User talk:Kuru

Kuru's Talk Page

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Please note that I will usually respond on this page to keep the conversation together. If you have a question about a particular edit/reversion, please try to include a link to it if you can.

WARNING: If you've come here because my name was used in a solicitation for a paid Wikipedia article, you are being scammed. In no way, shape, or form would I ever operate or advise as a paid editor. I also do not typically assist declared paid editors; I'm here as a volunteer to improve the project, not to help you turn a buck.

Click HERE to start a new talk topic.

Archives

2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009

2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013

2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017

2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021

2022 • 2023 • 2024 • 2025

AfD nomination of Speculation

An editor has nominated Speculation, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speculation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solution Express Logistics

Why the adv of Solution Express Logistics was deleted, as I have come across so may ads eg. Shakti Pharmaceuticals Pvt. LTd. and many more? Ohmnamoh (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was complete adcopy; simple puffery written in the first person and unsupported by third party citations. If you'd like to help improve other articles, please do so. Kuru ^talk 11:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shakti Pharmatech Pvt. Ltd. - And What you think this is ? Ohmnamoh (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A poorly written article. I'd remove or request a cite for the "one of the top players" claim. I don't see how the product listing helps, so I'd probably excise that. I'd also question the notability of the company, but I'd do my homework first. All of these are things you can fix, since you're here to help, right? Kuru ^talk 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Computer Program

Would you comment on this thread? Timhowardriley (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what's wrong with my article?

Dear Kuru

What is wrong with my article? I am not vandalizing, I am using citations. I indicated Andrzej Pydyn's Exchange and cultural interactions: a study of long-distance trade and cross-cultural contacts in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Central and Eastern Europe as the source for my additions. Nobody has added his information, so I am adding it. What's wrong with me doing this?

Kind regard

Tom Pellegrino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.190.36 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a meandering lot of nonsense that has little to do with the topic. You've also switched out the name for the "based on the research of" section three times now. Based on this and your history of odd edits, I'll ask that you discuss your 'addition' on the article's talk page before adding it again. Kuru ^talk 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Tools

Kuru,

I'm not sure of the reason you marked the tool I found foxtrot by enablesoft up for deletion. I was looking for something like this and the information wasn't on wikipedia. If I take out the external links would that be kosher? I just hate for anybody go through the stress of finding this program like I did. I looked here first and would have solved my problem immediately if it was posted. Just the name of the company would have sufficient.

Thanks, Tod —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todfather (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tod. I've removed all of the promotional external links you've added for the site/software from various articles; you can read our external link policy here. Another admin deleted your article on the topic; but I've just reviewed the material and concur with the deletion - the article is simple adcopy as well. Kuru ^talk 01:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your edit

Why did you revert my f**** edit for.Rio de oro (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're inserting your own conclusions and commentary into serious articles, as stated in my reversion. You may want to also read our policy on civility when you get an opportunity. Kuru ^talk 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Hawks

No need to worry -- you actually did me a favor by speedy deleting the article. I should have nominated the article for speedy deletion, but I wasn't familiar with the criteria (e.g. G3) that I could use to justify the speedy deletion. I'm always glad to learn something new! — Myasuda (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackmantas

I saw that in the last half day you reverted vandalism by Jackmantas of the Eric Greif article. Curious, I checked back and saw no less than a dozen additional hack jobs. It appears that Jackmantas is a Single-purpose account created for only this seemingly malicious purpose of taking apart an article. I'm relatively new and figured you'd know what to do, if anything. Thank you. PositiveSpin (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Account/Spider Solitaire Edits/Reverts

Hi Kuru: I was surprised and saddened when you chose to block me for a whole week for participation in the ongoing debate over links at the end of the Spider Solitaire page. You didn't warn me first and perhaps it might have been more appropriate to engage in a wee bit of discussion with me first? I must also admit surprise that you don't enforce the rules systematically. HiDrNick reverted the page in question one more time than I did within just a few minutes as he was not blocked; this seems unfair to me. You chided me for telling HiDrNick "Don't be a dick." Well, there is a Wiki-meta page with this name. When HiDrNick sent me the "step away from the dead horse" message on my discussion page, I found the link to "Don't be a dick" at the bottom of the "dead horse" page (you can link to the "dead horse" page from HiDrNick's message to me on my discussion page). If you don't want people using this meta-page in their dealings with other Wiki-users, perhaps it should be deleted?? Also, others in the discussion on Spider Solitaire have repeatedly violated the rules: 2005 and Rray have over and over again declined to assume good faith on the part of others as the rules require; I have had comments I wrote on discussion pages deleted by 2005 and by HiDrNick, again in contradiction to Wikipedia rules; indeed HiDrNick also deleted a message of support someone posted on MY discussion page (this seems outrageously inappropriate to me). Just for the record, in this discussion I've been accused of sockpuppeting (logging in by my IP address rather than my username when I have never been a registered user) and of COI for promoting my website (I have no website and fundamentally lack the skills necessary to build and maintain one). Are you warning these folks (or, more fairly and evenhandedly, blocking them) for their behavior? If you check HiDrNick's discussion page, you'll see that he has repeatedly gotten into unpleasant arguments with others over his heavy-handed behavior. You'll have to look back through the history links on his discussion page as he deletes the unpleasant discussions and warnings and blocks he's received; while I merely told him not to be a dick, others I see have called him a "Mofo" and a "bully" and have described him as "fat" and "ugly." He seems to have a well-established history of ticking people off and responding to these situations inappropriately and immaturely. Indeed in the edit comments on Spider Solitaire, I twice warned him against edit warring, but I was blocked for it and he wasn't. I've found links to play at the end of literally dozens of Wiki pages devoted to games; I just looked, for instance, and found one at the end of the very first game page I checked, Tic Tac Toe. Maybe the rules prohibit such links, but I know no other way to interpret rules than by looking at precedent in parallel cases and precedent on this question is squarely in favor of having such links. I'd like to know your opinion on these topics and to hear your explanation as to why my behavior merited blocking for a week while none of these other folks even got a warning. Please write back to me and engage with me. I look forward to hearing from you soon. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were very specifically blocked for violating our three revert policy, which you have not only been directly warned about several times, but you were also just coming off a three day block for violation of that very reason. I can see no violation of 3rr by one of the other editors, perhaps you'd like to show it to me?

I'm sorry if you're having a dispute with other wikipedians. You can use one of our many dispute resolution processes or continue to civilly discuss your edits with the other contributors on the article's talk page, but please do not simply continue to revert to your preferred version of the article. You also seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time commenting on the other editors and their attributes, it may help you to limit your comments to the contents of the articles. Kuru ^talk 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kuru: Thanks for the reply, but I was hoping you'd actually answer my questions. If you want to see a three revert violation, go look at the history page for Spider Solitaire and you'll see that HiDrNick broke it a week ago today at the SAME TIME I did; you blocked me and not him. He too has been blocked for such violations previously (as the history of his discussion page shows). You also don't comment as I had hoped you would on other editors' failure to assume good faith and false accusations of COI. You chided me for ad hominem remarks; well, HiDrNick's edit summary of "Maybe this will stick for a bit now" upon having me blocked reeks of ad hominem. I can't understand why none of these folks was even warned whereas I was prohibited from even engaging in the discussion for a whole week. What about the ample precedent for having links to play at the end of pages devoted to games? Should I just ignore that?? Am I not supposed to used the Wiki meta "Don't be a dick" page?? If not, why is it there? Is it "more offensive" than HiDrNick's "Step away from the dead horse" link? Under what conditions may I revert a page when I think a previous version is better than a current one? I do hope you'll want to engage with me on these matters, but it won't do any good just to say "BAD BOY!!" to me and not to respond meaningfully to the points I raise. Thanks. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. I'm sorry, I still cannot see a 3rr violation during that time frame. I see four reverts from you, three from Nick. Out of curiosity, have you actually read the 3rr policy? I am not here to mediate your dispute with the other group; I've left you a link to people who can help you. I've also responded 'meaningfully' to your questions on the topics I am involved in - do not break the 3rr, be civil with other editors. Again, I'm sorry if you feel others said things that were incorrect, but your edits here,here,here, and here are not acceptable. I'm sure you thought the WP:DICK page was cute, but that does not give you free reign to call people names outside of that context. Kuru ^talk 22:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kuru: Thanks for the response. I didn't actually think the "dick" page was cute; I thought it was as obnoxious as the "dead horse" page. I guess I thought that no one on Wiki could object to my linking to a Wiki page in my comments. Maybe we're talking about different things with the "revert" rule. I see "three reverts" as being what breaks the rule and HiDrNick did three reverts in a very short time and his "maybe this will stick for a bit now" edit summary on the last one is merely a barb at me (a breach of civility, in other words). His deleting a comment on my discussion page written by a third party seems wholly out of bounds to me (but you, as an administrator, don't seem to mind it a bit).

So, just out of curiosity: would YOU ever instruct another Wiki-user to "step away from the dead horse"? would YOU ever delete something a third party had written on another Wiki-user's discussion page? If not, would YOU as an administrator kindly do me the favor of just mentioning to HiDrNick that his behavior is a bit short of what is to be expected? In your comment to HiDrNick when you blocked me, you objected to his description of me as a "link spammer"; is it possible to think such links are appropriate and should be included without having to be labelled a "spammer" and a "vandal"??

I think a limited number of links to non-commerical sites to play games at the conclusion of Wiki pages devoted to games makes perfect sense. It seems to be common practice on Wikipedia. I wish I could act on my belief in this matter (as others have acted on their contrary belief) without being called names, without being seen as a negative participant, and without being blocked from participation even in the discussion. I guess that just isn't possible. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I see "three reverts" as being what breaks the rule" I'm curious as to why you'd think this. Not only is it clearly explained on the policy page you've been given a link to many times now, but it is clearly explained twice on your talk page. Kuru ^talk 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Maybe because its called a "three revert" rule? Why else would I think three reverts are bad??? 206.74.61.67 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be intentionally ignoring my point; I'm going to assume the honest dialogue is finished here. Kuru ^talk 11:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be ignoring your point and I apologize if I offended you. MY point is that my behavior (reverting the page so that it fits my idea of what it should be and saying curt things to others) is completely within the bounds of how at least half a dozen other Wiki-users have behaved on Spider Solitaire and none of them was even warned whereas I was blocked (unable even to post things on discussion pages to ask what was going on) for a week. This seems uneven to me. As I told you above, one Wiki-user deleted stuff someone else had written on MY discussion page and that seems to me WAY out of bounds. I took your advice and went to the link you provided to try to deal with it. The answer I got (paraphrased) was "We're not going to take your complaint against a registered user seriously because you are not a registered user." Sigh. 206.74.61.67 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandal

Thanks for the quick response on the IP vandal, they were starting to get on my nerves. Aiden Fisher (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, friend. Kuru ^talk 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HeliAttack 3

Hello, I added an external link to play the HeliAttack 3 game. There currently was not one so I do not understand why the link was deleted. The link was a valid link with the intention of making it easy for visitors to find somewhere to play the game that was being described. Why the was the link deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.246.81 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game's official site suffices. Kuru ^talk 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for reverting the vandalism on my user page.
--Badgernet (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

translation to your article

Madam/Sir,

I may offend you because of the translation without your permision. If so, please accept my appoligize.

A reader & fans of your article: Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royallarry (talk • contribs) 05:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry didn't mean to do that. :) I better get off now before I do anything more stupid; it's 12:46 here

Thanks

Many thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Keith D (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a bit of a hand with tact?

Good evening. How's the weather over there? (Honestly, how is it? I've never had a proper idea of the climate in Texas.)

Now, this message was addressed to you because you happened to be around.

Now, I found this message by Sceptre quite inappropriate and wish to rap him on the knuckles for it - he's been here long enough to know better. Unfortunately, I am indirectly involved and may be biased, so I'd like to ask you for an outside perspective on that comment.

For background: The treatment of fictional matters on Wikipedia is probably our biggest content dispute ever. Sceptre is apparently a deletionist. TTN is an extremist deletionist and spent literally hours per day redirecting articles on characters and other fictional elements to the articles of their works because that way he avoided the burden of the AfD process, and seldom showed up for discussing contested redirects without knowing what he would accept as an outcome. He vanished for a few months after ArbCom told him to stop that and returned this week. Pixelface I know as a moderate inclusionist, with reasonable arguments and good persistence. Apparently he could be a git elsewhere. I am an inclusionist, a hothead, and remember having no dealings with Sceptre or TTN beyond possibly congratulating the former for the flamingo on his talk and noting my distaste for the latter's methods.

I find cheering another editor's departure to be insulting and beligerrent. Maybe if Pixelface had been thrown out, but as it happens he was a good-faith editor who left because he was stressed and accused of vandalism. We're all supposed to be on the same side here on WP, engaged in one huge cooperative effort, and Sceptre's comment would only have been acceptable if there had been a battle going on. What is your opinion on this? ("Get this mess away from me" is a viable answer.) --Kizor 21:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha - I must admit my first thought when reading this was indeed a variation on 'get this mess way from me'. I'm afraid I have not followed the whole fiction arbcom proceeding other than being aware of its existence; so I would have no comment on the positions of the various parties in the dispute without taking time to read the background material. As to the diff, while probably lacking in respect for a fellow editor, I doubt there's anything actionable about it. I'd simply roll my eyes and move on. Kuru ^talk 03:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. If you had been able to provide a solution to the mess that TTN personifies from a standing start, you'd have been shipped you into the middle east within the hour. I'll bite back the bile and go with your recommendation on the diff, apparently my stand on the subject and wish to be a DEFENDER OF THE DOWNTRODDEN had gotten the best of my grounding in reality. Thanks.

So how is the weather? --Kizor 20:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP user problems

I need to call to your attention the recent string of edits an anonymous user has been making to the American Telephone & Telegraph and Bell System pages. This user has new IP addresses each day that they edit the pages, and this isn't the first time this has been a nuisance; a year and a half ago this user frequently vandalized the AT&T page. KansasCity (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'external links'???

HI, I m writing to explore why the links I included to following articles were removed. The link included presents by far the most comprehensive information on the topic of corporate manslaughter law in UK, targeted at commercial organisations. There is a FREE information pack for companies unsure about the law and a printable article written by an expert. I fail to see how this site , 'does not add any value to the article' by providing a substantial resource.

Corporate manslaughter (England and Wales)‎; 
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

I hope you bothered to check the web link before removing it? Just because its a comercial website's link doen't mean it's only been submitted for promotional purposes. I know all links here are NOFOLLOW and so there is no link juice coming to any website included. It was added for the sole intention of providing another useful resource to people who are looking for it actively by reading the Wiki article.

I ask you if you could provide me any link on those pages that allows what this site allows: Free info pack and Company Udit for comliance online.THis is good reason for those links to be included. Things like this makes Wikipedia a dubious informational resource sometimes as you never know that people administrating have a same old stick to judge all content. And far less time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaggernaut (talk • contribs) 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some related rules:

SPAM
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
What Wikipedia is not
Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
- Persistent spamming
- Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed check each and every single link I see. This isn't even a borderline case; you're blatantly spamming multiple articles with the sole intent of promoting your commercial service. Please read through the link I provided you, and the list Hu12 has provided above, before adding another other links. Kuru ^talk 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you removed an external because you thought it to be "promotional"

Hi. Can you please explain why that useful link to wiki-surf.com is considered to be promotional? Did you view the link to see its usefulness and its relevance? Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to locate where I've removed this link - could you provide the article I removed it from? Kuru ^talk 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax"

Sorry, still cannot find it. I have not edited that article that I can see; you can view the article's history here. I do concur with the other editors that the link is not appropriate to add as an external link; perhaps posting at the village pump to find some other way to integrate with your tool? Kuru ^talk 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion on that and for the information, Kuru.