Welcome!

Hello, Kjkolb/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Great additions to the Wikipedia, Kjkolb! --FCYTravis 07:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great job you are doing on wikification. Just to say, in my view wikification includes putting an article in at least one category - even if it is only a stub category. -- RHaworth 08:18:44, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

I'll look into categorization. Thanks -- Kjkolb 08:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Good catch, but I only saw it because I decided to look again at my contributions from the previous few days. Next time, how about using {{deleteagain}}? --cesarb 16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know about that tag. -- Kjkolb 02:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I just completed the process, changing the initial tag from VfD to AfD. Ciao. paul klenk 11:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When removing tags like this one, please make sure that you've completed the work. For example, the subject's name needs to be bolded, and wikilinks should be checked and corrected. Other stylistic matters are also best dealt with (such as italicising film titles). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider your comments. However, it was not my intention to completely cleanup the article. It had wikify and cleanup tags and I was only doing the wikifying. I did miss at least one of the links, though. Thanks, -- Kjkolb 09:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The bolding of the subject in the first sentence (or two) is one of the more important points, though (see also Point Four Program). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I do bold the subject (Company limited by guarantee, for example). I don't know why I didn't this time. I'll check the program too. Thanks, -- Kjkolb 11:11, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any other conventions you think I should know about? I've never even known if the subject was supposed to be bolded. I just saw it on most articles and guessed that it was. Also some are merely italicized or bolded and italicized, is that improper? -- Kjkolb 11:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you making a number of changes to metalworking articles, and was wondering if you wanted to join the wikiproject? Help merging duplicates and other cleanup is always needed! Bushytails 23:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I'm not an expert on metalworking. However, if I find something within my ability, I'll try to fix it. I renamed an article to follow naming conventions and then changed some links to make them direct to the article. Later, I found that abrasive waterjet cutter and Water Jet Cutter were duplicates, so I put merge tags on them, then I went ahead and merged them myself. Of course, then I had to change the links again. :-) -- Kjkolb 02:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's been on the to-do list for a while... right now we're working more on categorizing, sorting, etc, then will work on intro pages, etc,... then we'll get around to fixing up articles.  :) Bushytails 03:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the talk page. Eventually, I'll find time to deal with the letter in a little more systematic basis. But..............did you intend to remove the wikify tag? It's still there. Best wishes. WBardwin 06:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I guess I did it too. It's gone now. :-) -- Kjkolb 06:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend,

“Social Technology” is my first article at Wikipedia. I am new to this world of web publishing. Please pardon me for any errors that I have made and may make due to my ignorance of the norms and rules of the Wikipedia community.

This summer some good ideas occurred to me and I put them down in this article. In the article, I defined the term “Social Technology” and some basic areas to think and work upon.

Then I heard about Wikipedia where any one can contribute and enhance an article. I felt that this was a great place for ideas. I thought that many more ideas would come in and the article would be enhanced.

I posted it from my web log http://neeray.blogspot.com to this site. Unfortunately I forgot to post the copy right notice and a very vigilant member noticed the same article on my web log and marked it for copyright violation. I am very happy that people here are very vigilant. I have now posted the copy right message under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 on the “Social Technology temporary page” and in the article on my web log too.

Then I worked a little on the temporary page and find that now this is marked for deletion for “Rambling”. These are tiny seedlings of ideas. Please do not delete them even before they are seen and flower into something better. Please advise me as to what should I do to improve this article.

I have great faith in the collective wisdom of the people. That is what this article is about. Please do whatever is right according to the rules and norms of the community.

I tried posting this at the Articles for Deletion page but it is not showing there. Please tell me what to do.

Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor

neeray 06:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJ. However, when I said I was looking for help with Wikifying, I was requesting that somebody summarize the text from the official biography. In other words, to take it and break it down into non-copyright ideas. 198.65.167.213 00:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - the more turgid articles are quite ofter the copyvios - will try and spot them better! :) ...en passant! 06:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's no introduction, no explanation or summary. When I scrolled down I found "Back to main article for New York City", but that's not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and anyway doesn't give much information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI because you have put a copyvio tag there. The title is incorrect. I am moving it (with tag and all) to Sarfraz Nawaz. Tintin 22:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the blunder I made on my userpage. I thought it was just a link, I had no idea it was actually putting it in the category. Thanks! - Saikiri 04:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bornscar. I was unable to confirm existance of this band, or their hit. Friday (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated the article Mike Sajecki for deletion. It appears that the user may have removed your AfD tag. AfD: Mike SajeckiCpaliga 03:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cpaliga. I changed it back, but I'm not too concerned about it. Removing the tag on the article doesn't take it off the AfD page and the closing admin should be able to figure it out. I put the article on my watch list in case it's changed again. -- Kjkolb 03:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you nominated both Strategic negotiations and Turnip head for deletion on the grounds of notability. I point out that Wikipedia:Deletion policy has nothing about notability, and that an attempt to add notability as a deletion criteria failed to generate consensus. Furthermore, I point out that the deletion policy specifically states that articles that are "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" should be merged, not deleted.

In light of this, I ask you to reconsider your practice of making nominations on these grounds - instead consider the verifiability, vanity, and dicdef policies, which I think can be used to delete about 90% of the crap that gets nominated for deletion. Snowspinner 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability was mentioned 287 times on the October 4, 2005 articles for deletion page, counting all forms of the word. Also, there are certainly things that are verifiable, not vanity and not dictionary definitions that cannot be merged. For example, a well written article on a small Los Angeles apartment building. Where would that be merged? I'm really asking, not being sarcastic. -- Kjkolb 03:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2. -- Kjkolb 06:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied" If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions. After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to: {{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~ Blank the page and replace the text with {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

I have been applying the wikify tag to numerous articles (save those I wikified myself) and it seems most of those that are wikified by someone, are wikified by you. This barnstar is my expression of gratitude. Please keep up the good work. - BorgQueen 17:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) -- Kjkolb 06:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have further expanded the current stub and outlined a plan for expansion on the talk page. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 10:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. -- Kjkolb 10:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixes done. Sorry about that. DES ^(talk) 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Kjkolb 02:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are talking about, i recongnize the fact that the article is poorly written but i'm very busy these last few days. I will personalize it the following days when i got much more available extra-time. Regards. Whlee 10:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see whether the current cleanup would be sufficient for you to withdraw the delete vote. Thanks, Tintin 01:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, good work, Tintin. -- Kjkolb 07:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kjkolb, you did a pretty good job at linking this article, and I wonder why User:63.204.105.220 put the {wikify} tag on. He's not even a registered member. The "best" part is that he did nothing to the article, except to tag it. Why can't he contribute his part, since the job is almost perfect?

Honestly, I sometimes get cheesed off, as there are still a lot of totally unwikified articles in Wikipedia. Why must anyone expect 100% perfection, when there are so many that are not even 50%? In any case, I have put up a short introductory paragraph, and did some tidying. If this guy still put the tag up, he must be a vandalist. — PM Poon 01:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some people want to link the articles to death and others don't know what "wikify" means. Sometimes an article can look under-linked, but it actually has the important words linked and more would mean making duplicates or meaningless links. He/she probably just misunderstood. If it has the important terms linked, basic formatting, like a bolded subject and properly made lists, and is in one or more appropriate categories, I just remove the tag and say why on the edit summary or on the talk page. Thanks -- Kjkolb 09:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see my comments on my personal wiki page [1] --CyclePat 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright violation cited for article Salahuddin Ayyubi is irrelevant, regardless of the page's previous content, as the page itself was redundant and should have redirected to the Wikipedia article on Saladin. Can you agree that the matter can be resolved by simply forwarding the page to the much more comprehensive and complete article already listed, considering it's simply a spelling variation of the same person's name? - Reason. 12 October 2005

Yes, but I don't think you need my permission for this. Once it's redirected, it should be removed from the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. Thanks -- Kjkolb 10:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for attributing. My pen must have dried up. Dlyons493 Talk 15:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general I really like what you've come up with here, and I thank you for your effort, but I do take some issue with the guidelines on class C and D stations. I do have a harder time explaining what they don't include that I miss, though. I basically think all public university radio stations should be included. As for private ones, well, I think there should be some specific guidelines. Full disclosure: I have created WCWS and WNZR. I have no problem with WNZR going. I do have a problem with WCWS going, even suspending the slight conflict of interest I have from going to school where that radio station is -- but I'm not sure how to explain its notability. Is it because WCWS and WQKT are the only two radio stations in Wooster, a relatively large and quickly-growing market for the area, and that WCWS is still holding its own in the ratings despite the fact that WQKT is owned by Clear Channel and has money hemoraging out of its orifices? Is it because WCWS is the only exposure that most people around here get to things like world music, the Metropolitan Opera, old radio plays, etc? I don't know. Maybe it's something else. (Tell me if/why you're bored with my explanation of WCWS and why you don't think it belongs, if you don't, so I can understand.)

I also think that there will be the occasional undergroud, unlicensed station that will be so notorious, whether it be for extreme views, or how long it went before the gov't shut it down and so it gathered a huge fanbase, or whatever, that Wikipedia should cover it. I think we should allow for that, but of course an article on every unlicenced radio station would be quite absurd! I think it this case, degree of news coverage and verifiability will be important things to consider. --Jacquelyn Marie 13:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kjkolb. Thank you for voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NHL draft busts but I am asking really nicely for you to reconsider. There is already a precedent of this sort of list on wikipedia. For example, if these article were put of for deletion, would you vote keep or delete?

• List of commercial failures, List of flops in entertainment, List of military disasters, List of political flops, List of famous failures in science and engineering, and List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming.

I don't see the difference between List of NHL Draft Busts and those articles. The NHL list just needs a stronger criteria set and it would be a great list. Thank you. Masterhatch 03:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article for deletion discussion in which you participated has been re-opened. You may want to participate in the discussions at VfU:Albert_M._Wolters or discuss at Tony_Sidaway:talk how you feel about his actions.
Sorry for the spam,
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I left a comment on the new page. Thanks -- Kjkolb 11:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged 0DFx for speedy delete as a blatent copyvio. But WP:CSD A8 is availabe only for copyvios form a commercial content provider. This restriction was for cased much like this one -- this page was quite possibly uploded by soemone who wriote the web page, and if not, it is not unlikly that the copyright holder would be only too glad to release. This should either go throuygh the normal WP:CP process, or AfD, IMO. I plan to list it on AfD. DES ^(talk) 18:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. i have rasied the matter again on CSD talk, and on the Village Pump (policy), and altered the CP header to point this out. Until this has an effect i will go on removing invalid tags and notifing users. Note that even those who want to broaden the CSD to "commercial web pages" didn't generally support this when the source is soemone's personal page, as this case was, according to the URL. Thanks for respondign to me promptly. DES ^(talk) 18:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

		An Award
		I give this barnstar to Kjkolb for his swift and tireless work on wikification - Haukur Þorgeirsson.

Wow! Thanks! -- Kjkolb 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Since you voted to keep the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees I thought I would give you a "heads-up". A copyright violation was filed against the article, on October 11th. It was filed by someone who had voted to delete the article on October 5th.

I believe that the copyright violation is entirely bogus. I believe it is bogus because, as explained in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, lists of facts, like lists of names, cannot be copyright. This Feist v. Rural case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which made the possibly counter-intuitive ruling that the amount of effort someone put in to compiling a list plays no role in determining whether that list is eligible for copyright protection.

Even if alphabetic lists of names could be copyright, I believe the wikipedia list would not be violating copyright since the list was compiled from various sources.

Yes, I have considered that this user invoked a bogus copyright violation to achieve a result that failed in the {AfD}. Yes, I asked them to terminate the copyright violation process, in light of Feist v Rural. They declined. The backlog in the administrators dealing with copyright violations seems to be on the order of a month long.

Anyhow, I wanted the people who had shown interest in the article to not freak out, or feel betrayed, by seeing the copyright violation tag. -- Geo Swan 11:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kjkolb, I see you recently moved the above article to Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. I moved it back because even though DCPP is indeed a nuclear plant, the correct name of the plant is actually "Diablo Canyon Power Plant". See here for example. HGB 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks for your response. I was amazed that there are so many google hits on the plant with "nuclear" in it. I think most of them are more descriptive: a shortened version of the plant name "Diablo Canyon" followed by (lower case) "nuclear power plant". The official name though is definitely Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), and the reason I'm certain is because I've worked there myself as a contractor on and off over the past decade and a half. But you're right that there definitely needs to be a redirect. I see even some official bodies like the NRC sometimes refer to the plant as DCNPP, which I find interesting. HGB 07:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The expand tag is actually a talk page template, and is listed as such at Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace. Some people disagree with this, and other erroneously place it in the actual article, but most agree it belongs on the talk page. - SimonP 18:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the past there has been a fair bit of discussion over this issue. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Template locations and its talk page, which was has a vote and a debate over this issue. - SimonP 19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to it. Great idea, btw. I am an admin so I close quite a few afd votes. So anything that can cut the # of afd votes is a good idea in my book. :) Can you imagine if we had lists for every station's top x of x? Good god. As I said in what I added, some of these stations make up these countdowns or they don't give sources. If it's American Top 40 or something, that's different because they use sources you can look up (AT40 uses Radio and Records, which you can look up right online) and verify. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish we could do something to easily get rid of obvious hoaxes, like Ashlynne Boyd, which I just put for a vote. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would help and thanks for the input on the radio stations. -- Kjkolb 03:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
Would you please revisit this debate and reconsider your vote? I think my comments and updates to the article (including her CV on the AFD) warrant a new look. She's not just a radio presenter but also a tv presenter on several TV channels. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Kjkolb 04:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kjkolb, I have noticed your discussion on above. IMHO, lot of anon IPs are making accretions to many an article. One of them claims to be Nirav.maurya but refuses to sign his posts. This IP starting with the series 70.X.X.X has been making POV and Original Research accretions to articles such as Indian nationalism, Hindu nationalism, Hindutva, Gandhism etc. - While most of these may not be harmful in terms of views espoused, they are definitely POV and against the policies of Wikipedia. I have tried to sanitise some of the edits but my edits on other pages are being attacked systematically. I have been waging a lone battle now-a-days but I thought that I shd let you know, just in case. --Gurubrahma 06:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created a script that helps voting on AFDs, the afd helper. It's recently been extended to make the nomination process much quicker too, but this hasn't been tested yet. It looked like you might find it handy. Any feedback would be appreciated. jnothman ^talk 14:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I posted the original Bob Davidson article that I think you put up the "copyright notice". I am new here and don't know how to use all the features that is why I am contacting you. I hope you are the correct person to contact. I didn't realize this was copyrighted. I got this description from a friend who I thought wrote this but I realized, the almost exact article is on another website. My friend could be the one that wrote the original, I am not sure about that at this time. Anyways to be on he safe side, I personely wrote another article about Bob Davidson that is now in the TEMP. page. I am requesting that the original page and the copyright notice taken down and replaced with my new article.

I let them know about the new article on the copyright problems page, but it make take a few days because of the backlog. The temporary page will be moved to the current article's page. It can't be copied and pasted because the history needs to be preserved. Thanks and good work, Kjkolb 17:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The move is done. --HappyCamper 03:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HappyCamper. -- Kjkolb 03:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just accidentally closed that discussion. I am actually doing relisting ok. You mentioned that it is "closed when the afd is finished". Well, someone closes them. :) It's not automatic. The relistings come about when someone goes to close the discussions and notices that one of the debates does not have enough votes. That's how this one came about. So I appreciate the help, but it was just me making a mistake. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Gotcha. I'll double check. They really should make an easier way to relist articles, since with the high # of articles to vote on, it's happening more and more. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I had 2. One was a case where I just had it linked to the wrong place on the afd page. Thanks again. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "possible copyright violation" page has been up for over a week now. Is it supposed to be deleted automatically? I've written a new, shorter version with better hyperlinks that I would like to replace the old (questionable) Article. This new version is located at ConCarolinas/temp. I'm not sure how to (or if I'm allowed to) remove the "possible copyright violation" page and promote the temp article to become the primary. Please, either let me know that it's Okay for me to do this or, if you will, do this this switch for me. Thank you. Vorticity 19:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I've copied the temp article into the primary location, as you suggested. Please request deletion of the temp sub-article at your convientience. I will add detail to the main article from time to time (and may create other articles about other SF conventions I've enjoyed) but I will try to avoid anything that smacks of copyright violation. I appreaciate your guidance and patience in helping me resolve this problem. Vorticity 19:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kjkolb, I think you misunderstood the nature of my objection to that article. If you have a moment, can you read my reply to your vote in the AfD and consider changing your vote? TIA ---CH (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks for your reply. I think it is best to delete the current version since there is nothing to build on and anyone writing a new article on the topic of scalar theories of gravitation would have to begin by blanking this one anyway, so I hope you will change your vote. But see User:Isotope23's comment and my reply on his talk page. ---CH (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Excellent argument by the way. -- Kjkolb 22:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nice work on Architectural terms. I was really hoping someone would get around to doing that. There still may be many stray one or two sentence articles floating around out there. Perhaps a little intro would be good, but I'm glad someone finally took the initiative to do that. It might go well in Category:Terminology. Anyway, great work! --DanielCD 22:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/05/11/10a

Hi. Are you aware that User:61.247.237.243 added the sentence "Why are you concerned as to what others include about their organisation? Why do you need to edit that Mr.?" to the "Shortcuts" section of your user page? I am letting you know in case you haven't noticed it. --BorgQueen 22:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BorgQueen. I hadn't noticed it. -- Kjkolb 22:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasons for removing their references so that they don't get spammed -- but I also think that they deserve to be spammed. ;-) --Nlu 23:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mysekurity. I've requested that door be unprotected. It was rather confusing because there was no message on the page about the protection at the top of the article, or anything indicating the protection in the edit history or talk page like there usually is. Also, I noticed that you protected 10 pages because of vandalism by the same user and I was wondering why you didn't block the user instead of protecting the pages. I'm not familiar with procedure for these things. Was there a reason that wasn't done instead? None of this should be taken as criticism, I'm just confused and curious. Thanks, Kjkolb 17:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me, and thank you for keeping a friendly tone throughout your post. I do not take it as criticism—more as constructive criticism—and will do my best to explain your query. I believe I should have added {{Protected}} (Which I will do right away) to the articles, and merely neglected to do so, as I was in a rush. These users, all suspected sockpuppets of User:StuRat (that is, it has not been proven, and the user and I have had quite a bit of talk amongst ourselves), created or edited all kinds of sub-dictionary entries, on such items as Outside air conditioning unit, Master bathroom, Super Bowl party, Stoner burrito, and others, and was merely trying to disrupt the AfD system. It has not been confirmed that these are socks of StuRat, and he's quite upset about that, but I'm just getting used to my new powers. I didn't mean to protect door, only its redirects, and I'll go in and add the templates. I plan to unprotect them shortly, but I'm not really sure Wikipedia needs content on such meaningless things. As for the blocks, yes, I did block them for 48 hours (see my log by clicking on the y in my signature), It is customary to unblock the pages after a few days, which I shall do presently. I'm still new to the admin tools and I thank you for your understanding. -Mysekurity 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I would like to make it so that the article I wrote about ConCarolinas shows up when people do not capitolize the word. Currently, a search only finds it if the user types it in its official double-capitolization form: "ConCarolinas" I looked through the edit help pages, but did not find the answer. Can you tell me how to do this, or simply shot me the link to the right edit help page? Thanks Vorticity 20:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vorticity. I made the other spelling a redirect. You just need to start a new article with the name you want to use and then enter "#Redirect [[name of page you want to redirect to]]". You can see the redirect page here. -- Kjkolb 20:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote on this AfD to keep, based on evidence of radio play, record releases, and tours that leads me to believe that this band is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 02:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You marked the article Kinthup as a possible copyright violation. You said it had been there for a year, so apparently you had checked the history. If you did so, you could see that the first edit had as its summary copied from http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/discovery/pundit.html, with permission. I do not put in that kind of edit summaries just for fun, you know. If I say I have permission, it means I do have permission, and it certainly means that asking me about it is better than just deleting the page. Apart from that it is no accident that the author of the site from which this is supposed to be a copyright violation just happens to have exactly the same name I have. - Andre Engels 07:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apology. I will be citing my references for the article one of these days (I put references on the site that I copied it from, but that page contains descriptions for some other people too, so I will have to check whether they are all used for this specific article). - Andre Engels 07:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on Andre's page this was my blunder. Somehow, I missed the prominent permission notice in the edit summary. I removed the copyright violation notice on the article and its listing on the copyright problems page. I'm glad he noticed. I'd feel even worse if useful content had gotten deleted. -- Kjkolb 08:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are all only humans... We all do make mistakes at times :-) --BorgQueen 01:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the links about this. It turned out that you were wrong, as vanity is a reason for speedy deletion, but it shouldn't be (so in principle you are right). I hadn't really understood the whole speedy delete vote, so thank you a lot for your explanation and linkage. Sadly, it looks like vanity as a reason for speedy deletion is going to stay. See Absolute Boyfriend for why this is a bad idea. Zordrac 01:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the wikify tag on my monobook.js page - it was the add-wikify-notice script that caused it - may be a problem on other's pages as well.

Thanks for the heads up JG of Borg 15:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added an answer to your question. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MGM. -- Kjkolb 14:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Beland. The technical tag is complaining again. I agree with you. It doesn't make sense to me to put cleanup tags on talk pages as they are missed by all readers who don't go to the talk page. Is there a consensus on this? If there isn't, it would be good to have a discussion about which tags, if any, should be on article talk pages. Thanks, Kjkolb 11:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the other cleanup tags certainly go on article pages. I'll try and build consensus on Template talk:Technical. -- Beland 21:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to vote support and oppose A3 on Wikipedia:Eras? -- Kjkolb 08:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to make it clearer that it wasn't a vote, and that was one way I hoped to do so. I'm just about to type up some opinions on the talk page explaining why I signed where I did. Please feel free to do the same, as the point is gathering information about what people think, not polling or voting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in becoming an admin, let me know. I am willing to support you. --BorgQueen 12:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'll think about it. -- Kjkolb 12:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which Columbia list do I have? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 15:32

• You originally said: "the Columbia encyclopedia topic list you have", but I'm not sure what you mean by this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 16:18
  • Oops, forgot about that! :) Yeah, I know the list is a copyvio. I forgot to take it down after I copied it to my hard drive. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-20 12:34

Hi, Kragen. You don't have to nominate copyright violations on AfD. You can just mark them as copyright violations and post them on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. First, erase the page's content and enter {{copyvio|url=}}. Then just put in the url of the source after the equal sign. This will produce a template when you save it and you just follow the instructions it gives it. In some cases, the source doesn't have a web page. In that case, put your explanation where the url would go, but use bold around it (made with three apostrophes on both sides). Good work on catching the copyvio. Thanks, Kjkolb 07:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Should I do that now in this case, or should I let the AfD process run to completion? Kragen Sitaker 19:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw that you listed the verification template at hanashi. I, too, think this article might be a hoax article. I'm not even sure that it is possible to write 'hanashi' in Korean. I know it's a Japanese word - meaning 'talk' or 'stories'. I looked up 'hanashi' and 'vitamins' over at Google, but the only thing to really come up was the Wiki entry [2]. I would list it over at the deletion page, but I'm kind of new, and don't really know how to do that. I'd be happy to try and figure it out though, but I want to make sure that the necessary amount of time has passed since you posted the verification template before I list it for deletion. (Is there even a policy for this? I don't want to step on any toes here.) Thanks! - Maaya 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am the original author of the Ancient DNA page. I am also the original author of my Oxford University D.Phil thesis on ancient DNA! Thus I suspect that modifying my own text by writing the ancient DNA article was probably not copyright (although who knows with all the mumbo jumbo out there eh!). Anyway, I am most impressed that you even noticed that it was from my thesis (how the hell did you know). But as the page is for educational use, and as I wrote it anyway, can we return it to how it was before it was chopped? Cheers,

Tom Gilbert

I took care of it. I always check articles that need to be wikified for copyright violations on Google before working on them. That's how I found your thesis. The majority of the articles in the category are copyright violations, although there is a very small percentage like this one that are posted by the author. Thanks for letting me know, Kjkolb 11:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kjkolb Thanks for the reversion - I appreciate your efforts and good luck in the struggle against plagiarism out there! Tom

Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 16:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the vote change. I've been in Saint-Louis (a long time ago) and am happy that what remains in the article is factual. I've translated it and put it on fr.wiki where we may get some informed feedback. Of course it can (and should) be renominated if it emerges that it's a hoax. Dlyons493 Talk 12:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You made a comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard about links to incomplete dates on Harvest moon. As you suggest, it is better to delink all the months or none at all. The edit that you refer to was a test version, the current version of the editing tool, it now delinks all months at once. It does not touch full dates that are needed for date preferences.

Please feel free to join the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Edits_which_just_unwikify_stuff and express your vote at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F. Bobblewik 17:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Rich Farmbrough. 20:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kjkolb! I have recently been frustrated when adding some architectural details to articles, because I haven't been able to link to Early English, for instance (because it redirects to Middle Ages). So I checked, and I could find no articles on specific periods linked to in the article/list Architectural style or to the articles Gothic architecture or Medieval architecture. So I was "bold", and created some articles: Early English (architecture), Decorated Gothic and Perpendicular (architecture).

Now (by searching on slightly different terms, I suppose) I have just discovered your earlier set of articles based on the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (Early English Period, Decorated Period and Perpendicular Period).

Obviously my new articles are superfluous, but I wondered whether you'd be upset if I tried to merge the old and new attempts? The language of the old ones is rather antiquated, and the wikilinks are often to the town or city name rather than the relevant building: (Gloucester rather than Gloucester Cathedral, for instance).

We'll probably need to make some redirect pages, and disambiguation pages (Early English obviously needs one of those). What do you think? SiGarb 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]