comparison is for notable software, i.e. that which has an article in Wikipedia. Do not add weblinks, do not add products which do not have articles." If the product is that notable, it should be easy to find reliable coverage of the product to create an article. I'd be happy to assist if you have questions. Kuru ^talk 23:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, the article on NewViews and the company QW Page is in the works, but the text is not in Wikipedia yet, I would like to have all the text and links confirmed before I post the article.

No problem. I've created a temporary place for you to create the article here. Just edit that page as you would any other and it won't be deleted or tagged if there are problems. When you're happy with it, we can move it to the right place. If you'd like to create an account, we can move it to your our userspace to edit as well. Kuru ^talk 23:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thelardking

I reinstated one of the three warnings you removed. The user vandalised the gyroscope article and was warned: [5]. S/he then vandalised again after this first warning. This was reverted and he was warned again: [6]. The other two warnings I gave were for vandalism that has not been picked up: [7], [8]. S/he would have been blocked if all acts of vandalism had been detected. Although I accept that retrospective warnings might be a little over the top. So I have only reinstated the second warning from today. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice unblock decline

Very nice. tedder (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm struggling to keep the happy face on these days.  :) Kuru ^talk 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for clearing the block, thank you. Happy New Year in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMarcelo (talk • contribs) 04:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my page.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Kuru,
Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;)
Love and best wishes, Meaghan - ^Merry _Christmas! - 00:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Hippo43

I believe you handled the unblock yesterday. The user seems to have gone right back to edit warring. Have a look at the Petero Civoniceva article, for example. Anything you can do? Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 03:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's disappointing. Kuru ^talk 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice your rationale for unblock last time, and I can't help but wonder if 2 weeks is sufficient. After his unblock he apparently went back to war on many articles. Several have been pointed out thus far, but also [9] on the 16th you can see he reverted 3 times, was warned, and knowing full well there was an RFC open on the article, and that his edit was disputed, he tried a couple times to put it back in today, with ownership like statements. You said you wouldn't lecture him because he'd heard it all before, I'd say that is the problem, he hasn't heard it before and he's ignored it all before.--Crossmr (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)