User talk:Kcordina

A tag has been placed on

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering whether it would be possible to get any feedback on why the entry for Survivors Fund (SURF) was deleted? Any guidance that you could offer would be gratefully received, and whether it would be worthwhile recreating the page? If so, what we would then need to do differently to ensure that it is acceptable?

Any help gratefully received.

Kind regards,

David www.survivors-fund.org

Just wanted to say "thanks" for reverting the vandalism to my userpage (several times!). :) -

No worries, any time, thanks for the message. Kcordina ^Talk 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popping by to thank you for the revert to my userpage. The vandals sure are at it tonight :) Mattie^TK 01:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Mattie^TK 01:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For fixing vandalism on my talk page I hereby present you with a cookie:

Jake Wartenberg^talk has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

[1] — Instead of warning the editor of page-blanking, you probably could have made some lives easier by just tagging the article for speedy deletion under

Hi. As thrilled as I am to see additional administrators hanging around

I seem to have caught you just after you departed. Just my luck. :/ The infringement in this situation is minor, but it does exist. Several sentences are copied verbatim from the external source, which is against US copyright law as well as (of course) our copyright policy. It also violates our

non-free content policy, in that it is not clearly marked as copied text and it is not necessary to use the copyrighted text to illustrate an idea or attribute a position. Since WP:C clearly indicates that we must "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others" because "This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project" and since the contributors did not themselves take advantage of the time to revise, I'm going to go ahead and do so myself as recommended at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins. If you disagree that the use of material from this site constitutes a copyright infringement, please let me know, and we can seek additional feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Still here, just doing other things. I agree the sections were copied, but in my view only insubstantial sections were taken which from my understanding is not a violation. Your solution is much better though, so certainly no complaints. Kcordina ^Talk 00:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd missed you. :) I'm afraid that even if it is relatively minor, it's likely to be a problem unless the material is excluded, like official titles or lists of ingredients or the sorts of other things mentioned at [2]. The Supreme Court has deliberately set the creativity threshold for copyright very low, noting "even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble, or obvious' it might be." Obviously shy of going to court, we can't be sure where the court would land on less serious matters, but when sentences are copied verbatim, it seems like a good idea to follow

WP:C's exhortation to "If in doubt, write it yourself." Not that sometimes I wouldn't rather not be bothered. :/ I'm not at all kidding about being thrilled to see an additional admins hanging around CP. I know you've been there before, but sometimes it gets lonely there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh come off it, deep down you loved the new and improved article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.125.205 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kcordina,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kcordina. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Kcordina, this is a message from an

Template:Election dual-member end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 22:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a

(delivered by mabdul 23:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Rainbow Books has been nominated for merging with Template:Compact disc. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Conquerist (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current