User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 12

2295:. Does the user mean quotes from those people's published works, or fresh quotes from the people directly? The latter would not be appropriate. The article already has some quotations, and they are appropriately cited. The sections actually do have citations - they're just not very specific, being located at the top of each section instead of next to the individual facts. Maybe they could be moved down next to the facts that they support The article is written more as tribute to Professor MacWilliam instead of a neutral article, and some of the flowery language will need to be replaced by plainer text. Quotes praising the subject might make this worse instead of better. Written references about him other than obituaries would be good to have, since although these have lots of information, it's usually not balanced by mention of any negative aspects of a person's life. Also some of the external links are not about the subject and should be removed. I have combined the references and hidden the URLs so that the reference section is less cluttered. Be sure to reassure the submitter that this is a good topic and that the draft will definitely be approved after some revision. Academics are used to submitting work to editors of journals, and should understand this process. — 309: 5620:

Furthermore applying any form of protection goes against the core philosophy that anyone can edit, and as such it should be avoided except when absolutely necessary. Occasional vandalism is normal for any popular wiki. This article in particular has experienced an especially low level of disruption (one instance since October possibly made in good-faith), and none going back months prior is it any bit severe, such as BLP violations. There was the ongoing "derpy derp" vandalism, but I can take care of that by other means. Formally declining your request, and I'd hope other admins would agree. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but you seem to frequently request pending-changes protection. The issue is that at first glance PC seems perfectly appropriate given the low-edit rate, but you may be missing the big picture. Of course all just my opinion... Best —

269: 314: 259: 284: 5655:, I've thoroughly explained why I am declining the request. Here we haven't had really any recent vandalism at all. I protected way back when because of the derpy derp disruption which appears to have ceased. I also didn't think to add it to an edit filter, which will solve that problem once and for all. Anyway what I'm trying to convey to you is more about the philosophy behind avoiding protection altogether, despite if it seems to fit the criteria. I would hate for one day seeing that "Accepted" box at the top-right of an article to be the norm. — 2577:

reasonable, and are never compared to the "swine flu" ever. And saying that lowering radon levels is not wise, and not effective in lowering lung cancer risk is completely at odds with the EPA research. I am a FL Certified Radon Measurement & Mitigation Specialist. Trust me. I removed those comments as they are pointed, biased and just bad advice to anyone wanting to read facts- which is what Wiki is about. PS I did not give a reason for my edit because I screwed up in the sequence, and was not able to add my comment. Thank you.

2875: 31: 5287:, click "start review" of the article you want to work on and hit save. Try to go for a shorter one since this will be your first. It is also custom to try to opt for older submissions in an effort to keep the backlog clean and orderly, but again don't pick anything you're not interested in. Let me know when you've got the review page up, and we'll add a subpage for us to chat on. I'm snowed in here in New York so I'll have ample time to work with you on the review :) Cheers — 620: 522: 433: 2010: 5123: 304: 718: 5679:

pre-teen and teenage years. These songs somehow got into the hands of other artists and I have yet to be compensated. It is dubious that all these songs came out in the 1990's after I took a Study Abroad trip to India in my Junior year of college. They think I just left for good. I will leave it at that, but all of these songs (and a few more) are substantially mine. Please don't delete this post, and do have a good day. -Raghu V. Acharya St. Paul, MN.

1795: 1705: 4567: 1423: 319: 294: 5130: 289: 274: 1788: 1698: 279: 1079: 299: 244: 254: 3155: 740: 2789:. Deleting as copyright violation was my mistake... however it was easy to get confused as the revision I checked was after 2 January and was also bundled in with all the other confirmed copyright violations. The two new sources you provided I don't think share enough material to constitute as copyright violation. At any rate thanks for your concern, and apologies for any confusion on my part. — 264: 249: 4516: 5499: 4629: 2622: 946: 2082:

violating a wikipedia policy, I appreciate if you stated in clear terms the specifics of the allegation, i.e. when and how. Not just a generic "you violated the rules so now behave" message. And if this is about a particular IP user who, according to their edit history has repeatedly entered into edit wars with other editors on other pages and you're taking sides with this person....

848:

everything I can find using reliable sources. I'm overall happy enough with the content to continue the review; I was more wondering if you had any ideas. As for the unsourced content added by Robert Little, I feel that its inclusion is justified enough, I elaborated on that at the GA nomination page. There's no GA requirement that every sentence needs an inline citation.--

5546:

talkpage and userpage histories. As well as my talkpage. I have been falsely accused on many accounts. Not continuing to say the same thing over and over is in no way refusing to talk. They continue to remove verifiable, scholarly edits just because they don't like them. The request to Indefinitely lock or protect this page speaks as to their motives.

909: 3520:

I can definitely understand not wanting to bother with another SPI, it can take forever. You're probably best off writing admins that you know are familiar with the SPI or have checkuser rights. I briefly looked into it and it is my opinion that the average patrolling admin is not going to be able to

3228:

when it had no !votes, and decided to come back later to consider it. Much later, I looked for it and couldn't find it - even in the list of unsuccessfuls. Going via the EY user contribs, I found it, closed by you. But it's still not in the list of unsuccessfuls (chrono list, at least, that is). I've

2845:

What's wrong with it? I noticed there was some inappropriate content on there that I have since removed. I can ensure that doesn't happen again. Is there anything else incorrect with the article or any material that simply should not be there? The patrollers and bots kept reverting your edits because

2576:

Musik- I removed those comments at the end of the mitigation section because they a silly and archaic- siting someones opinion in a newspaper from 1987. At that point in time Radon was not understood as it is now. Radon mitigation costs are not exorbitantly high now, in fact in my city they are quite

3632:

Dear admins, it's very sad that without having the complete knowledge of the subject concerned, you are deleting the page, the content which was small, was important for the subject, but now it is removed. Also, Jain Sculptures and Jain Temple is too different things, if you visit the two pages, you

3534:

Thank you also for your work at AIV cleaning up all these vandals. Perhaps I just got used to Materialscientist acting like lightning blocking the trolls through AIV and became too complacent. I guess I have to bother him at his talk more frequently from now on, although I hate doing that to admins.

3500:

Hi MusikAnimal. I was typing my reply to you but the trolls got blocked by MS while I was typing it. FWIW, I wanted to mention that behavioural evidence is really loud for those who know the LTA abuse of the troll. Due to the high frequency of the trolling an SPI is basically a waste of time. But I

1633:

Please can you review the recent edits made after your improvements to this page. Winkelvi doesnt appear to be interested in improving the article and instead seems to favour deleting large parts of interesting and viable information. Surely contributors should contribute at least equivalent of what

229:

page, I think you would need one of the photo box or gimp tools for the computer, but I don't have these and am not too sure on how to do this collage, so I would really appreciate it if you could do it, or if you can't but know someone who can and ask them to do it that would be a real help. If you

4226:

is the where all the documentation is. There's some nifty functions, but I'm not aware of a way to test their output except through an edit filter. So when writing filters I usually batch test against changes I make to my sandbox, adding any namespace or user group restrictions later when I'm ready

2453:

where Troyer lives in the UK, and given he's big into the UK football and such that is certainly plausible. Overall though, I'd have to agree this is some sort of hoaxer or pro-UK original researcher. Weighing all of this in, and it being a static IP, I felt a disruptive editing block was justified

2127:

in my edit summary. So sorry for my part on that. I've blocked the IP for violating the three-revert rule, so it should be apparent I'm not siding with them. Next time if the IP has a history of disruption it might be easier to just report to AIV or AN/I, but surely you can see how I saw it as just

2081:

You left a message, then reverted it, but I can still see it. So, have I violated the three revert rule you claimed I did, or maybe then you realized that I haven't? Maybe you should check my edit history again and judge for yourself if I acted in good faith or out of spite. Before you accuse me of

1489:

We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules

1462:

articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Knowledge and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2,

4278:

Regex looks on point, namespace restriction definitely helps but only if you know the edits will 100% be in that namespace. Sounds like this one won't have many hits, is long-term, and restricted to that exact phrase. We should look into a general-purpose long-term sock filter that we can just add

3201:. I admire your sense of leadership and initiative to make cool things like this happen. I unfortunately got caught up in the holiday season which kept me from doing as many reviews as I would have liked to have done. However it doesn't stop here. Plenty more GA reviews ahead, namely with my pal 5678:

Hi. You are wrong about reversing the changes I made, although I do understand that it would be hard to believe for you that substantial parts of these songs were composed and recorded into a taperecorder in the 1980's by me (Raghu V. Acharya) back when I lived in Madison and DeForest WI, in my

4231:

will work. For performance, put whatever would eliminate most edits first, such as user group, namespace, then all the regex stuff after that. Finally, I'd prefer any other effective preventive measures over an edit filter, such as page protection. Since the filters tax the entire system, if it

2418:

after I did. This caused me to start digging through their contributions going back to at least April, some of which were still the current edit on those articles. Literally every one of their edits is either blatantly false or much more subtly so.. like changing release dates to be inaccurate,

5619:

For starters, I don't like the idea of going around adding pending-changes protection to every article that gets a little bit of vandalism here and there. A single article with a high edit rate clogging the PC backlog is the same tons of low edit rate articles under pending-changes protection.

5545:

In reading what the two editors posted I can see why you granted thei request. However they came at you under false pretenses. These two have consistently teamed Awarded on Mormon issues in a light that is explicitly POV in an un-ture light. I ask that you take the time to read through their

2654: 1461:

114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed

5323:

How can delete discussion page of deleted article , because of misrepresentation and humiliation, from some users on talk page because the person whose article deleted preparing to sue wiki, because of ridicule, it is correct to delete article if it is not by policy and rules on wiki but on

2096:

My apologies for coming across as abrupt and rude. I've seen what you did. I know it's a content dispute (very minor content in fact), and usually I would just let it go, but as you can see that person has a history of non cooperation with others and would not engage in discussion even when

1981:

Unfortunately this may have to wait. I have a review of my own I need to do, among many other things on and off wiki, and another wikibreak this Thursday–Sunday. I'm going to say come the new year I'll be back online in full, so let's get in touch then. Sorry for the wait. Happy holidays! —

847:

I had no idea you were waiting on me; I was waiting on you for ideas on how to expand on its operations. I know little about trains so I wouldn't know what to research for that, but you likely would, having indicated your interest/knowledge of the subject. As far as I can tell, I've written

3985:

for now for technical reasons. It is OK to test using the current setup of loading the files raw, but in production it is highly inefficient. So I would like to set it up using a core gadget that can be loaded as a module rather then a raw file. This will save two requests per page view.

2265:). Whether or not other people endorsed the article is irrelevant, I think. Professors, doctors, whatever, the content still need to be verifiable. Honestly, the draft doesn't look too bad to me, though. They have sources, they're just inline with the text (which is okay except for 1445:

switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles.

3546:

That's respectable to consider it bothersome to admins, and maybe it is to some. Certainly no harm in asking, though! :) I can't speak for MA except that he's responsive and reliable. Maybe at AIV provide a link or two that makes it more obvious to the patrolling admin. I saw that

1256:

I don't know how I feel about semi-protecting a mainspace talk page. Fortunately it looks like they've moved on for the time being, and with the article fully-protected maybe the content dispute will be resolved, and that in turn will discourage the user from further disruption. —

4921:

as it was a redirect. I'll find out what's going on with the original copy to see if the AfD should be closed. Anyway considering nearly all of the user's contributions are to that page, and that page does not exist right now, I'm not sure a block is any bit preventive. We can

1432:

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was

2769: 2046:

Happy 2015!! Still hours away for me. And frankly, tomorrow might be an all-recovery day :) I do have a lot of other things on my agenda but rest assured a joint review is in our near future. I very much look forward to actually being able to do free-time stuff like this! —

5239:

Yes, sorry it has taken forever! I've still got numerous off-wiki projects I'm in the midst of. We can still do this, though. I'll be out of town this weekend, so let's go with next week and I'll help do the review in tandem with my other work. This time it's a promise! —

4128:

Hi just wondering if I could pester you with a couple of Edit Filter related questions. I'm looking at some existing edit filters to get to know how they work (the ridiculous requests backlog needs addressing) and am a little unsure about a couple of things I've seen.

5397:

15:59, 26 January 2015 MusikAnimal (talk | contribs) deleted page Danilo Saveljič (Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Danilo Saveljič (2nd nomination))18:40, 5 July 2007 MastCell (talk | contribs) deleted page Danilo Saveljič (See Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Danilo

3295:- Village Pump (Proposals). It's not the admins who make the decisions, BTW. Things like that are decided by consensus of all (all who visit places like VPP and bother to join in, that is...). In discussions in places like the VP, admins and non-admins are equal. 2234:

bringing up issues I didn't know how to deal with. This includes the fact that the article was approved by some doctors or something (possibly colleagues), and that they are wondering how to include short quotes from them. I don't know if that is even allowed per

2123:. It didn't say you violated policy in any way. It's procedural, for me at least, to let the user know about 3RR before blocking them. It became clear to me you were in fact familiar with this rule, which is why I reverted that edit to your talk page, citing 4370:) depending on whether you want a rate limit or not. Reason both added_lines and removed_lines are there is in case the regex being tested for is moved (from memory the filter sees that as removed and added - how you'd see it if you saw in the diff view). 1569:

We feel that the fact that is is a racist ideology is described in virtually every section of the article and putting it in the lead sentence just bloats the intro unnecessarily. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that the same dispute is happening on the

829:

I can try to help some, but generally it's the submitter who addresses the concerns for the review. You may wish to remove the unsourced material and expand on the operations, if you feel that needs to be done. Whenever you think the article has met the

5180:

The Knowledge training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm.

1216:

today, the single-purpose IP vandalism continues. The person (impersonating me as NotTechimo) was blocked, then you blocked the one IP, but now the vandal is back (and reverted your, and my, edits) under a dynamic ATT wireless IP, which is again a

2766: 4860: 4880:, an attempt to circumvent the AfD process, gross incompetence or a bit of each. Given his history of recreating deleted articles, removing speedy templates and now an inexplicable move, I think a block is in order. What do you think? -- 1473:

For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on

4862: 4349:. If this is true, we might could request the value to be raised. I say this because I can only imagine that the infrastructure we have today is more powerful (CPU, memory, etc) than it when the abusefilter was first introduced. — 4658:

Thank you for your message regarding the edit I made on the Florence and the Machine page. I understand that you felt it wasn't constructive but it's a shame you deleted it the content because it's relevant to her new singles.

1668:(in good-faith) was under the impression they were not allowed. Much of the material they later removed was unsourced, but it looks like they also re-added and revised some the original content supported by Spanish sources ( 1309:

The writers of the technical newsletter are asking for your opinion. Did you get the information you wanted this year? Did we miss important technical news in 2014? What kind of information was too late? Please tell us at

353:

that you may want to review, but I'm not sure of where to find a how-to or a guideline on how they should be constructed. I personally am not good at this kind of stuff. I do however know just the person who is... pinging

1606:

template was already there and had nothing to do with the decision to fully protect. It linked to a talk page discussion that since has been archived. So to avoid ambiguity I have removed it for now. I'll talk a look at

4873: 5359:

Not me by myself but club and his lawyers, because of the humiliation on talk page , and that discussion page will be on google search that is the most problem, please help to solve this with some agreement--

4918: 4153:

works by defining a regex statement, naming it "line1" (is this a special name or could it be called anything?), and then referencing it in the actual requirement for logging to save writing it out twice?

2419:

adding false categories, and so on. I have yet to find a single valid edit that can stand. I suppose this is just a heads-up to get more eyes on the situation. Looks like a long-term hoaxer or troll. --

4605: 4700:

Hallo, (and thanks to MusikAnimal for his ospitality here :-))) it's me who asked a temporary semiprotection of the article, to avoid an (already ongoing) edit warring. Please consider the following:

4366:

so that the filter will also ignore users with the confirmed user right. Because it just tests with that word is in the user groups. You can probably add "jetanian" to either 16 or 260 (there's also

1466:

articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least

130:

The Technical Operations team is now using Phabricator to track their tasks. The Operations team manages the Wikimedia servers. In the future you will be able to see the tasks that are not private.

4710:, if another user revert your changes, a discussion should start on the article's talk page and the original version of the article should stay on the article until consensus has been reached; 3566: 1052:, user Catastros has give no reason as to why that should be deleted. Personally I think this user is a little kid who can't stand to see one of their favorite character's come across as weak. 3244:

There is a reason, I didn't know what I was doing :/ I closed the RfA per their request, probably should have let someone else handle it! Anyway I've updated the relevant pages now. Thanks —

4062:

All JavaScript on Commons was broken for a few minutes on Tuesday. It was because of old code in the HotCat tool. The same problem happened on some Wikipedias on Wednesday. It is now fixed.

4048:. Knowledge in Italian, Indonesian and Japanese language have the most files to fix. On the biggest wikis you should use bots. Bots can add information templates to groups of files. You can 4889: 651:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. 553:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. 464:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. 2372:

I believe is what represents national debt, but that article appears to present the data as percentages rather than currency (not really sure how that works, frankly). Hope this helps. —

2785:

You had every reason to assume this was a copyright violation, but checking the revision history, I have in fact confirmed the original text was written prior to that of the original

1493:

Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA!

5105: 5478: 1834: 1758: 5651:

I think the edit rate is probably too high on that article, although most edits appeared to be from confirmed users. I'll to talk to the protecting admin about that. As for

4449: 3038:

Hi! I assume you came to be based on my username... While I am a big music fan I must admit I don't know too much about musicology :( Sorry I could not be of more help. —

3762:

That one was my fault, I believe. The other I actually saw "Amazon Prime" on my end. I'll have to keep a closer eye and file a bug report if it keeps happening. Thanks —

5542: 2128:

another frivolous editing dispute. Finally, at least in general, I will have to state it's unfair to treat anonymous users differently. Thanks for your understanding. —

4144:

Internally one is assigned (confirmed) while the other is automatically assigned (autoconfirmed), but as far as I can tell, with edit filters they are one and the same.

5261:- he is xwiki spammer and have removed lv4 warning from his talkpage. If he adds external links again, block should be given. (I already have indef'ed him on kowiki.) 4969: 4818: 3847: 1519: 1146: 5541:

Howdy. I understand I am to ask you to unprotect a page you protected before posting the request on the designated page for these things. Can you please unprotect

5506:

I had retracted my comment as I thought maybe you wanted to get broader input first. Anyway the article has been deleted, let me know if you'd like it restored :) —

5193: 4232:

doesn't get a lot of hits it may be better just to deal with the abuse the old fashioned way. Also, try to see if there's an existing filter you can modify. Namely

5300:

Yoohoo, I browsed GAN list and there was nothing convinced me like "I have to review this!!!!" yet, so let's wait few days and I'll hopefully find my favourite. —

4896: 4810: 3871: 3062: 3027: 2963: 1896: 1634:

they delete. Winkelvi seems to enjoy deleting others work. Citing reasons such as foreign language sources. Thank you in advance for your rationailty. 30/12/2014

1483: 1134: 4484: 4049: 4759: 1904: 1118: 4786: 3879: 3855: 2971: 2503: 1938: 1880: 1864: 1539: 1191: 1157: 5694: 5073: 4852: 4091: 3913: 3463: 3005: 2927: 1522:. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants. 1329: 184: 5160: 4977: 3396:) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 7. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from January 13. It will be on all Wikipedias from January 14 ( 1553:

article. But the thing is, no facts are being disputed, it's rather a difference of opinion regarding formatting of lead sentence. A few want the lead to be

1050:

He can remain as He-Man for as long as he wants but if he takes too much damage or uses too much raw force, he will revert back to his original form of Adam"

382: 2663: 2543: 4802: 4287:

who I think would be more knowledgeable about that filter. Anyway for now I think creating a new filter is fine. You may also want to add it to Mr.Z-bot's

3863: 2947: 2557:

turned off. Thank you DPL bot! I've gone so long without your assistance, a little embarrassing even. Keep this just between you and me, yeah? Thanks :) —

2304: 1872: 1126: 336: 5093: 4739: 4594: 4111: 3483: 3310:

Ditto. We unfortunately can't do anything, and frankly don't have much more pull than any other registered user. Best of luck to whatever you're after! —

2221: 1685: 1349: 204: 4767: 2394: 2380: 1014:

Glad to hear it. If it's a single editor that is causing disruption we usually opt for blocking them anyway. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. —

5721: 4539: 3066: 2810:

Please delete the wiki page on Jackson Wilcox. That page is about me and is causing unwanted attention in both my work life and personal life. Thanks.

2248: 2231: 5673: 5563: 5547: 3770: 3757: 3739: 3046: 2840: 2818: 5584: 5528: 5514: 5053: 4041: 3699: 3686: 2862: 2797: 2780: 2755: 2637: 2493: 2480: 2462: 1394: 961: 938: 5454: 5441: 5433: 5427: 5414: 5407: 5399: 5388: 5375: 5368: 5360: 5354: 5341: 5325: 5156: 5114: 4934: 4778: 4544: 4357: 4328: 4299: 4273: 4248: 2955: 2892: 5663: 5646: 5628: 4685:

Why you protected page? censorship seems ... you have not noticed the ongoing discussion on the User talk:Cplakidas. Knowledge is based on sources--

4389: 3670: 3637: 1826: 777: 4431: 4410: 4178:

variable that apparently doesn't work. So instead if we want to ensure whatever is being added wasn't there beforehand (or vice versa), we use the

3225: 2281: 1961: 1361: 3318: 3304: 3266: 3252: 2687: 2565: 2211: 2198: 2176: 1619: 1265: 417: 230:

could merge the individual images below into a single image I think it would really benefit the page. I will give you the images I've got so far:

4489: 3213: 3086: 2136: 1022: 5306: 5295: 5271: 5248: 4912: 4644: 3588: 3577: 3541: 3529: 2239:. Can you respond to their concerns and answer their questions? You are more experienced than I and you would be able to provide better help. -- 2066: 2055: 2001: 5490: 5137: 4973: 4834: 3521:

interpret it as blatant sockpuppetry or block evasion, so I'd argue AIV is not the best place. At any rate thanks for your vigilant efforts. —

1990: 403: 4674: 4257:

seems to do the trick, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Should it have narrower scope so that it isn't running for too many edits? Thanks,

2348: 1673:). Those actions seem okay to me. The article was also semi-protected due to persistent sockpuppetry, which I know nothing about. Anyway, the 4794: 3839: 3611:

should be deleted, I had requested speedy deletion for violating copyrights and the user removed it and then copied from other websites like

1888: 1775: 4900: 4574:

for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.

3941: 1002: 886: 869: 842: 4471:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 3967: 3140: 3127:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 2041: 1381:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 4468: 3124: 1378: 308: 5346:

You may not delete the discussion in whole or part. It must be retained for historical reasons. Who is planning to sue Knowledge? You? —

2023: 5555: 3822: 2830: 2097:

approached to do so on a talk page. Normally I am a lot more civil with registered users, and less so with IP users. Anyway, thank you.

1952: 1413: 875: 792: 216: 5333: 4212: 3031: 2586: 1749: 1048:, but this user clearly doesn't have enough experience at typing or to be editing on Knowledge. The info on that page where it says, " 2523: 2485:

Thanks for looking into it so closely! I revert stuff like this with Huggle and would never have known this was a long-term issue. —

987: 388: 3582:

Yoohoo, kowiki AfD is full of K-POP articles too and I will be listed there as "kowiki admin who deletes K-POP articles". Hooray! —

702: 604: 5709:

on how to add references. If you are unable to produce a reference, I'm afraid the content cannot be added. Everything needs to be

4458: 4451: 4308:

log only for a few days to make sure it doesn't flag things it shouldn't, then I'll add it to the AIV list if everything seems ok.

575: 5081: 4999: 4984: 4099: 4017: 4002: 3471: 3354:

Rotated PDF files in landscape format used to show too small. They will now display correctly. You may need to purge older files.

3342: 3327: 3229:

not seen one before that didn't get listed, apart from a few that were simply deleted. Is there some reason why this isn't there?

3098: 2740: 2697: 2673: 2610: 2269:

criteria). If they get the quotes sorted out I think it's probably acceptable, but I'm not the best to ask about AfC. Let me ping

1649: 1337: 1287: 1272: 1100: 506: 477: 192: 118: 103: 4196:

Feel free to send me in the direction of the Edit Filter talk page or somewhere if you aren't sure or don't have time to answer!

3612: 5419:

That is also not indexed by search engines. One would have to know the exact URL to find that. You've nothing to worry about. —

5069: 4694: 4519:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

4087: 3626: 3459: 3363: 2909: 2162: 1583: 1325: 920: 180: 5634: 4839: 4312:

got tripped this morning, but only once, and I'm struggling to diagnose why it only picked up one of the IPs edits. Any ideas?

3900: 2992: 2149:

How come you unprotected it so fast? The article has been subject to vandalism from this one long term problem user for years.—

1925: 1852: 1399: 1178: 1106: 759: 4223: 2888: 1241: 5472: 5077: 4747: 4620: 4095: 3827: 3467: 3105: 2935: 2519: 2516:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1781: 1641: 1437:, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; 1333: 673: 188: 3507: 3184: 1677:

is not protected and is an excellent venue to reach out to other editors more familiar with the subject. Hope this helps. —

143: 4848: 4686: 4666: 4253:

Thanks! I'm looking at fulfilling the edit filter request made by Lukeno94, currently sat at the top of the requests page.

3909: 3001: 2682:

requires suppression, they rip off every above website link that I have provided. Nothing more than a duplicate article of

2432: 2340: 2106: 2091: 1934: 1535: 1218: 1187: 5606: 4283:

was it but I don't think it is, or at least doesn't meet our needs here since it only disallows after throttling. Pinging

3285: 2354:

Hey there! I believe the data you are referring to may not be the same as what this article is intended to show, which is

5686: 3996: 3947: 3933: 3725: 1691: 1671: 1669: 1067: 2261:

Quotes are fine so long as the quoted person is relevant, and the quote is reliably source with an inline citation (see

4561: 4472: 3982: 3792: 3749: 3717: 3128: 3058: 3023: 2406: 1844: 1382: 1053: 4998: