Jump to content

User talk:Kurykh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Inetpuppy (talk | contribs) at 06:09, 19 May 2011 (→K-T Line). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good work

I was admiring some of your work and came by to thank you for your contributions. It looks like I just missed you. In any case, thanks for all of your efforts. This project is better because of your participation.   Will Beback  talk  05:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 22:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive protection

Just wanted to remind you that indefinite protection shouldn't be used on articles which are only seeing vandalism because they are connected to a current event, as you did with the Joe Wilson article. It's a real PITA to have to whine about such administrative errors over at WP:RFP once the articles are no longer the flavor of the day. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you are retired, you should probably give up the admin bit anyway; your talk page header is confusing. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retired or not ...

... I was looking over old AfDs in which I participated, and remembered you closing one against heavy consensus with the words "Despite the majority begging for keep, none of their arguments are grounded in our policies in any shape or form." Courage not often enough found on Wikipedia.

The Admin's Barnstar
For showing that there are some admins who'll choose policy over vox populi.  Ravenswing  17:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fix

This image needs to be updated because Parker Griffith has switched parties (as I expect you know), and since I noticed you had been doing it earlier, I decided to go to you. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale

Hi. Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (5th nomination) - would you have any objection if I recreated it as a redirect to Questions of Truth? Although the consensus of the AfD did seem to be for deletion no-one really argued against having a redirect and it seems a very reasonable one to me. If we do make a redirect, I'm not sure what length of protection would be appropriate... Anyway, let me know what you think. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who commented at the AfD seemed to want delete and salt. After five AfDs, it's time this issue was put to bed, unless and until there's a change in circumstances that would make an article viable. Olaf, did someone approach you to request this? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, noone has asked me to make a redirect or take any other action on this page.
I agree that it's best to put the issue to bed - we don't want to waste time of AfD 6 if Beale doesn't become more notable - but a protected redirect would seem to do that just as well as a protected redlink, while giving the (potentially reasonably large) number of readers who search for him the most sensible article instead of a search results page. I know the consensus was for delete, but no-one specifically said we shouldn't have a redirect - their comments were all along the lines of "salt so he doesn't try to make another article" which as I say is unchanged by the presence of a protected redirect, and several people argued for one.
Anyway, it's not all that important either way - I just thought making the redirect would make things marginally easier for readers without violating the spirit of the consensus at the AfD. I won't object if you disagree, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When people say delete and salt, they mean delete the title, not edit the article. Creating a redirect would be keeping the title, and changing the content of the page. Doing that risks triggering a DRV, and Olaf, I'm concerned about the way you replied to my question. Has anyone asked you, or suggested to you, anything at all about this page? Please understand that the people who have tried to sort this out have been exposed to personal attacks. The result of this fifth deletion debate has to be respected finally so that the issue can be dropped. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not quite sure what concerns you about my answer, but I'll try to be as explicit as possible: no-one has asked me to take any action regarding this page, or suggested that I do so, or even mentioned the page to me since the last AfD opened. Does that allay your concerns?
Like I said I don't feel strongly about the redirect, so I'm happy to let this go now. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV, your arguments do not necessarily apply to a protected redirect after deletion of the prior contents. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Kurykh! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Michael Yaki - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sword of Truth universe

A lot of stuff came in last minute on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sword of Truth universe. The debate was still very live. The keep arguments were very weak. A no consensus close was in my opinion not a good close. A relist may have been better. Polargeo (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact rather than wasting time on a deletion review for an article I am really not that worried about. Could you please relist this one. I just think it is a principle on this sort of article. No independent sources and fancruft editors wanting to analyse their favourite fantasy series to the point that one article isn't enough and they need several wikipedia articles to do it despite insufficient independent sources for several articles. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Polargeo; in fact, I think that the "keep" arguments were so weak that the debate should have been closed as "delete" if not relisted. Would you mind explaining your reasoning for closing the debate in this way? Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A relist is only if there are insufficient comments or participation, not as a replacement for a no-consensus closure (see WP:RELIST). I closed it as no consensus because I could see...no consensus. The keep arguments in my view were not "so weak", and since the delete arguments were also strong, I say there is no consensus. --kurykh 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But those voting to keep completely failed to refute the arguments to delete. They found no evidence that the subject had been covered significantly in third-party sources, if they even acknowledged the GNG's applicability. A large part of their side of the debate was also based on arguments to avoid, including WP:ITEXISTS, WP:WAX, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:BHTT, and "I'm sure there are sources out there." These are exceptionally weak arguments, especially when compared to the policy-grounded arguments to delete. Please reconsider. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my decision and my rationale. If you still wish to overturn my decision, please go to WP:DRV. --kurykh 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right then. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 1#The Sword of Truth universe. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The latin phonetic method of Shanghainese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_latin_phonetic_method_of_Shanghainese


http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Yk2l1Iw5VasJ:www.wuunion.com/home/html/wugniutzyseq1/2009/0831/5.html+%E5%90%B4%E8%AF%AD%E6%8B%89%E4%B8%81%E5%BC%8F%E6%8B%BC%E9%9F%B3%E4%BB%8B%E7%BB%8D+wuunion&cd=4&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr

There were some troubles when posting or publishing this article. The webpage is blocked by P.R.China’s government and was blocked by Wikipedia due to some you-know-it political reasons. I wish, Wikipedia’s decision will definitely not be influenced by Chinese 50 Cent Party. You reflect, Please. Thank you. --ZHU Yeyi (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The draft of The Latin Phonetic Method of Shanghainese (LPMS) was published for the first time in 2001; its latest version was decided after a couple of revises and updates in 2003. It is the first Shanghainese phonetic notation which had been popularized on internet and the only Shanghainese phonetic notation designed based on Western linguistic spelling traditions. In 2004, the first Shanghainese Input Methods for Computers complying with LPMS was developed and formally published.


External links of The latin phonetic method of Shanghainese:

Refs in the lead

There is no reason to put refs for the votes in the lead at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Moreover, refs shouldn't be moved from the body to the lead. The only reason to put refs in the lead is where the claim is controversial and likely to be challenged. In that case, it might be warranted to duplicate the refs from the body text. At the article in question, there is nothing controversial about the lead, and certainly not about the vote totals. -Rrius (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Election map

I've fixed Pontefract and Normanton, but I can't see in the code what's wrong with Caithness. I'm getting very tired, so that might be a factor. Along those lines, would you be willing to take over? If so, let me know; if not, let me know. Using the "latest declarations" table at the BBC's election site, Camborne is the last I've done, and Sheffield Central the next to be done. -Rrius (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened with Caithness; it was one of the ones I had to go back and pick up because it dropped off the "latest declarations" list before I got to it, so it had to wait for me to catch up. -Rrius (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's caught up to Milton Keynes South, now. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can take over for a few hours. --kurykh 06:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now see you're on. Thanks. I guess throw it up at the election article when you're done because I am going to bed now. Thanks again. -Rrius (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything (including the nagging)! -Rrius (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beale again

Hi Kurykh. I know I said in January (see above) that I'd drop this, but I've decided to - well, pick it up again. I would like to create Nicholas Beale as a protected redirect to Questions of Truth, for the reasons I outlined above. Would you, as the protecting admin, object to this? Olaf Davis (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that time diminishes the result of an AfD or makes it any less binding, really. I wouldn't do it without a DRV at least. --kurykh 19:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree regarding the timescale: my position is just that the AfD shouldn't preclude creation of a protected redirect. But since you (and SV) disagree, I've gone to DRV as you suggest: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 8. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue-necked, Blue-ring, Blue-rumped, and Blue-spotted

Hi Kurykh,

I was on a long wikibreak while the AfD for Blue-necked, Blue-ring, Blue-rumped, and Blue-spotted was taking place. I am the creator of at least Blue-necked and probably the others, although I cannot be sure of that because they have been deleted and I am not an administrator. If I recall correctly, these four pages were disambiguation pages primarily listing birds. Birders commonly refer to birds by their "colour-part" names alone, therefore I believe these four pages should be reinstated. The deletion discussion left out the relevant information that there have already been two discussions about disambiguation pages of this type and both lead to the preservation of the pages in question. These two discussions can be found here and here. I have brought this information to the attention of JHunterJ, who has notified me that he would not object to a deletion review. On the deletion review page, however, it states that the deletion review process should only be undergone if discussion with the deleting administrator does not resolve the issue. I am contacting you because you were the deleting administrator for these four pages. Would you be willing to recreate the four pages in question?

Neelix (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise a deletion review. --kurykh 04:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Floyd

Just for information - you closed WP:Articles for deletion/Chris Floyd as delete on 18 May. The article was re-created as Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque on 30 May, moved back to Chris Floyd and tagged G4. I looked at it, saw that though a long string of references had been added they were mostly links to articles he had written rather than to anything about him, decided that they did not overcome the problems at the AfD, deleted it G4 and told the author Caribmon (talk · contribs) that he should clear it with you or through DRV. Instead he has just put it back in again, and it's now at WP:Articles for deletion/Chris Floyd (2nd nomination). In deleting it, I also tidied up the redirect and noticed comments at this RfD which suggest that the new AfD may suffer from SPAs. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now been G4-ed again and salted. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Blue-necked

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Blue-necked. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Neelix (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development

This page was deleted after the deletion discusion because you are the closing administrator. I request to move this article into mainspace. This article is userified to my userspace after my Request for undeletion for improvements. I hope you will permit to move this page into main-space.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kurykh,
The user asked for help with this (after no response here for a week), and I thought it OK now to move back to a live article - mostly, because I don't think it'll be CSD'd. I think it can fend for itself. Hope that is OK, best,  Chzz  ►  17:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of response; I totally forgot about this matter. Since the AfD was over two years ago and the new version is substantially different from the old, I (belatedly) would approve of its recreation. --kurykh 19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untag reviewer

So can you unflag reviewer from my user right? I'm not interested to review certain flagged, patrolled pages for vandalism. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --kurykh 21:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Why was my edit to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act considered to be POV? Truthsort (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buena High School (Arizona)

Hello, I was searching for my high school and saw that the page where it should have been was deleted? Is it OK if I (or you) recreate a page for the school?

Thanks. Graverober (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because there the article wasn't substantial at all. If you can create something that fulfills our criteria of an article, by all means do so. --kurykh 02:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Deletion

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar


The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For giving me a hand explaining policies to a new user, thanks WookieInHeat (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Aardlasher/Aardwolf (game)

User:Aardlasher/Aardwolf (game), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aardlasher/Aardwolf (game) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Aardlasher/Aardwolf (game) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California State Assembly

Thanks for fixing the header, I missed that :) Hekerui (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BART

Milpitas, Berryessa, Pittsburg, and Antioch have all gotten the final go ahead actually, and the Livermore Etxension is nearly there too.Thisbites (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2004 House elections.png

Can you please modify File:2004 House elections.png for the correction noted in United States House of Representatives elections, 2004? IL-08 changed from D to R.—Markles 01:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Election box invalid

Template:Election box invalid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers infobox

The idea was mainly to help show who controls the legislature as indicated by partisan. I know the other one probably looks much nicer but I'm trying to find a way to make it completely universal across the States.--Jack Cox (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would not mind having some of the information that was in the box that I put out was transferred over to the template, I think that would be a fine compromise, would you not agree?--Jack Cox (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, However, I have added some of the features from the ballotpedia template to this one, is that fair? I'd like to help fix some of the older ones I made.--Jack Cox (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you just change the colors, nothing else about the stuff I added about salary, term limits, etc. Some of the other chambers colors are hard to decipher, the humorous thing is both Alabama Chambers are colored red and both controlled by republicans.--Jack Cox (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually trying to figure out what day of December, they only said sworn in the december after the election. So is it the first monday in december, which seems to make sense.--Jack Cox (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K.Flay

w/r/t K.Flay - article about a musician which you Deleted in 2007; it seems like enough time has passed that a new version would be appropriate (with three and half years' more career notability to talk about). I'd be willing to start writing it. KingAlanI (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serve America Act

Hi - I noticed that you have made a lot of edits on the Serve America Act. I am currently participating in the US Public Policy Project and reorganized the article to remove the bullet list. If you might have any suggestions as to how to better improve the article I would greatly appreciate it! Orangefan32 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-T Line

Dear LHS guy, I made a disambig articolo: K-T Line. Cheers, thanks! --Inetpuppy (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your insistence on this issue; they're different lines that happen to have trains run on both. What's with all this fanciful language and unnecessary article creation? --Kurykh (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an improbable coincidence that the K-T Line coincides with a similar term, K-T boundary. Is this just by chance? It could have been the NT line, LT line, JT line, MT line, the TK line, etc. --Inetpuppy (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kurykh&oldid=429838690"