User talk:Kurtis/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kurtis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Talkback
Hello. You have a new message at Toa Nidhiki05's talk page. Toa Nidhiki05 14:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Another talkback
Message added 20:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Leyla Yunus
Starting from somewhere else entirely, I came across Leyla Yunus's article today, which was in miserable shape. I've expanded it from the 6-tag(!) version I found it in a few hours ago, but more would be welcome if you have any additional sources; I figured it might overlap nicely with what you're working on with the forced evictions. Feel free to give it another DYK nom, too, if you end up adding enough to push it over the minimum requirements. Khazar2 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm actually going to be on a plane for several hours tomorrow (well... OK, technically today), going on a trip for a week and a half or so (almost two weeks). I'll have internet during that time, so I should be able to lend a hand then. =) Kurtis (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: RFB
Thanks, but it doesn't seem like bureaucratic tasks are really backlogged. That and I haven't exactly trusted that process in some time, so I'd rather not go through that again. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's not so much that they're backlogged, but additional bureaucrats wouldn't hurt. Still, I understand what you're saying. I hope you'll continue to stick around, you're a good contributor. Kurtis (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
RfA voting records
I have no problem at all with the moving of the RfA voting records subpage or a portion thereof. Many of the pages in The NoSeptember Admin Project are years out of date because I was the primary updater of the pages. A page that has been brought up to date is certainly a good candidate for a move, but if the page gets out of date again, it should be moved back to my user space, since sooner or later someone will decide to mark the page as "historical" or delete it otherwise. You are somewhat taking on a commitment to keep the page updated to the extent others don't come along to help with this task. I know other editors did that for several years after I stopped work on this page, but I also note that in the three years before you started your 2012 edits there were only two edits to the page. Look through the others pages in the project to see if they are of interest to you too. Many pages are out of date but are still a good record of the early years of Wikipedia history. Cheers and Good Luck, NoSeptember 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thorough response, I appreciate it. I've been very familiar with your admin project for some time now, and felt compelled to update it when I saw that very few pages have been added since that time. I think it is helpful for us to maintain a record of such things for easy reference should the need arise; I'm also planning on reworking the chronological unsuccessful candidacies pages so that they will also list the final tallies and the person who closed any given RfA. Kurtis (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
An invitation for you!
|
| Hello, Kurtis. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. |
Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, sounds interesting. I'll check that out sometime, whenever I'm available to do so of course. Kurtis (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Forced evictions in Baku
Hi Kurtis!
I totally get why the "bulky" quotes were removed from the citations in Forced evictions in Baku. Great job!
More out of curiosity than anything else, why was the external link eliminated? Just wondering.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know, I thought it might come across as a form of bias. I mean, it was just a slideshow and nothing of real significance to the article. What do you think? Kurtis (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I'd suggest keeping it; the photo documentation is a useful external resource that we can't include in the article itself. Khazar2 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think of Human Rights Watch as a militant organization - and it seems that they're recording what is really happening so that people can be aware of what is really happening around the world.
- I wasn't asking from an informed place - so I went and read "External links" info in help. The only thing that I can think is the issue is "undue weight". If it's just reporting what really is - as a newspaper article would - I wouldn't think that's undue weight. But, I don't know enough about the topic to know if there would be another side that would say (based upon facts) that the forced evictions are not really humans rights issues.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sure! I'll re-add it in just a sec. =) Kurtis (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! I just read some newspaper articles and it doesn't seem anyone is disputing HRW charges, in fact there's similar charges and agreement. I liked the slideshow.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sure! I'll re-add it in just a sec. =) Kurtis (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for being an early supporter in my successful RfA. I look forward to maintaining your trust in me.—Bagumba (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)0
- You bet. It was my pleasure to support someone with such a positive attitude. =) Kurtis (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|
Thanks for your well wishes for Iraq. They like tea so much. Cheers, Egeymi (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
- Not a problem, I hope everything gets better sooner rather than later. Kurtis (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Geoffrey Nyarota
I remember writing that I'd ping you and A1234 in case you were interested when I started revising Geoffrey Nyarota; well, the process has begun. Feel free to drop in if you get a chance, Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have no recollection of that, but I'll see if I can get around to it. Lately I've been a bit overwhelmed with real-world activities (not that they take up all of my time, but it's consumed most of my focus as of late). Kurtis (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, it was entirely hypothetical. Good luck with real-world stuff! Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Should be free relatively soon, so I'll see what I can do once I get around to it. =) Kurtis (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, it was entirely hypothetical. Good luck with real-world stuff! Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
RFCs piling up at WP:AN
Seems to be a shortage of people willing to close RfCs, and they are piling up. Most don't require an admin, just someone with good common sense, solid experience and an ability to judge consensus. You certainly qualify. Please consider helping out by closing one or two a week. This is good experience, it helps the admins out, and provides a means to judge your ability later on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sure! I've noticed that they were starting to get backlogged myself. I think I should be more available in the near future, so I hope to pitch in over there. I was also considering doing volunteer work at the reference desks. I'm glad to help out wherever I can. =) Kurtis (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I think you really do need to resist this kind of temptation because 1). We don't improve other editor's comments for them, and 2). we do not edit closed discussions. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm confused. That was my own comment I had refactored, wasn't it? I already conceded to the fact that archived discussions are not supposed to be edited (I didn't think it'd be all that big of a deal, really), so I personally think it is now a moot point. I can assure you I won't do it again. Kurtis (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're aware (I thought you were), but I am Master&Expert — I changed my username roughly a month ago. Kurtis (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that would explain it. Still not much point in wasting an edit like that though - it wastes the time of idiots like me too who patrol those pages ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm a terrible grammar freak. I thought I might've been able to sneak that one in, but no dice. =S Kurtis (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, that would explain it. Still not much point in wasting an edit like that though - it wastes the time of idiots like me too who patrol those pages ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're aware (I thought you were), but I am Master&Expert — I changed my username roughly a month ago. Kurtis (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
RfB
Don't worry about it; I wouldn't run for at least another year and change. I've only been an admin for about 10 months now, and I want to have at least a couple years of experience as an admin before doing anything at an RfB. December 2013 at the absolute earliest. Incidentally, as I've said at Sigma's RfA, trolling and farting around is what one is supposed to do at ED. I'm not sure why people didn't pick up on that, given how many Wikipedia users go over to ED on occasion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Very true. I go there sometimes for the lulz (although my preferred venue for asking idiotic questions to incite a response would be Yahoo! Answers). And I think you'd be a good bureaucrat someday, given how active you are in the key areas where they function. Kurtis (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Look
I am sorry to read that you have personal issues, I don't want to increase them. - I came to ask you to look a little more closely, regarding your comment. When do you date "lately"? I described the talk page as one of the better ones I know. I once started to count the number of thanks, stopping at 100. I like this barnstar especially, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the well wishes, I really appreciate it. =)
- I don't know if I could provide specific examples, but I've just found that for the past six or so months, Jack's been acting very strangely, almost as if he's been much more drama prone than he used to be (at least from my perspective). Then again, you're right, he does do a lot for Wikipedia. Believe me, I do not take supporting a ban lightly, and I certainly don't want it to be permanent. That said, I think he might benefit from a break for a while. That's just my opinion, though. I wouldn't necessarily mind if he remained provisionally unbanned, but I don't feel as if he has the trust of the community at this time for that to work out given the recent abuse of multiple accounts. Kurtis (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't bother too much to look for details, just take a quick look, because I see a different picture. It will not make him return, - just do so for fairness. If everybody who thanked him on his user talk had voted oppose, things would have looked different. See my talk also, if you have the time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've been very preoccupied with other things in my life these days, and so I haven't had the energy to be on Wikipedia very much lately. Whenever I get around to it, I'll do so. Kurtis (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- There's no rush. - The discussion to ban a user who had left already paints the perfect picture of the "community", if you ask me. Someone commented the opposes. I did't comment the supports, but I talk to those who received Precious. Your preoccupation explains that you didn't look beyond a surface, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- ps: I saw your condolence only now, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have always liked Jack. My support of a break from the site does not reflect on my opinion of him. I just think it might be best for him and the community to part ways for a couple months so as to end this vicious cycle. I sure as hell do not want him gone for good, and I hope that's not what you'd interpreted my comments as being. Kurtis (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- His break is final, it was when the discussion started, no comment changed anything but paint that picture. I invited above to see my talk, for the meaning of "scuttled". I came to terms with the fact that he left, but think the "community" has to change, or I also can no longer be part of it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand, and it is sad that our community can at times stoop to figuratively putting people in stocks. But never forget that this site is more than bureaucracy, and the average editor is above the fray. Wikipedia is a better place than it may seem. Remember that. Kurtis (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't remember that, I see what I see. Did he ever "distract" you, personally I mean? Look at recent contributions here, "That's not a problem; the wiki runs fine wo. Wiki's are not about “authoritah” they are about collaborations and merit." "I've no real issue with Dabomb; he selects some interesting articles. I'm not “against” him." - I support that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect you've misinterpreted what I said. And yes, Br'er Rabbit did serve as something of a distraction in several discussions on Wikipedia, although I can't find the links to them at the moment. Kurtis (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I did. Without my biased comment, interpret the diffs I keep on my user for easy reference, about the so-called TFA disruption, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to TFA specifically. I'm not sure if you're trying to debate me or convince me of something or what have you, but I can assure you that I'm very familiar with that RFAR and I would like to make it clear that I actually found Br'er Rabbit's culpability in the dispute to be less than that of Raul's (I think he needs a break from all the on-Wiki stress he's subjected himself to over the years). Kurtis (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I did. Without my biased comment, interpret the diffs I keep on my user for easy reference, about the so-called TFA disruption, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect you've misinterpreted what I said. And yes, Br'er Rabbit did serve as something of a distraction in several discussions on Wikipedia, although I can't find the links to them at the moment. Kurtis (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't remember that, I see what I see. Did he ever "distract" you, personally I mean? Look at recent contributions here, "That's not a problem; the wiki runs fine wo. Wiki's are not about “authoritah” they are about collaborations and merit." "I've no real issue with Dabomb; he selects some interesting articles. I'm not “against” him." - I support that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand, and it is sad that our community can at times stoop to figuratively putting people in stocks. But never forget that this site is more than bureaucracy, and the average editor is above the fray. Wikipedia is a better place than it may seem. Remember that. Kurtis (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- His break is final, it was when the discussion started, no comment changed anything but paint that picture. I invited above to see my talk, for the meaning of "scuttled". I came to terms with the fact that he left, but think the "community" has to change, or I also can no longer be part of it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have always liked Jack. My support of a break from the site does not reflect on my opinion of him. I just think it might be best for him and the community to part ways for a couple months so as to end this vicious cycle. I sure as hell do not want him gone for good, and I hope that's not what you'd interpreted my comments as being. Kurtis (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've been very preoccupied with other things in my life these days, and so I haven't had the energy to be on Wikipedia very much lately. Whenever I get around to it, I'll do so. Kurtis (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't bother too much to look for details, just take a quick look, because I see a different picture. It will not make him return, - just do so for fairness. If everybody who thanked him on his user talk had voted oppose, things would have looked different. See my talk also, if you have the time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, my English is limited, we may have a misunderstanding. I wanted to understand, and I want you to look. I don't know what "culpability" means, but think I can guess. Sorry also that I was not my best yesterday, it was late where I live, and for my simple question "Did he ever "distract" you, personally I mean?" I expected yes or no ;) - If you have the time to look at the TFA diffs, please point me to something/anything he did wrong if you find it, - I fail to see it. For desert: look here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not a problem, good luck with your future endeavours here. =) Kurtis (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but a question
Thank you for your support at my RfA, and your willingness to trust me even though we might not agree on several issues. What positions are you referring to with regard to BLP though? I never thought that I had a particularly radical viewpoint one way or the other when it comes to our BLP policy. Gigs (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe "radical" was the wrong word, but you do strike as a good deal more liberal with BLPs than the average Wikipedian editor (and administrator). Not a terribly bad thing, and it's not like you hold the belief that we shouldn't give a rat's ass about BLPs or anything like that, so it's a non-issue. =) Kurtis (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see how you could get that impression. I guess in some ways, such as the question raised at my RfA, that's true. I don't think we should be avoiding inclusion of widely publicized names of people who have garnered a lot of press coverage. That said, there's many ways I'm in favor of stricter BLP policies, such as requiring a reliable source that supports at least one claim in the article to avoid the application of BLPPROD (right now any relevant external link, even myspace or youtube, will prevent BLPPROD application). As well, I have a problem with some of our people-related subject-specific notability guidelines. I think they are forcing us to keep articles on people who are fundamentally low profile, many of which can never satisfy WP:SELFPUB's requirement that articles should not be primarily based on self-published information, others that are based entirely on other types primary sources. I wrote the essay at WP:TWOPRONGS in an attempt to expand on the idea that we do need enough sources in order to actually write a biography (or any article), instead of just a brief two-sentence description of subject. Coming here I wasn't entirely sure whether your position was that I was too lax or too strict, since I think if you ask different groups of people you might get different answers. :) Anyway thanks again. Gigs (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. And I hope you obtain the bit someday, if not soon, then certainly in the not-too-distant future. Kurtis (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see how you could get that impression. I guess in some ways, such as the question raised at my RfA, that's true. I don't think we should be avoiding inclusion of widely publicized names of people who have garnered a lot of press coverage. That said, there's many ways I'm in favor of stricter BLP policies, such as requiring a reliable source that supports at least one claim in the article to avoid the application of BLPPROD (right now any relevant external link, even myspace or youtube, will prevent BLPPROD application). As well, I have a problem with some of our people-related subject-specific notability guidelines. I think they are forcing us to keep articles on people who are fundamentally low profile, many of which can never satisfy WP:SELFPUB's requirement that articles should not be primarily based on self-published information, others that are based entirely on other types primary sources. I wrote the essay at WP:TWOPRONGS in an attempt to expand on the idea that we do need enough sources in order to actually write a biography (or any article), instead of just a brief two-sentence description of subject. Coming here I wasn't entirely sure whether your position was that I was too lax or too strict, since I think if you ask different groups of people you might get different answers. :) Anyway thanks again. Gigs (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)