User talk:Kotiwalo


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #254

This is Kotiwalo's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Kotiwalo}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Dear vandals, I wouldn't recommend expressing your frustration or superior lack of better things to do here (use the Sandbox). Belive me, reverting is awfully quick, so you're really doing nothing more than piling feces for you ego to stand on. Of course repeated vandalism or personal attacks will lead to warnings and blocks, but probably won't offend me very much, so I wouldn't bother if I was you.

Yours truly, Kotiwalo (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

I don't know how I managed it, it looked like I was reverting a blanking when I did it but then something went terribly wrong. When I hit show preview after my last edit to make a correction it showed the page back so I thought I had fixed it. When I hit saved, the talk page was there. Very weird but I did screw it up accidently, so thank you for putting it back. I am doing vandal patrol and missed it was a talk page at first. Oh well, thanks for assuming good faith on part. Very much appreciated. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you check out my contribs you'll find about a dozen cases where I have been in edit conflict with myself due to initial problems I had with popups =) Kotiwalo (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's where I went wrong, arguing with myself in the edits. :) I should have corrected myself with the easier way that you did it by reverting back to the other editor. But I freaked a bit knowing I just blanked a page that I never edited before and thought someone was going to think I vandalized on purpose. I'm glad you understood that it was an inocent accident. Thanks again,--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

Thank you for your Speedy Deletion request on the one character. May I request you do the same to Marta Matos - also added to the cast list of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and had a page created for them. I personally believe this is the name of the person doing the edits. They have used numerous names, and I have been trying to fix their bad edits without being caught by 3RR myself (as I could use several different names myself - but refuse to knowingly violate rules, even to repair vandalisation). Thank you very much. TristaBella (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can add speedy deletion tags yourself, too, but I checked Marta Matos. Neither character nor actress produced Google hits, which is unrealistic since CSI is very popular. I'll warn the users. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kotiwalo. This has been an ongoing problem, and I do try to revert the edits as quickly as possible. I am sure you know that some admins will ignore reports if they are not done perfectly - which makes people like myself want to give up. But I am committed to keeping the CSI pages a good resource, so I do keep trying. Cheers! TristaBella (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page.--Just James ^T/C 09:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thusly

I will stop removing it if it bothers you, but M-W fails to mention that it was a word that was invented to make fun of uneducated people. I consider its use to be non encyclopedic do to this fact. M-W often includes words which are non-academic without usage notes. I could find several other dictionaries which would disagree that it is a word or at the very least mark it "informal". If your inclined to keep it, I would suggest that all uses of it on a page be "thus" or "thusly" but not both.--24.24.142.225 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I don't wish to be mean, but I, unlike you, am a native speaker. I happen to know that "thusly" is an Americanism and not even an accepted one for formal situations. Any use of the word "thusly" can be written equivalently with the word "thus" or the phrase "this way". I am not disinclined to accept that editors are going to use it. But realize that it sounds bad to many readers and also to pretty much anyone who didn't learn American English. "Thus" is already an adverb and there is no need for such a word as "thusly". I have read several modern style guides that recommend against using it even in informal cases in favor of "this way".--24.24.142.225 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, not an important point. We wouldn't even be having this discussion I guess if I hadn't used such an inflammatory edit summary. Also trying to change it on Wikipedia will be a losing battle considering how many pages use it. What it comes down to is sometimes it bothers me to encounter a certain usage in Wikipedia to the extent that I will go on a spree of changing pages if it is easily searched for. I'll limit it to more casual edits from now on so as not to arouse suspicion on the recent edits page.--24.24.142.225 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting

Thanks for adding the references to Subaru and being patient and understanding over the minor edit skirmish. One thing you might want to do is take a look at {{Cite web}} which is a really useful template for formatting references. Ideally you should give the URL and TITLE (which are compulsory) but also the PUBLISHER and ACCESSDATE. Ping me if you have any questions. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

67.82.174.147

Apologies. I checked back far enough and you were right, he had been final-warned. I thought you might be complaining about him removing the warnings from the page, since some people think that's vandalism (and it's not, although I think in this situation it was disruptive and thus I handed out a longer block than the usual 24 hours). Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another fake character on CSI: Miami

Hello Kotiwalo. Trista (Triste Tierra) here, I cannot log in at work. User:EvanEllingsonrules has created a page called Chris Carlino, supposedly the name of the new character to played by Eddie Cibrian on CSI: Miami. I am trying to learn about the Speedy Deletion tags, but today I am having much difficulty finding the proper reference. Would you be so kind as to look into this? I cannot find any citation this is the name of the character. I have reverted about 5 edits today from this user and at least one IP placing false edits that cannot be considered good faith. Thank you. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no context

Speedy A1, no context, means what it says that it is a very short article, and it is impossible to tell what the article is even about, and should not be used otherwise. If it's just a hopelessly bad article,use PROD or afd. 16:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Kotiwalo (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Knight

If you see any content about "Masked Rider Blade Knight" just revert the page to whatever it was before that IP's edits. MFD is really unnecessary in this case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion because it hasn't been used for anything but listing those Masked Rider Blade Knight things. If the information is notable, if can be used in the article about it, but talk pages are not meant for listing random information or doing anything unrelated to Wikipedia. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. It's just vandalism. Just revert it entirely. The subject "Masked Rider Blade Knight" does not exist in any form.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that on all other pages that had Masked Rider spam on them but the one Masked Rider page that was an Ip user's talk page hadn't been used for anything else at all. I nominated that one for deletion. So it should be speedied or PRODded then, or just blanked? Kotiwalo (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the fact that it's an IP user talk make any difference? Just revert it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't - the fact that it hasn't been used for anything but Masked Rider thing does. The ip user created it for Masked Rider thing and it has only been used for that since. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, seems like I made a mistake. The page User talk:210.24.200.33 had been used (even by me) for posting warnings before it became a spamhole. Apologies - Kotiwalo (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So just revert it in the future. Because another IP will inevitably show up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I would've done it in he first place but I had this strange impression that the page was created for that stuff. Thanks! Kotiwalo (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trista and CSI again.

86.130.175.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is apparently only using their address for vandalism, with no good edits I can find. I just reverted about 5 of them. Are you able to help? Thank you, Kotiwalo (and thank you for the cookie...it looks delicious!!) TristaBella (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll handle it. But you can warn them and report them to administration yourself - see this. It's got all the info you need to fight vandals. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you handling it. I did warn them and attempted to be polite, although Irish girls aren't so good with that (not having that filter between brain and mouth that most people have as standard equipment <grin>). I am not so good with the reporting, as there are a couple of admins lately that refuse to help if the report is not done just so. I haven't quire learned how to put in the incidents yet if you know what I mean - and get frustrated when I know the info is all there, but because it wasn't perfect, an admin basically tells you nothing will be done - regardless of how egregious the vandalism was. When you have a little time, can you tell me where I can learn how to get those little bits in so I needn't bother you all the time? I very much enjoy working with you, but realise you have other things to do. Cheers, Kotiwalo. TristaBella (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything important going on, so I'll be glad to help you. Vandals mostly need to be given the level 4 or level 4im (last or only) warning before admins will block them. That ensures that they won't get blocked if they acted in good faith - if they have had several warnings, they should know what not to do. It's pretty safe to use the warning templates level 1, then 2, then 3 and so on, and report if vandalism continues after level 4, but if the vandalism is blatant and very obviously bad faith, you can proceed like 1-3-4-report or 2-3-4-report. If the vandalism is extreme, like blanking several pages or such, and no warnings have been yet given, you can use the level4im template, and if it continues, then report. Registered users that have only vandalized (no good edits and several obviously bad ones) will often be blocked even without level 4 warning if reporting user specifies that the user is vandalism-only in their report. But remember - use your own judgement when dealing with vandalism - each case is individual and you'll decide what kind of warning you give. Remember to assume good faith though - the first offense should be considered unintentional unless it's very blatantly vandalism.

And now, a promotional message - I recommend that you install (well, more like toggle on) Twinkle. It's an amazing anti-vandalism tool that allows quick and easy vandalism reverting, quick and easy warning of vandals, quick and easy reporting vandals to administration, quick and easy speedy deletion flagging, and so on. Twinkle boosts your performance against vandals, as routine tasks are, well, quick and easy. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Wronkowski

An aspiring filmmaker that needs to be "out there". Wikipedia is not being abused, nor are other pages, by this user. Two pages were created in the last hour, and hopefully...people will come across them and become interested in his work. It is only requested that the pages be removed from speedy deletion, and the film's page will be changed from (2010 film to independent). Thank you for your time, cooperation, and patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Wronkowski (talk • contribs) 07:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag the article with a hangon tag, I'll explain in the article's talk page. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, judging from your message "and hopefully...people will come across them and become interested in his work" you are trying to use Wikipedia for promoting your work. Sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a soapbox. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

First, what article is being considered? and what changes one side wants that the other objects? But from the discussion above, I'd like to point a few things out. political science describes human institutions that implement policy, etc. It is a descriptive art, not a science. So scientific proof in impossible. So if a group self describes as such, that should be a enough for addition to the article, regardless if the description makes sense or not. Second, there is so much hypocrisy in people's political positions that the question here is trivial it doesn't matter if, in the opinion of opponents, in practice the position would be unworkable. Objections to the motivations, or agenda of the group is irrelevant, Every political position is motivated by the desires of the group. From what I understood, Communists, in the Marxist school, want to establish a proletariat state which would abolish social classes, and after that was done, the state would become optional or minimal. Whether this minimal state is anarchy, that is a matter of opinion, and so if that's what the article informs, then it should mention that this one of the many interpretations groups hold, not necessarily what each term on its own must mean from a dictionary definition. So the term Anarchic communism is not a mutually exclusive term , any more than anarchic capitalism would be. Presenting the term as both side understand is the best solution. One editor describes the term as he understands, the other below points out whatever inconsistencies he sees on the term. Deletion altogether is unwarranted, objection to the position is irrelevant, scientific proof is impossible, the term is only a description and that what wikipedia does: describes. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the dispute page. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about the "Wheel Hub Motor" page

hello, I got a message from you regarding copyrighted material that is in Wheel hub motor

I just merged Wheel motor and Hub motor, which I am sure are purely different names for the same thing. I am quite sure whatever copyright material mentioned was already there. I'm not sure which material it might be... Is it a brand name or quoted material that is not properly referenced.

Sorry for my confusion, I will research it in the help on this site tonight myself. Please send back a message if there is anything you can tell me. I will keep my eye on that article, and also watch for your message.

Thanks, John

Cool, thanks, John Spettro9 (talk)

Your comment in category

Your comment is superfluous.--Ingowart (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It simply tells people to follow the rules - not modifying the category until the dispute is resolved. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not part of the category. Mainpaige is mainpage and talkpage is talkpage. There you can edit your opinions to article and so on.--Ingowart (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible comments are a medium for delivering information to other editors. And it's not superfluous either, as the category was removed without the dispute being closed, proving that a warning is needed. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in category is still superfluous. foyf--Ingowart (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read my last comment, it explains why it quite isn't. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you accused me of vandalism, which isn't the case since I operated in good faith and by the rules. Accusing others of vandalism when it isn't the case is not very civil. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanush shaska.

Dear Sir,

i propose that the pages of Tanush Shaska and University of Vlora be totally removed. Close to that the page about Kocul. Kocul is just a mountaineous fraction of another town (komunë in Albanian). The guy is not all that. Not all world's universities have a wiki page, let alone diploma mills. He lies about numbers. There are only 5000 students there, and the guy claims thrice as many. Before the page contained libelous material about the precedent president Bilal Shkurtaj. Now they've become friends and Shaska has removed all reference to his corrupt admin.

Best regards, ILIA TOLI, aka therepel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.134.143 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns, but Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. You are free to add/remove the information yourself, provided that it is sourced (websites, especially news, are good). Wikipedia has a strict policy on neutral point of view, meaning that everything has to be based on facts, instead of opinions and viewpoints. Thus, if the article is biased, it must be fixed. I can't help you with this (I have very little knowledge on the subject) but you could try contacting the appropriate WikiProject (if there are any, they are listed on top of the article's talk page). Just click the WikiProject's link and you'll be taken to the Project's main page. Use the project's talk page to request help. I wish you well! Best regards, Kotiwalo (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stand up and be counted

Thankyou. My comment was a bit over the top. I have struck the rubbish. Sorry. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, everyone makes mistakes. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia

Please read WP:MOSMAC2. It is common Wikipedia consensus to not use that name. If you keep making the changes that oppose our rules, you may be blocked from editing. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Kotiwalo thank you for your calm answer,

However, The official name of the country as per United Nations is "Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia". How can Wikipedia override United Nations' Decisions and Conventions? On which grounds?

This country was recognized as "Republic of Macedonia" by GW Bush administration, possibly the worst US President the world has ever known. In my opinion the latter says it all.

Inhabitants of this country don't know what the term "Macedonia" means, whereas in Greek,the term Macedons mean either those who are tall, either those who come from up (the north), this deriving from the root "mak" (makrys/macrys meaning long/tall.

Modern inhabitants of FYROM claim being ascendants of Ancient Macedons but they cannot read their scipts whereas we Greeks can. This falsification of history is something happening for the first time in Mankind. Please don't be a part of it.

Best Regards, Denpap

Denpap (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kotiwalo,

You say that you are sorry but United Nations is not Wikipedia's Authority. Then who is? GW Bush maybe?

In the UN there are talks being carried out for the last 15 years in regard to this country's naming without success and Wikipedia solved the matter just in 1 month's talk? Regrettably -in my humble opinion- this shows arrogance and a serious lack of credibility.

Denpap (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia decides what names to use - no one else. After a discussion, the WP:MOSMAC2 was found to be the best and was made an official guideline. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you must go with the rules. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kotiwalo,

How can an Encyclopedia decide on International Affairs and Politics' matters?

This is way beyond the scope of an Encyclopedia.

Something goes very very wrong here.

Brgds

Denpap (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't decide on any international affairs. It just decides what name it uses when referring to them. Since the name is disputed, and Wikipedia has a neutral policy, there was a discussion to find the name that was the least ambiguous and most productive. If you don't like Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, don't use Wikipedia. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You talk in a very arrogant and aggressive manner. Imagine how you would behave if you had real authority in your hands.

Brgds. Denpap (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain your civility. I meant everything I said. Wikipedia is a collaborative project with thousands of people participating - everyone can't be happy with the rules, and that's why they are (almost) always decided via public discussion and consensus, so they are good to as many as possible and bad to as few as possible. Even if you're not happy with the rules, you're expected to obey them. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Talk:Miller High School (Corning, Ohio)/Comments

Hello Kotiwalo, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:Miller High School (Corning, Ohio)/Comments - a page you tagged - because: Does not rely on a page that does not exist. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have an article then. Either the article was made soon after I checked the page or then I just made a mistake. The latter one is more likely, I think. I'll be more careful the next time. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it's a comments page, I should've noticed. Thanks for correcting me! Kotiwalo (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Ok Sdofihodhfsodhouhf (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAA and username policy update

Just letting you and other editors who do a lot of listings at UAA know that the username policy has underwent some changes as of yesterday. You may wish to look it over at your convenience. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BloodRayne

Hi Kotiwalo, just dropping you a note to say that I didn't remove BloodRayne 2 from the zombie game list because she's a vampire, rather I removed it because the focus of the game is on vampires meaning that they would ideally be listed in the vampires section. The list is an a shambles at the minute and I'm a little snowed under trying to reign in the existing content, wikify and add additional games. If I extend BloodRayne to the BloodRayne series within the vampire section would you object if I removed BloodRayne 2 from the zombie section? Someone another 17:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that's what it was about! Yes, extending the BloodRayne to the series seems like a good idea, and in that case, BloodRayne 2 would be redundant. Just make sure that the BloodRayne then links to the series, not the game. Happy editing! Kotiwalo (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shall be done, many thanks. :) Someone another 17:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Genkitendo

I am too busy at this time to put hagon and i am currently trying to help our business (Genkitendo) grow. Please reverse this speedy deletion or consequences will commence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelIsCredop (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three things: First, I did not delete the article, I just nominated it for deletion and I can't reverse the deletion. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a place for promoting anything or helping any company grow. Thirdly, do not threaten me or anyone else, or you will be blocked from editing. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great call on protection to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

I had a project that kept me up to the wee hours of the morning here in the middle part of the US, I took a break on RC Patrol and found myself in the wave of Aussie and NZ time-zone based vandalism. If I had been up later I would've certainly made the semi-protect myself. All the best. --Bobak (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. People shouldn't bring their opinions to Wikipedia so fanatically. They may think they're doing the world a favor (righting great wrongs) but opinions are opinions, facts are facts. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Lake

I found and am sourcing some much better assertions of notability. The aleged connection to Hearst is only an interesting side-note. Lake was a major player in the Golden Age of Radio. She was part of an institution when for 5 years played Blondie in the old-time radio show Blondie, opposite her real-life husband Arthur Lake who voiced Dagwood Bumstead.[1][2]. Now that the light is on, care to lend a hand? This is only the tip of the iceberg. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protected Articles?

Hi Kotiwalo, can you tell me what the story is with semi-protected articles? I gather I can't edit them until the date rolls around that is specified. Is this so?

Thanks

--bessmorris 10:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

Hello. Sorry for the late answer but I was away. Semi-protection means that new editors can't edit the article directly (they can ask someone else to do it on the article's talk page). New editors, in this case, mean either unregistered (ip) users or editors who haven't made at least ten edits and haven't been registered for four days. I hope this helps. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it does. I think I am now autoconfirmed (I have edited 15 times and my account has been active for longer than 4 dyas), so hopefully I can edit them if I wish to. I have another question - how do I embed a PDF link in the text? Thanks. --bessmorris 06:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

I haven't been doing this a lot but think it is done by placing the URL between brackets[], like normal web links. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Brockmann

You wrote to me that I dont own the page. Taht is correct. But do you own it.??

I so please let me make the changes to clear my name as a performing artist.

I do NOT want to be associated with the band that is mentioned in the article about me.

Since you claim to "own" my name here in wikipedia i hope that you will help me to correct the error about me.

Best regards Henrik Brockmann

I don't claim to own it. But your association with the band is a fact, can be sourced, is relevant and thus should stay. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:BIOSELF. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that religious reasons are accepted as a reason to not put persons in relations of other pages and band biography.

The name EVIL are mentioned in the article several times and i do NOT want to be associated with evil...I hope that it is enough to help me to clear my name.

Best regards Henrik Brockmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrik Brockmann (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the string "evil" is enough, but I'm not going to continue this discussion any longer (I have to get up early tomorrow). I'm rather sure that other editors share my views. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you also you really helped me out--User:Wadex92

That's what I do =) Kotiwalo (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! at Deapool

Didn't mean to get in your way there. I think I saw just the blank page when I tried to CSD it. Anyway, I'm sorry. Cheers, —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 07:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. These things happen to me too =D Kotiwalo (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hey there,

Thanks for your message, and for tagging the page in question for deletion. It just came up as a page blanking in Huggle, and when you press revert, it normally picks up that the creator is blanking it, and suggests nomination instead. But apparently that didn't happen for this page. :)

Chrisch^Talk 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in almost every other case Huggle would've been right =). Maybe this was because there had been other contributors as well, me and another user who added advert, peacock and notability tags. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper tagging

Regarding this edit you made to an anon talk page: Please don't be so quick with the vandalism warnings for edits that were made in good faith. The uw-unsourced2 tag would have been more appropriate here, and would not have elicited such an angry outburst at being accused of vandalism. =Axlq 13:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just seemed very bad faith to me since he added Rupert Murdoch as an example of evil character in real life. Potentially libelous, too. I had said to the user before (the comments were deleted) that the edits he made represent only his opinion, and are not eligible for Wikipedia, so the user knew that it shouldn't be done. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just ran across the conversation on his talk page, and it seemed like you issued a vandalism warning for an unsourced edit, in which case an unsourced warning would have made it clear that personal opinions don't belong. =Axlq 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the first vandalism warning was appropriate. The lack of sources wasn't the big issue, but the fact that the user claimed that Murdoch was evil (I don't like him that much either but NPOV must be maintained). The second edit could've (or should've) been dealt with an uw-unsourced. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Ford

Hello. The source you provided for Ruth Ford's death is good, but there's one thing that bothers me, we have another source that claims she was born in 1915, so one of the sources is not correct. What do you think? Kotiwalo (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedians seem to believe that IMDB is unreliable as they do not have a strong record for fact checking. I have changed the ref to The New York Times which has a very strong reputation for factual reporting. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for sorting it out. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Taggart

Please don't delete his article, it's not hurting anyone,its has a source and a citation, how is being Scotland's oldest man not notable.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't make the decision, consensus does. Not hurting anyone is not a proper argument (it is even listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Simply being over 100 years old doesn't warrant notability in a separate article, but in my opinion it should allow an entry in a list of old people. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ria Sakurai

Thankyou for restoring the tag on the article Ria Sakurai--Notedgrant (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:D--Notedgrant (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to know...

...they were all confirmed as sockpuppets by Checkuser, and were blocked an hour ago. [3] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Seems like there's no power more great and mysterious than a human's hidden ability to detect sock puppets. I'm one of those mercy types who wants to give everyone another chance, but there are limits to that as well. It's only fair that users that misuse their editing privileges are blocked. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Floyd's response to my message on his talk page

My Statement at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard‎; "My attempt to start improving the article’s inbalance on the talk page (Talk:Josip Broz Tito) was eventually met with abuse and then deletion. If I have crossed any of Wikipedia’s protocol etiquette I apologise (I am new at this). I just wish to express my concerns to Wikipedia and also to try to improve the Wiki articles if I can". I wish to draw your attention to the fact that I actually did apologies to the Wiki community for any crossing of Wiki protocol.

In my defence I canvassed in order to get someone’s attention because I didn’t know any other way. Furthermore, can I express my opinion (or will I get block, or be accused of being a Sockpuppet, or Wikipedia will send me warning messages etc). Hopefully it will be accepted that I am not a shock puppet (Wiki’s own investigation confirmed this) but merely a contributor to the debate. Secondly he never apologized to me for deleting my comments (which is the worst form of censorship) or anyone else that I know of. Finally, I am clearly disappointed in Wikipedia. There is enough information out there to confirm that Wikipedia is not functioning properly as a disseminator of information (even the creators of Wikipedia have expressed this) especially as it doesn’t act to expose such bullies (and taking there side) as the Direktor. Is writing "You're wacky, you're a lot of fun I like that" & I'll delete everything you wrote Wikipedia's way of doing things, (this guy is being doing this for while) and then taking the guys side! Wiki should check his User Contributions Site he's there day and night working away pushing his POV and keeping it in check.

In our society freedom of speech is paramount and to delete another’s comments is not acceptable. I would not do that to the Direktor and I expect the same respect for my opinion even though it contradicts his. Thanks for the other information you have given me. That is helpful for the future if I choose to contribute any further.

My statement at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rex Dominator: One of the quality problems is, if I may express myself, that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/ hers or their POV. Well if this is the case which I think it is, so be it. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just do what I told you in my message and you'll be fine. It has most of the important things wrapped up nicely. And, as I said, DIREKTOR apologized for his inappropriate comments, you should too. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kotiwalo, your right things did wrapped up nicely. Could you could please show me where is DIREKTOR's apology I can't find it. Cheers Sir Floyd (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He apologized on help desk, I'll quote the entire comment here.

“

Yes, as I said above, that is a report on a possible connection with User:Rex Dominator, not with User:Luigi 28 and/or User:Brunodam (which is what I was referring to when I accused him of being a sock). His mention in that report was a quick check. Please bear in mind that socks of those two users have been harassing me intermittently for months and years, even seeking me out in the real world, posting my home information on the web, and threatening me personally ("We are coming!"). The above quotes are a collection of my worst moments, taken out-of-context, and I believe they are in no way indicative of my character. Nevertheless, I sincerely apologize for them, as I'm certainly not proud of such episodes, even though they have been manipulated to appear far worse than they are. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

”

There you go. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan policy

Hallow to the authorized of Wikipedia I am karim popal the afghan policy writher . I have a small problem of writhing and grammatical. first I write to the Microsoft office 2007 and after paste to Wikipedia. I am changed the discussion of afghan policy .but remember if the united state cannot stop the afghan war is start of word 3 war .war coming to your house .for defense our house and our child witch they have not responsibility for this war . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afghanpolicy27 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am no more authorized than you are. Everyone has the same rules - no soapboxing. I am concerned about the matters of conflict, but Wikipedia is not he place for publishing opinions. This is an encyclopedia. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment

Sorry about that; I reverted too far and accidentally removed Batman's name. I'm a big supporter of using sourced info - even when others don't agree. :) 67.175.176.178 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize myself, there was another IP who was extremely fanatical of Batman being not lawful good (the same IP also wanted Rupert Murdoch to be mentioned as lawful evil), and I took the "last warning" tone because of this. Cheers! Kotiwalo (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity and Notability: Boundaries?

Greetings,

In response to the below post:

Now that the sockpuppet flood has ceased, I'll be glad to announce my wish to keep the article for now, with the following things that should be noted: First, he is notable because he has had a lot of media coverage. I would personally see him as a one-eventer, but he does meet the notability guideline. Secondly, we absolutely positively need to establish a consensus whether longevity warrants notability, simply to help with similar cases to come. Thirdly, we must consider whether other people outliving him (very likely in the near future) are notable as well and do they take away mr Taggart's notability. I personally would see little point in having an article about some guy who had the longevity record twenty years ago, if there is nothing else notable about the person. On the other hand, notability is not temporary... confusing. We need to establish a common set of rules for cases like this. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Longevity warrants notability...this is clearly not an issue. Articles on longevity, and even maximum life span, can be found in traditional encyclopedias, not just Wikipedia.

2. The second question is whether individuals are notable. As we have seen with Henry Allingham, the answer is a clear 'yes.'

3. The real question that the Bob Taggart article raised is what level of longevity is needed for a case to be significant. This is similar to sports. What level of ability is needed to have an article on a baseball player? Generally, the standard is quite low: anyone who has ever played in the major leagues is considered 'notable.' Our culture clearly over-values sports and youth.

For the very aged, there is no "sports league" to determine. There IS a listing of verified 110-year-olds, worldwide, at www.grg.org. Yet some seek anonymity, while others seek attention. Should the level of media coverage be the deciding factor? Sadly, this may be the default standard.

However, in the long run, we must ask "what value" do these articles bring? There are several answers:

A. Most importantly, the lifespan of mammals seems to be limited by biology. In the same way that track and field records mark the outer limits of human peak strength, so longevity records mark the limits of human endurance. Unlike trees, which continue to grow and can live indefinitely, there is a certain cutoff...the record for mice is 4; for dogs, 29; for cats, 38. There's no such thing as a 40-year-old dog. Further, while ONE observation (such as Jeanne Calment) may be a bit outstanding (an outlier), a larger number of observations over time suggests that the 'average maximum' age is currently 115. Since Dec 31 1999, the official world's oldest person has never been younger than 114 or older than 116. This is a remarkably stable record. We also see differences between males and females: the female record of 122 is higher than the (scientific) male record of 115. Studies have shown that 90% of people 110 and older (supercentenarians) are female. This makes it imperative that we have separate records for male and female, the same way sports divides along gender lines.

B. History. Some persons, such as Harry Patch, become a symbol of the past. The last man alive who fought in the trenches in WWI made him notable, as it reminds us that current events eventually pass from living memory. Very aged persons can be our last, tenuous links with the past: Gertrude Baines is noted as being the daughter of a slave who voted for Obama.

C. Case details. Often, claims to extreme age have been found to be false, after more scrutiny was shone upon them. For those presented as true, it is imperative that sufficient detail be in the public vein that the public has confidence that the age attributed is accurate, and can even check themselves.

D. Education/role models. Supercentenarians have changed the mindset of many about just what it means to be "old." One woman told me that her 95-year-old mother had wanted to die, but after hearing about someone turning 110, decided that she was still young enough to keep going.

E. Health/role models. Supercentenarians have served as lifestyle role models, or in some cases as persons who "beat the odds" and smoked or drank or whatever and lived to 110+ anyway.

F. Nationalistic/local pride. Probably the least valuable argument, this seems to be a major reason for press coverage. Like cheering for your team (even when they lose), Scottish people for example would rather identify with Bob Taggart, 109, than with the oldest man in France, England, or Japan.

In the case of Taggart, looking at these reasons: reason A doesn't do much for his case (not a world recordholder or even close to it), except for the gender issue. By establishing that the oldest male in Scotland was 109 and the oldest female was 110, the "gender gap" was just one year at his passing. For B, the Taggart article provided "some" human interest, but was not compelling more than a local news obituary. For C, the age claim is not on the cusp of believability, so details may not be needed. For D, his age may have a positive benefit on the mindset of some. For E, his health habits were not much-discussed. For F, this seems to be the real motivating factor for this article. Both the "gender issue" and the "nationalist issue" could be served with an article such as "list of oldest persons from Scotland" that merges him into a list. Such a merge would retain the small value this case has, without further extending the depth of encyclopedic coverage on extremely longevous individuals. Thus, the current solution should be "keep for now" with a possible merge later. I'm sure the trolls will go away with a second consideration of the article later.131.96.205.184 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]