User talk:Kcordina/archive2

Just a note to congratulate you on your happy family news. Hope mother and baby are both doing well. David | Talk 20:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also congratulating you! ellol 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest that you block this location?

I realise that this is a shared IP address and that such a ban would affect innocent users, but it might persuade the authorities to root out the vandal who is abusing this location. Viewfinder 13:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sadly I am not an

WP:VANDAL you'll see details of the process used to reprimand and block vandals. Also useful is this page which can be used to draw administrators attention to problem accounts/addresses for them to take action as appropriate. The address in question has been blocked in the past and so is likely to be blocked more quickly & for longer when they vandalise again. Repeated vandalism to one page (as has been done from this account) can be difficult to deal with through the warning system as lots of edits appear quickly and it is hard to determine which warning applies to what. The vandalism from this address seems to have stopped now, but with the extra warnings now on the talk page a block is likely to come more quickly next time. Kcordina ^Talk 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You recently completed a merge for H.323 Gatekeeper; for some reason, the merge tag was placed by the initial author of the article — a rather baffling act.

At any rate, I have elected to revert the effort, since there are gatekeepers which use OpenH323, an implementation of H.323.

If you have any questions or concerns, you are invited to raise them at the talk page for the reverted entry.

Cheers. Folajimi 23:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I don't know the subject matter well enough to have a strong opinion either way - the merge looked appropriate from the material in the articles at the time, but you clearly know the subject matter better than me (and than the original author by the sound of it!). Kcordina ^Talk 07:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my confusion. I saw a new entry on my watchlist with the comment, 'claim a case'. Is this meant for me to claim a case for mediation? Thanks! Thelma Bowlen 08:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary was me taking one of the cases, but with hindsight it's not a particularly useful summary. Of course, feel free to offer to mediate one of the cases if you think you can help out! Kcordina ^Talk 08:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! Will do so as soon as I get the hang of this whole editing/contributing/talking procedure! Thelma Bowlen 02:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you could help with an editing conflict that relates to the "Ideology" description of the Green Party of Canada. I believe I have made a good case that the Election 2006 Platform and membership are inaccurately defined as "Eco-Capitalist". Yes, among many other regulatory and educational approaches the Green Party also will pragmatically use market mechanisms to encourage environmental sustainability but the motivation is Ecological not Eco-Capitalist. I believe the Eco-Capitalist label is a POV. Is it possible to freeze this section with just the more neutral label "Green" (which is also already there) until this issue is resolved.

Thank-you, Eric Walton Ericbwalton 03:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric. I've looked through the article and discussion and it looks to me like there is a straight-forward disagreement over the use of a term. The way to resolve that is to discuss it on the talk page, which is what seems to be being done, and leave the article alone for a while to avoid an escalation of the edit war. Sure, that means the article isn't as someone likes it for a while, but it allows everyone to step back and decide on the issue. Ardenn's RFC is also a good idea and that should hopefully generate some consensus. I'm, unfortunately, not an admin so I can't protect pages, but also I don't think that would be right approach here. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the topic to know which is the right option, and so it would be hard to know which version to protect. The "wrong" version being up for a while while things are discussed is not a significant problem if it leads to the right solution, so I'd suggest you let it lie while it's discussed and focus your effort on getting your version accepted. Kcordina ^Talk 07:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another eloquent tirade from a vandal I'd reverted (it'll be in the history if you're interested). They couldn't even spell what they think I am correctly... Kcordina ^Talk 14:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please block 216.56.26.2 for ongoing vandalism on Wikipedia. I already posted it on the Requests for vandalism page, but they didn't do anything.

216.56.26.2 12:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I'm not an admin. Kcordina ^Talk 14:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a question to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would take a look at it. Thanks. JoshuaZ 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subst:smile3

}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features

AmiDaniel (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Syrthiss 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to everyone that supported my RFA, I hope I do good work and prove worthy of your support. Kcordina ^Talk 14:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserve this! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your recent sucessful RFA. I don't believe I voted on that one, I fell behind. Anyhow, can I give you a tip on AIV? Can you include something like not empty or empty in your edit summaries? That is helpful for checking this page. Keep up the good work!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Good advice re the edit summary - that had slipped my mind in my eagerness to help out. Kcordina ^Talk 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for your new adminship!

Please could you have a look at patent pirate and give us your opinion as to whether we should make it a disambig or redirect to patent infringement or not. See the discussion on Talk:patent pirate. Nowa thinks we should keep the article. I do not concur. --Edcolins 07:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I've replied on Talk:patent pirate. Kcordina ^Talk 08:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Actually the specific user User:201.2.37.231 seems to be one of many anons adding pornographic spam links to articles for the past few days. Also I reported him as he had got a 4im & t4 warning before (by other users). Anyway extensive vandal fighting does make you more aggressive and you slowly start leaving test3 & test4 warnings instead of test1, so I guess I'll take a small break be back again. Cheers. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 11:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kcordina. Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. The IP address responsible has been causing mischief on the Oundle School page for a while and I've been trying to keep an eye on it. - Gimboid13 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, congratulations on your promotion to admin and thank you for blocking the above mentioned IP address, whose contributions today also include an offensive edit to John Prescott. Viewfinder 15:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kcordina- just to let you know, the anonymous contributor has reverted to his version more than three times already. Should I let him know in my next (and last) revert that by reverting, he would be in violation of the 3RR? Thank you, --ForbiddenWord 14:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've done the right thing putting the template on his talk page - if it carries on, report it

here for someone to take action. Don't forget to be be careful that you don't fall foul of the same rule though! Kcordina ^Talk 14:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Alrighty, I will be careful. Thank you for the advice. :) --ForbiddenWord 14:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You blocked 80.249.49.8. I'm a logged in user with a good edit history and at work I edit from behind that or one other proxy, 80.249.52.136, which is also blocked, so I couldn't edit today. I'm not complaining - there's a lot of vandalism from both those IPs. There's a propsed solution to the problem, though: a softer form of blocking that still allows logged in users to edit. I'd appreciate it if you read Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal and voted. Thanks. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out to - I've read the proposals and voted in favour - absolutely it's the right way to go. The extra step of creating an account will stop 99% of vandals and allow you other good contributions to go on editing. I hope this gets implemented soon! Kcordina ^Talk 11:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply. There was a fair turmoil with the page earlier with POV, and I'm not sure about credibility/notability; the latest edit before my tag dumped bulk text in with some direct copyvio and presumably rewording from elsewhere. I wasn't comfortable with reverting it since the page already seemed to have too many issues, and that it reads like a pamphlet; if you believe the page is viable then go ahead, though I'd like to keep the citationneeded and cleanup tags in. --User:Firien § 09:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me - I've look back over the page again, and the copied text is very small sections so is fine (to infringe copyright it needs to be a 'substantial' amount of the work that is copied). I've reverted to the last version, and added a note on the talk page highlighting the need to be careful. I've absolutely let the tags there - it needs a good amount of work! Kcordina ^Talk 09:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recent vandalism to International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers was not mine: apparently someone has gotten ahold of my IP and is using it to make edits. Please apologize on my talk page for this mis-attribution.

The edit in question, ([1] came from the same IP address from which you are editing (198.148.166.5) and the warning given applies to anyone editing from that IP. IP's are often shared between multiple users, hence you may see warnings for edits by other people. To avoid that, register for an account and then you won't be tarnished by other peoples actions. Kcordina ^Talk 10:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Razer (Robot) I have recently requested this for informal mediation and have heard good things about your mediation skiils. Would you please consider this case on its merits for your mediation by yourself or pass it on to anyone else you think would be more suited to the mediation role in this case. thanks Lucy-marie 13:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm happy to help out, it's nice to know I've done a good job in the past. A helpful first step would be if you can provide some more details on the problem on the mediation request page so that I can get an idea of where we're starting from, then I'll have a detailed look through everything and try and move things forward. Kcordina ^Talk 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently in the midle of an edit war. The matter has been taken straight to arbitration without consideration of any other avenues. certian claims that my edits are unencyclopedic and belong on uncyclopedia have been made towards me. this was due to the other user thinking that me edit were unprofesional and gave to much unnecessary dtail. where as i was of the opinion that more information is a good thing rather than less. Iwas opposed to the standadizing of all the pages as well by the other user. Also it is claiimed that im am posting lies on the pages. Could you please inform the arbitration proceeding that you have taken in the case.

The warning was given in respect of this edit which does look like the removal of text, but when viewed with other edits it is a correction of a previous error, so the warning was unfairly given. However, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page with regard to this section and so it should be left out until that discussion is concluded. Kcordina ^Talk 15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to help sort this out, but this anon account keeps re-adding the information despite the inability to answer the comments on the talk page that were previously brought up (and I was a member of SCALE myself...). --Bobak 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources which reflects that citations are wanted at the Wiki. This is a well researched article with appropriate citations, it is not a dump. SirIsaacBrock 10:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully familiar with wikipedia's citation requirements, but the inclusion of citations is not at issue here. What is at issue is whether the text has been copied from the cited article. If the text has been copied that is a violation of copyright, which is not permissable. Has the text in question been copied from the sources? Kcordina ^Talk 10:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request action be taken with regard to a violation of the Three revert rule against User:FRCP11 on the article Henry M. Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bitJake (talk • contribs)

I have reviewed the edit history on this article and it does not appear that

admins noticeboard so that they can be handled through the official methods. Kcordina ^Talk 15:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]