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

dear kuru, it is not a professional association logo. its a logo for Chartered Accountants. and not a logo of any Association of Chartered Accountants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi1618 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Financial literacy links

Dear Kuru,

You have accused me of spamming for adding a link to my non-profit organization's website. Decision Partners provides financial literacy programs to hundreds of universities and medical schools. How is it spamming to link to a legitimate organization that serves over 100,000 students per year? What does an organization need to do to meet your standards?

Thanks,

Austin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.41.98 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no resources at that link other than promotional material for your products. If there is anything available without registration (see WP:ELNO #6), then please link directly to it. No, you may not add a link simply to promote your organization, as it appears you have from multiple IPs. Kuru (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ultimate Career Guides, Inc.

Hi Kuru,

This was the first time I have posted on Wikipedia. I know understand how the system works and why it works this way. Thank you.

I am an honest person and want to update the post to a much more "objective display of information" way.

Below is my updated version for "Ultimate Career Guides, Inc.". I don't know how to re-post this, so please help if possible. Thank you kindly.

Ultimate Career Guides, Inc. is a provider of interview preparation and information for professionals and students who are pursuing or managing their career opportunities.

The company created popular "flash-card"-type mobile apps (for iPhone, iPad, iPod and Android) of the most common interview questions for jobs ranging from finance to students, as well as creating a brainteaser app.

The company was founded in 2010 by a former Goldman Sachs employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.brian.holland (talk • contribs) 04:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Brian - the first step in the process would be to add reliable third party references that support the statements in your article. Without those, we cannot exercise our policy on verifiability, nor can we test this against our notability guidelines. Language non-neutral language such as 'popular' should also be avoided. You may want to also read our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazing Mr. Blunden

Thanks, I didn't realise I'd left my sig there :) Red Fiona (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem! Happens all the time. Kuru (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on removal of bookMyHours

Hi Kuru,

We had added a link to bookMyHours SaaS product on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_time_tracking_software and also created a page for the bookMyHours product information. To our surprise, both the page and the reference on the comparison sheet seem to have been deleted. Could you let us know the reason and how we can make a better entry to stay in the comparison sheet?

Regards | Vikas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhazrati (talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed it from the comparison article as the criteria for inclusion there is that the product must at least have an article on wikipedia. Your article was deleted by another administrator as a purely promotional addition. I've reviewed the deletion and concur with his assessment. You can try to create the article again, but please stick to material that is covered in third party sources, and completely avoid any promotional language (rc: "entering timesheet was never so easy"). Thanks. Kuru (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding to my unblock request so quickly! --PresN 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for understanding the side effects of other editor's bad habits... :) Kuru (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I understand rule but he/she is an interwiki puppet who are committing interwiki vandalism. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care about disputes at other wikis; his actions here are all that I can evaluate. At the moment, I can see no overt vandalism - only a simple edit war between two editors. Please not not engage in edit warring and continue the discussion on the article's talk page before anything else. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kuru, in the article Hakkari, it is written that Assyrians were killed by the Kurds. Takabeg said that it was not kurds but turks who killed assyrians in this regions. But (he knows that) there are and were no Turks living in this regions now and before. I said OK if you put a referance you can write that Turks have killed assyrians. 10 minutes later, he put a book as a referance but there is no motion about Hakkari at the page he gives. This is vandalism !--82.236.107.61 (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds more like the beginnings of a discussion, which I would again urge you to conclude on the talk page and in a civil fashion without random accusations of vandalism in every edit summary. Kuru (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD of article you worked on

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate behaviour. Borock (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you please block the editor who keeps vandalizing ABC Kids (US)?

Will you please block the editor who keeps vandalizing ABC Kids (US)? He's very annoying!! AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked for a month before I saw this; my apologies. If he continues after that or shifts IPs, please let me know. I'm sure it must be frustrating for you; I've seen a rather disturbing amount of "disney" and kids show long term disruptive editors. I don't know if it's the same ones over and over, or if that genre just attracts it. Kuru (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jonas Poole

Unfortunately, I got stuck in an edit conflict and wasn't able to decline this before you accepted it. I'm not convinced there isn't some sort of socking going on here based on checkuser evidence; you may want to look over the questions I just left this user there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes, that's a pre-sock farm he was setting up. I've no doubt the "Otta" account was set up for an eventual block evasion (as he hinted at in the previous block) and I would not have supported unblocking it. The other accounts are unfortunate. Will comment there. Kuru (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:24.62.92.48

I just reverted another vandalism at Brattleboro, Vermont by this user. Would you like to give him a little longer to think about it this time? Thanks, . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the same editor; done. Thanks for the head's up. Kuru (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Was this block based on my ANI report? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, someone posted a block request at AIV for repeated removal of a copyvio tag. I noticed one warning for possible sock activity and the behaviour of the three accounts matched (as did the name pattern). I did not notice the discussion at ANI; will follow up there as needed. Kuru (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed the weird activity as well, but was unsure how to proceed. There is also a User:11alatham that is part of this same group of throw-away accounts. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sweet; same behavior, same warnings, so blocked as clear sock. I posted an update at ANI jsut to be transparent. Thanks!

Perfect! I imagine there may be other 'x'alatham accounts popping up. I'll let you know if I come across any. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Banking BPO Services

Hello again - not sure what your direction is on last post. Are you requesting that I change title to more commonly referenced "Financial Services BPO" or offer validation of title. AND with some revision will this page post? thanks for direction

Blocked

Kuru, can you explain to me what I should have done differently? Thanks.SpecialKCL66 (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Conclude the discussion on the article's talk page before continuing to revert the article itself. Once you realized the edits were in dispute, stop re-adding them - even if you're right, even if someone else acting in what you feel is an uncivil manner. If you can't get to a compromise or a conclusion on the talk page, there are a variety of dispute resolution methodologies on Wikipedia that can help resolve conflict. No, it's not perfect, and yes, other people will game the system. I know this is frustrating, and I know it all seems like an absurdly bureaucratic mess when you know you're right, but it's just not possible to have such a massive number of editors, all with free rein, playing in the same sandbox without a bit of process. Yes, the process bogs down; especially on articles that a highly contentious, but we're not on a schedule. I'm sorry if this block of text seems patronizing, but I've just watched too many of these conflicts act themselves out in the past. If you have more specific questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Kuru (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not complaining about the beauracracy, I totally understand it. What I don't get is that I thought I was following the rules to a T. What I don't understand is that I was the one who was trying to get the other guy to stop re-adding his edits, which I was contesting, and to discuss it on the talk page. Yet I was blocked and he was not. For the life of me I still can't figure out how that worked out. Obviously you were just reviewing my unblock request, rather than the original 3RR report that I filed against the other guy, so I'll have to talk to Looie about that.

But more specifically, you wrote in the unblock denial:

Decline reason: "I'm not sure why you've labeled your edit at 7:30 as "restore" as opposed to "reverted the immediately preceding edit by an editor you are at odds with". This does seem clear; if you are still confused about our edit warring policy, I see no reason to believe an unblock would help. Kuru (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)"

That revert that you're referring to there about was a totally different issue regarding totally different text. How would that count as a 4th revert? I know that some of these rules are necessarily a little vague, but that would seem very odd if that counts as a 4th revert, because that would seem to suggest that someone isn't allowed to make any edits to an article period for 24 hours after 3 reverts, even if it were in a completely different section of the page. Thanks again SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, reverts do not have to be the exact same material each time. It's simply undoing any other editors additions or changes, in whole or in part. Glad I could help. Kuru (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, let me analyze a scenario: Guy X changes the description of Albert Pujols from "large" to "huge." Guy Y objects, reverts. X redoes the edits. Y reverts. X redoes the edit. Y reverts.

At this point, X gives up, and decides to move on and change the description of Albert Pujols' mother from "old" to "ancient."

Now X has committed a 3RR edit warring violaton? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If Y had recently added the material that X is changing, then yes, I'd block for that or protect the article from further changes. Just to make things even more clear, please note that 3RR is simply the "bright line limit" - either X or Y could have been blocked before that if there was a history of edit warring on that article or from either editor. There is no "three revert entitlement". It can be a judgement call which can vary from admin to admin and is quite situational. Many editors limit themselves to "1RR" and will immediately go to the talk page if there is contention. Articles like, oh, controversial political activist groups tend to have many people watching them with hair triggers. That's exactly the kind of place where limiting your reversions would be a really good idea. Kuru (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I know there isn't a "bright line" rule and that the admins have tremendous amounts of discretion on this rule, but that's why I'm trying to figure out where specifically I should have done things differently, and why I got reemed by administrative discretion and the other guy got a complete pass. It's surreal to me because the entire time, I was the one trying to discuss it on the talk page before proceeding. So where should I have done things diffently? I mean if the guy makes an edit, and I revert and request to discuss it on the talk page, then it would seem reasonable to me that the other guy should not be reverting a 2nd time until we've resolved something. If he reverts again though, then I either have to report him after he's only made 2 reverts, or I have to revert it myself a 2nd time. If he reverts a 3rd time, then it's the same situation: either report him after only 3 reverts or revert him a 3rd time. So that's why I reverted a third time, then reported him once I found out he made a 4th revert. I mean should I have reported him after fewer than 4 reverts? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Let it go; stop reverting and continue the discussion. Yes, he should have done the same and enjoined the discussion, but don't let that bait you into an edit war. I say that hypothetically - when I review blocks I focus on the blocked user's behavior, not that of other people involved, so I'm not sure who you were reverting without going back and looking it over. (note this is only for review; obviously I look at all parties before blocking myself). If you find yourself "counting" reverts, that's probably a good sign that you're in an edit war and should stop. Again, the easiest way to navigate the gray areas is to avoid them entirely. Kuru (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all I know you were just reviewing the unblock, so I wasn't questioning you regarding the situation with Xenophrenic, I'm just analyzing the policy you were suggesting that I follow of limiting myself to 1 revert. The problem with that is that it would mean that the other guy gets his way without compromise every time. That would make me the most useless editor ever wouldn't it? I mean guy really only has two options - revert or report edit warring - unless he's willing to bend over and submit to the more belligerent guy every time.SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

UnitedHealth Group

Hi, can you reprotect the page? Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Kuru (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Markvs88 (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitmore 8621 ban

I saw you revoke Keating 1991's talk access. This has gone on far enough. I think a site ban is in order. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Web Experience Management

Hi there Kuru,

This is in regards to a Wikipedia page deletion that you administrated. I haven't had to deal with that (or many other wikipedia things) so bear with me and let me know if I am doing something wrong.

The page in question is the one about Web Experience Management ([[1]]).

You cite "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Multiple reasons" for deletion.

I strongly believe that the page has merits, is written with the right intent and believes it was written in a non-controversial non-promotional non-biased way.

Happy to spend some more time having a chat to you about it and even rewriting the page if you feel it necessary (any chance someone could email me the old version as a starting point to daniel(AT)nexle(DOT)dk?)

Thanks a lot in advance for your assistance and sorry for making more work for you - I truly have respect for the wikipedians.

Kind regards, Daniel

—Preceding comment added by Daniel iversen (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've restored a copy of the article to your userspace per your request (here). The article was marked up to annotate the problems before it was deleted, so that should highlight the problems. I would strongly suggest using inline citations (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)) and using only reliable, third party sources - material independent of FatWire and no blogs. If I can help with specific questions, please feel free to ask. Kuru (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Freelance Marketplaces

Hi,

I am the author of the blog/owner of the site which the material you removed came from, I thought this stubby little article did not reflect the richness of freelance marketplaces and the online outsourcing sector which is experiencing exponential growth at the moment.

The piece you removed regarding the history of freelance marketplaces, was actually done for the first freelance market review, also published at the same domain and was subsequently removed from there and published on the site for editorial reasons. The sources are generally the marketplaces themselves, so I can quite quickly list those sources. But will need to work out how to reference and provide citations properly according to Wikipedia standards as it was giving me some trouble (hence multiple edits).

You mention proving I am the copyright owner? How would you suggest I go about doing that?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaifBonar (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you need to use the exact wording in your additions, then you'll need to provide explicit permission as laid out here.

The best citation style for a complex addition that going to require many references is covered here. You may want to also review our core policy on verifiability and reliable sources. If I can help in any way, please let me know. Kuru (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick note of appreciation for your block of Iknowalltheanswers specifically, and for your admin and anti-vandalism work more generally. Many thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Si, thanks. I'm sure the unblock request will be brilliant. Kuru (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Time to disable talk page access?

Per this edit, the guy (whom you've blocked indef about 20hours ago) has yet again demonstrated his talent for sneaky vandalism even on his own talk page. Time to disable his ability to edit his own talk page? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

why did you delete my contributions to credit scoring?

i can quite happily provide reference to my additions through many, many references such as martin lewis money saving expert website and forums and other sites etc? this is why i rarely edit things, you cannot edit them, moderators just change them back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.66.153 (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You were adding what appeared to be your own personal commentary. If you have material to add, please use an encyclopedic tone, and cite your specific sources. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Block appeal of NYyankees51

Hi Kuru!

I would like to make some comments regarding User_talk:NYyankees51#Sockpuppetry.

Disclosure: I'm not neutral: I have very different views than NYyankees51, I had various clashes with him as User:BS24, and I brought up SPI evidence against him.

To start with the cons against lifting the block: I agree with most arguments of others from the Oktober SPI that he made many disruptive edits not only as NYyankees51 but also as BS24, including the ones I brought up at. And I would have liked him to comment more about such incidents than just admitting in general to have been "certainly not perfect". And I would have liked to see stronger indications that he avoids such edits in the future.

But coming to the pros: nobody is perfect, and these BS24 incidents didn't lead to blocks of BS24 before his history of NYyankees51 was known. And while the BS24 history is not perfect, I agree with him that it is better than as NYyankees51. But coming to the main point: It took some long time, but in User_talk:NYyankees51#Appeal he admitted core wrongdoings and demonstrates comprehension. I'm sure it wasn't easy for him to write this, readable for everyone, including to point that contributing to Wikipedia had become quite important to him. So, all in all, I think there is a good probability that he will be a constructive contributor to Wikipedia in the future. Also because of this hassle he had to go though, and since there are many other editors out there who will watch him closely, I think there is a good probability that his future will be better than the BS24 history. (And if he really comes up with further disruptions in the future, he can be blocked again at any time.)

Therefore, I suggest to assume good faith and remove his block (making clear to him that it is a second chance he should use wisely).

However, one important caveat: If any new socks are proven he didn't admit yet, then this should lead immediately to an unlimited block. The accounts and IP reported here reported by Xenophrenic really look suspicious and should be checked thoroughly.

Hope these comments help! Thank you for your time! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll re-look at it again later today. I was digging into the history yesterday and found too many inconsistencies in his timeline and claims for me to personally take action. Looking at some of the old socks, there was quite a bit of game playing, including the "it's not me, it's a friend on my computer" game. He's also been socking since the moment of his block, through IPs mainly. It's pretty had to believe he didn't know that was a problem when he was specifically blocked for "block evasion" at least once. I appreciate his approach to trying to be honest, but there are a lot of things he's leaving out, and it seems he's only being honest when a deception is pointed out. Anyways, thanks for "reaching across the aisle", and I'll look through it all again later if another admin does not. Kuru (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

External links in tax articles

Thanks for the changes on 3 international tax articles. Quick favor: could you check out Transfer pricing#External links? Most of them are advertising. The Big 4 ones, though self promotional to a degree, plus the OECD and IRS ones are very useful. (I'm not affiliated with any of them, though was Big 6 a decade ago) Any changes/deletions appreciated. Regards, Sfcardwell (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Kuru (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

LEGO Allied Forces

Dear Kuru, I am sorry I lashed out at you before, I was upset. Is there any chance that you could restore my article and tell me what to fix, or add, so that it doesn't get deleted again.

--Commander cody commander gree (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Sam Villano, Lieutenant Commander of the LEGO Allied Forces.

Sam, you seem very young, so please try not to be frustrated with the policies of this site. This is intended to be an encyclopedia, and unlike paper encyclopedias we can include a great many more articles on just about any topic. If we included every single thing in the world; every person, every club, every street, we'd wind up with a big mess, and no one would be able to find the things that matter. So we've come up with guidelines on what is "notable" enough to be included. On some topics, these guidelines are very strict. In some places, they're very relaxed and just about anything goes. Even at that extreme, we must have reliable, third party sources for articles. Your article, which appears to be about your four month old Star Wars club, is not going to pass any of our notability guidelines. It is also very unlikely that you're going to be able to provide any sources for the article, either (your self-created free hosted site is not a reliable source for us). What I would recommend, would be to wait until your group has grown and established itself, and you've acquired some third party attention. When that happens, I'd be happy to help you write an article and navigate the nonsense here. I'd ask you just to be patient, and let's try again when your club is ready. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Senseless ranting and trollish remarks by IP editor

• Hello, could you keep an eye on User talk:174.118.149.54 (specifically the section of → User talk:174.118.149.54#"Administrative Terrorism" ←), the IP editor has been very uncivil in his remarks and comments towards several editors here, including towards a Sysop. Also, he has been meddling with the whois template which is supposed to stay on his talk page no matter what. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Will watch; might be a good idea to stop reverting for a bit and see what happens. Kuru (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Roger, wilco. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned, he is back at it again and resumed refactoring the whois and welcome/warning templates I've left him. Time to block? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I reported him earlier. Declined. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

His last edit was apparently a self-revert. I'm mainly concerned about his edits to articles or any further personal attacks. I'd rather everyone not edit-war over that template, but it's of secondary concern. Will continue to watchlist. Kuru (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Heads Up

Just a heads up, IP vandal 142.227.180.140 changed your name to Agent Buzkill Jenkins and called you rude for blocking him. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:32 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Agent Buzzkill does seem to be fairly apt description of what I've been doing lately... Kuru (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But you prevented any furthur vandalism from the IP. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:20 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Si. No regrets.  :) Kuru (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

He strikes again. , , . Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:52 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I can't remove talk page access for the full term of that block, so I've semi-protected the page for a short while. Presumably, he'll get bored and move on. Kuru (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Loan Calculator Link

Hi Kuru. I noticed that the article for loans was missing any reference to a useful loan calculator. I would think that this is a useful next step for readers after they have learned the principles of loans, to then see them applied. The calculator I suppied is the most powerful loan calculator on the internet, and supplies very useful information to the user(full amortization schedule, ability to manipulate paments, amortization, payment frequency, test effects of different repayment methods, etc.). Can you tell me why it was removed, and if there is a better way to connect users to this type of resource? I have been a financial professional and can tell you that when dealing with mathematical concepts, people can learn much better if they have clear text explanation and useful application examples. I would have thought that it would be more informative to a reader to have a calculator than not. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptop.graham (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem we run into is that, as you're well aware, there are thousands of loan calculators out there. I'd be stunned if every single respectable financial institution didn't have one lurking about somewhere. Most of these sites also have promotional material slopped across them as well, be it soft lead ins to that particular bank, or simple google ads all over the place. We are also faced with the very subjective "which one is the best" problem. What we usually do is dodge the problem by linking to an approripate directory somewhere; usually the Open Directory Project. You can see an example of this at mortgage calculator. Kuru (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

ugh. Now that I've typed that, I can see you've gone on quite the campaign to promote your website. I'll clean that up for you and leave you a specific note about this on your talk page. Kuru (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

New calculator website

Hi Kuru, you may want to reconsider your reaction to my calculators being inserted into articles as external links. My finance team and I have just launched our website dedicated to providing the best financial calculators on the internet. We offer our services free of charge, and include 2 ads in order to pay for the administrative costs of our site. Our each calculator was designed to maximize the value that users are looking for in a calculator. Our financial models are designed to provide information, insight, sensitivity analysis, etc... to the user, something sorely lacking in the online calculator world until now.

We have developed calculators that specialize in loan repayments, mortgages, home equity, investment properties, retirement income, and taxes for those interested in better understanding personal finance. On the academic side, we have included a large selection of financial calculators to build students and professional understanding in the areas of investment valuation, time value of money, capital budgeting, cost of capital, and financial statement analysis.

These are the best calculators on the internet and they are provided in a benevolent way, free of charge, easy to use, and not cluttered with around useless or promotional information.

You have taken it upon yourself to call us spammers, this is not the case. In the area of finance, there is a lack of quality calculators available to users, and wikipedia provided a good way to connect users with the information they are looking for. By inserting our links in the areas in which we offer significant value, the users of wikipedia will be able to find our site, and gain the information they are looking for.

By removing these links you are acting against the purpose of wikipedia, to connect those looking for high quality information with the suppliers of that information. Your vigilance and the speed with which you declare an ulterior motive speak more to your character than to ours. If I were to follow your example, then I would have to accuse you of sabatoging wikipedia to ensure that new and better information does not replace old, outdated, less useful information. I will not though, I am sure that your intentions are honourable, I would suggest that you provide me with the same benefit.

If you find a better calculator for any of the links that I have inserted, then please let me know, as we pride ourselves on adding value to our users. You may contact me at graham@ultimatecalculators.com, or through wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptop.graham (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.185.184.2 I've been following this IP around for over a month. I'm so glad it's got a month-long block on it now. Just wanted to say thank you! siv0r 00:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kuru (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle

When are you going to use Huggle again even though it's been a long time since you last used it? WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried both Huggle and Twinkle very briefly; neither really grabbed me too much. I'm still using the IRC change feeds and just manually reverting; I don't have a compelling reason to stop using that methodology yet. Kuru (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

IP 212.85.12.84

Hello Kuru. I was hoping you might be able to explain the block log of this IP user to. When it says anon. only, account creation blocked, does that mean that you've blocked the IP address and you've blocked anyone at that IP address from creating an account for one month? What does anon. only mean? Also, if this is the case then could you explain why you decided to stop them creating accounts? Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting that you did the wrong thing; I would just like to understand the factors that contributed to the decision making process. Some links to policy would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Those two options are the standard "default checked" options for an IP block.

• "Anon only" means that anyone who already edits with a registered account from that IP is not affected by the block. Turning that option off is very rare; you would then have what is called a "hard block" which prevents any usage of that IP. You would typically only see that with open proxies or IPs which have large amounts of socking.
• "account creation blocked" does indeed prevent the creation of new accounts. Since Wikipedia has a frictionless registration process, not having this option would make blocking a pointless exercise; the person misusing the account could simply create new accounts at whim and bypass the block. This option is usually turned off only when we expect the user to create a new account (such as for bad name blocks).

These two options together create a standard set for blocking anonymous vandalism. The options for legitimate anonymous users are to A) register a new account from another IP available to them B) request a new account from the unblock mailing list (in which they are usually asked to use a non-free e-mail address to prevent mass account creation to avoid the block) C) request the IP be unblocked or D) edit from another place. Unblock requests can be successful if there is a large amount of traffic moving through the IP, or if it is clearly the primary vandal making a solid case for unblocking.

There are a variety of other options available when blocking; I'd be happy to run through those if you're interested. Kuru (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply; I do appreciate it. I'll digest what you've talked about and leave the other options for as and when I come across them. I'll only get confused if I try to learn them all in one go. Thanks again Kuru; you've been a great help. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Could you delete Talk:Flying Platform? --Accountiuz (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Has already been done... :) Kuru (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the page, I had noted previous unblock requests had been deleted...

...because there were, frankly, so damn many of them, and it was starting to get kind of crowded in there again. I was simply tidying up the page to leave the last current unblock request. I don't care one way or the other, I just did it in passing. HalfShadow 21:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User IANVS block

Hello, Kuru.

Thank you for your help at White Hispanic and Latino Americans.

I of course agree that ChineseNygirl earned her block. Besides engaging in original research, and despite weeks of discussion with me in which I expressed to her my impression that she was engaging in OR, she persisted.

As you can see from the edit history, her edit was opposed as well by user MikeWazowski. User IANVS had not yet reverted her, but proceeded to break the 3RR rule (inadvertently, I presume). Yes, IANVS has been blocked before, but given that it really was ChineseNygirl who was precipitating it all, as she was trying to force content into the article against the advice of 3 editors, would you show some leniency to IANVS, please? Would you reduce his block to 24 hours? SamEV (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with SamEV's assessment and also request leniency for IANVS in this instance. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see that he has a working understanding of our edit warring policy. I opted to ignore a 5RR yesterday between him and yet another editor and instead protected the article (White Argentine) in lieu of blocking them both. I'm disappointed that he did the same thing the very next day. If he can put together an unblock request that indicates he understands the problem here, I'm certainly willing to review the situation. At the moment, this appears to be a fundamental problem which is impacting multiple articles and multiple editors. Please know that I'm fully aware you are editing nationalist/ethic articles - a tough environment to operate in. If I can see any path forward, I'm delighted to support y'all, but my hands get a little tied when reverts are as blatant as those were. Kuru (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Apply the 3RR rule always

Hi, I see you blocked a user nicknamed IANVS. I don't know what the problem with the article White Hispanic was, and he probably did violate the 3RR, but please, you administrators, punish the breaking of this rule every time that someone violates it. In the article White Argentine there was an edit warring a few weeks ago, the rule was violated several times (especially by an IP user), and none of you showed up at that moment. Please apply the same rule to everyone; Justice must be Justice.--Pablozeta (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not watching that article a few weeks ago, and I'm not here to dish out punitive blocks to 'punish' people. I will take actions necessary to prevent further disruption only. If you see something in progress that violates our edit warring policy, please report it at WP:AN3, or if it's really overt, to WP:AIV. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pablozeta, if an admin had been aware then they would have assisted. They are fair. It just sounds like no one was "around". It wasn't about justice.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you would, can you please take another look at ChineseNYgirl's continued activity? She is approaching a third 3RR violation in 36 hours and thus far all of her edits have been distruptive and directly related to race. At what point do you think this type of behavior would warrant a topic ban? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

She's clearly edit warring again and I have temporarily blocked the account. A topic ban is a likely future outcome if she continues. Kuru (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope this editor can familiarize herself with Wikipedia's policies and use her passion productively. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 18:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit on Comparison of time tracking software

Dear,

Can you please specify why you chose to remove certain time-tracking applications (in this case Ontrack!) from the overview on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_time_tracking_software

but leave other applications in the overview? The change seems arbitrary to me since rougly the same kind of information was provided for Ontrack as it was for other applications and the application performs basically the same task and as such belongs in a comparison. Is it because the Ontrack! timetracker does not have its own wikipedia page? It did, but was removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnTrack_TimeTracker) by courcelles, probably again on the reason that it was commercial. Agreed, it only included a description of the application and some external references, but it was not different in size, content or quality from, for example the description on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Time_Tracker. We never received any response on why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Time_Tracker can stay but the Ontrack entry was deleted from courcelles either.

Note that my main question is on the seemingly arbitrary nature of those deletes with respect to other entries in the list. If the Wikipedia policy is that such entries are vandalism because they are too product/advertising/commercial oriented, I can understand that. If that were the case, however, many other entries would need to be removed as well.

We would really appreciate some clarification on why the current entries are allowed to stay and the Ontrack entry was deleted.

Kind regards, Yves Vandewoude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.109.86.190 (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion on that list is "notabality"; in this case enforced by having an established article on the subject. My removal included the note "rmv addition with no article". You were also presented with the following warning when you edited the article:

**** All new entries that point to non-existent articles will be deleted-WP:NOTABILITY ****

This is a comparison of notable time tracking software packages and web hosted services.

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 time tracking software. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not time tracking 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.

Hope that helps. If you're having trouble creating an article that does not meet our criteria for inclusion, I'd be happy to review it for you. Kuru (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous

Hi Kuru, I must admit that I don't understand your warning to The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. The latest Artist's statements on the NYyankees51 talk are open and direct, but not only factual true, but presented in a neutral manner. I don't see any harassment here. In contrary, I think the main problem was NYyankees51 trying to hide the declined unblock request and its text from the ARBCOM. It would be not good if people think they can get away with such things, and I think therefore it is also not good damning the discovery action, even if this discovery is driven by personal animosities. If I hate my neighbor for whatever reason, and even if I myself have stolen many cars, does this mean that I am not allowed to call the police if I see my neighbor stealing a car? This looks like a dangerous path to me. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Once the police have arrived, taken the suspect to jail, and he's currently on trial, it may be a good idea to stop frantically dialing 911 and yelling insults. Now that we've driven that poor analogy into the ground, when you're asked several times to disengage, it may be a good idea to do so. There was nothing there that had not already been dealt with without personal attacks. ARBCOM is quite adept at resolving escalated unblock requests, even if there were not five administrators watching that talk page. It's one of the reasons it takes them longer to conclude their look at the problem. We're very familiar with the tactic of taunting hotheads with opposing viewpoints until they snap; that's not the best way to resolve problems. Kuru (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I didn't oversee something, then AKA brought up something important which was not dealt with yet, and he didn't use personal attacks, but presented it in a neutral manner I think. I'm a bit worrying that style (how calm or "hotheaded" someone is) seems to be more important than the issue itself (keeping on subject instead of personal attacks, being truthful on facts). For example the SPI was flooded with ad hominem attacks, and no admin seemed to care, but if AKA brings up a valid issue, he gets beaten for that, and then shortly afterwards, nobody seems to care about a completely unneeded purely personal attack. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi 82.135.29.209, I just saw your comments on my own Talk Page followed by your comments here. I must ask, couldn't the user have brought this up in a way that would not have involved posting on the other user's talk page again? Two admins directed him to leave the other user alone about his indefinite block; the user could have easily achieved the goal of bringing it to an admin's attention without directly communicating with the other user. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he could. And definitely, calmer reactions usually lead to better results than feisty reactions, definitely. Notwithstanding, to look at the history, his first post was completely fine, he didn't harass and didn't violate any admin directives, but was polite and very optimistically ASF. Then, only after being bashed for this, he engaged into a more feisty tone, but still staying on the facts. My impression is that this course of events is overshadowed by some "here he is again" feeling. But all in all, nobody got hurt, and while I can also understand your and Kuru's view, I just wanted to answer to a, in my perspective, on-sided view, which I have done. So, possibly after you both added some final thoughts about the matter, I think we all can put this episode to file. 15:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.29.209 (talk)

At the end, since human beings have so many "flaws", finally these "flaws" are also the source for strength and creating new things, and it is a pleasure so see how, after such very complex interactions and fighting but also much more cooperation between so many people something such wonderful like Wikipedia comes out, as product of exactly these persons. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Unban request by (part of?) User:The abominable Wiki troll

Hi. As an admin who has previously interacted with this banned user, you may be interested to participate in the discussion at WP:AN#Unban request by (part of?) The abominable Wiki troll. Regards,  Sandstein  11:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of References

I am uncertain as to why you removed the references I created for the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization_schedule The article asks for someone to cite references or sources. I put a reference for the Present Value of Annuity Formula to a credible website that has correct information. For some reason you prefer to have no references then an accurate reference. When is no information more valuable than factually correct information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.133.9 (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That website is not a reliable source, and we've had problems with it before. As the material is likely included in several thousand finance books, you should have no trouble finding an alternate reference. Kuru (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Church of Cognizance

sorry about re-adding that.. that was wierd. I must have had edited an old copy of the page or something. sorry about that -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem; I guessed that was the case. :) Kuru (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap - OSM Book published by Packt

I've Undone revision 400322065 on OpenStreetMap. The book is not vanity. The book is real, published by a mainstream publisher. I own a copy. -- Firefishy (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Print on Demand" does not mean vanity. I really think you are being outrageous here. Are you going to remove all the O'Reilly books next? -- Firefishy (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

and, presumably, merge Print on demand and Vanity press? --ChaRleyTroniC (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Firefishy is correct; I've self-reverted on that page. I mis-read the submission page for that press. I'm concerned about the rather prolific amount of WP:BOOKSPAM, but that does not appear to the case on OpenStreetMaps. Kuru (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that said publisher has been abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes for over five years, culminating in blatantly abusive spam like this: [2] [3] (note where it redirects to). I've requested the domain be blacklisted. MER-C 05:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted by Beetstra. MER-C 10:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Thanks u for the answer in the edit warring page. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

92.14.116.65

They're back and it looks like they have not learnt their lesson. Simply south (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kuru

Why is it against the rules to change the links on random pages to John Cena?