User talk:Kww

Archives at:

1. User talk:Kww/04022009
2. User talk:Kww/Archive05202009
3. User talk:Kww/Archive09072009
4. User talk:Kww/04012010
5. User talk:Kww/04232010
6. User talk:Kww/06052010
7. User talk:Kww/06182010
8. User talk:Kww/07182010
9. User talk:Kww/07242010
10. User talk:Kww/11012010
11. User talk:Kww/04142011
12. User talk:Kww/08252011
13. User talk:Kww/03122012
14. User talk:Kww/11032012
15. User talk:Kww/06092013
16. User talk:Kww/12072013
17. User talk:Kww/20140727
18. User talk:Kww/20150717

This person is not notable, and certainly doesn't need 14 seperate wiki articles on each of his works, none of which are notable or sourced, nor is he. He appears to be a hack bedroom producer that simply uploads his content to illegal file sharing sites. I've nomined him for speedy deletion. Please also assist removing the other 12+ pages he has made himself, apparently.

Nelly Furtado has a portuguese passport, she said it in an interview to The Independent in 6 March 2004 (she was interview by Aoife O'Riordain), but The Independent has erased that interview probably because it was done more than 10 years ago (the interview was located here: http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news_and_advice/story.jsp?story=498282). What you call a fansite is a forum where the interview was "copy pasted". I don't know why you guys are trying so hard to hide the fact that Nelly has portuguese citizenship, but that's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockmaker00 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I found that source! The Independent (UK) 6 March 2004, Nelly Furtado interview by Aoife O'Riordain. Title of the interview: «My Life in Travel: Nelly Furtado.» Blockmaker00 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was an interview in a portuguese magazine in 11 November 2006 (Revista Única), where the journalist ask: "Do you feel more canadian or portuguese?" And Nelly say: "I have a Canadian and a Portuguese passport, but I feel more Portuguese because of my roots." Check http://nellyfurtado-ninhas.blogspot.pt/2008/02/revista-nica-portugal-2006.html and you will find a photo from the pages and the title "I feel more portuguese". That sentence is mencioned all over the net (google "Nelly furtado" and "passaporte português"). Wikipedia should be a place for facts, but that's not the case. Shame on you.Blockmaker00 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems I found AGAIN that Nelly Furtado is Portuguese. In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCqT2PIsDzo (@01:55 - an interview to a brazilian program), Nelly say: "Sou canadiana, mas portuguesa também. A minha alma e o meu coração são portugueses". Let me translate it for you: "I'm canadian, but also portuguese. My heart and my soul are portuguese." That's a primary source, don't you think? Will you change the article to Portuguese-Canadian or do you want me to do it? Blockmaker00 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will need to evaluate the YouTube video later, Blockmaker00: I cannot access YouTube from work.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Take a look at this video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYGKj3WPhQk. It's an interview to a mexican program. Nelly say @02:30: «Yo me siento hispanica y latina también, porqué yo soy portuguesa». In english: «I feel hispanic and latin also, because I am portuguese». I will continue to look for more videos, but I think we have the evidence we need in these two (Nelly say she is portuguese in 2 different languages). Blockmaker00 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB38fLBZc8I (portuguese program). @02:38 Nelly say: «Descobri a música mais moderna de Portugal. Música que vinha de Lisboa: Pedro Abrunhosa, Santos e Pecadores, Madredeus... Coisas que me faziam sentir orgulhosa de ser portuguesa. Fiquei ainda mais orgulhosa de ser portuguesa.» In english: «I discovered the portuguese modern music. Music from Lisbon: Pedro Abrunhosa, Santos e Pecadores, Madredeus... Things that made me feel proud of being Portuguese. I felt even more proud of being portuguese». Blockmaker00 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to see the other videos. See this one in english: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ezIHQ0pkTE. @01:25, Nelly is asked: «You are not spanish, right?». And then, the answer: «No. I'm actually PORTUGUESE-CANADIAN....» Not a fansite, not a blog: the truth from her own mouth. Blockmaker00 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to see a video that isn't a copyright violation, Blockmaker00. None of those are authorised copies.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can find one video that isn't a copyright violation. But I will try. At least, now you know the facts: she is portuguese and she said it dozens of times in newspappers, magazines and TV shows. It's really sad to see «is a Canadian singer» in the Wiki page after hearing Nelly say repeatedly she's portuguese-canadian... Blockmaker00 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Kww and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were one of editors of the article. I invite you to an RFC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However the case ends, do know that you've definitely had a positive impact on Wikipedia overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• List of best-selling music artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please can you unprotect that page. You protected it about 3 months ago; there's no indications that it still needs protection now. Thanks. 88.104.25.154 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that page has been protected for years, and can't seem to survive unprotected. What you see in the log is me moving it back to semi-protected after a brief period of full protection. So, sorry, won't be doing that any time soon.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsguy17 (T • C) 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's for long-term relationships with multiple collaborations. See Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts for an expansion, Justasaddream.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 13 July. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, I'm really sorry that much of the input at arbitration has favored you losing the mop. Hoping that doesn't happen. Not sure what you'll do if you become desysopped, but I wish you all the best for the future, and definitely don't think you've been as bad of an admin as some users seem to suggest. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though, thanks for your past five years of your administrative efforts. Eyesnore 02:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you as well for your service as an admin. You definitely have been an overall net positive to the project. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kww, in the open Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kww, I think you're aware of Anonpediann although I thought I'd bring him up anyway. He's got a retired sticker on his talk page, yet he's going through talk pages and removing comments like here. I'm surmising that he is removing them because he believes they are his (I note that User:Justasaddream redirects to his user page), but this is obviously disruptive if other people have responded to them. Thoughts? I'm a little confused by this scenario. I think that maybe he was signing comments as Justasaddream even though that account didn't exist? I found a proper name change request from Urjustaghost --> Anonpediann so that one is clear to me. I'm still warming up to my newly "earned" admin tools. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewarn, revert, and block if it repeats.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time you were on Bonaire? Atsme^📞📧 00:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This spring. Believe me, I'd love to be able to just move back home.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back to the US - was on Bonaire for 10 mos. Wish I had known you were there!! Atsme^📞📧 01:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Kww (talk · contribs)'s administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship

2. Kww (talk · contribs)'s edit filter manager permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysopped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire. If he is not desysopped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.

3. The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters, and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For defending the verifiability policy, even at personal cost. Reyk YO! 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevin, I am sorry to see this. Setting aside all the disputes and disagreements you and I have had, I'm sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I too am very sad to see this. --John (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• So am I. You will be missed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Missed, SNUGGUMS? Kww hasn't left, has he? But I'm very sorry to see the result of the case. Kww, even though I've sometimes felt your style was a bit like that of a steamroller, I admire your work. Few people have done as much as you for the site, and I will certainly support any time you want to go for a new RFA. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• He stated in this edit he's not going to be very active anymore, Bishonen. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I doubt I will be very active from this point on. I've always been frustrated by Arbcom's ability to miss the point of every case set before it, and this case was no different. I view this as an extension of our Eric Corbett problem: once an editor is popular enough, the blowback from a block is hazardous. It was somewhat entertaining watching Arbcom try to distinguish the BLP violations TRM was blocked over from other BLP violations, try to rewrite WP:V and WP:BLP to justify their position, fail to do so, and still find that blocking TRM was so unjustifiable that I required a desysop. An edit filter that allowed an IP to talk about his edits rather than simply blocking him was some nefarious scheme of mine to avoid scrutiny? A failed experiment, certainly, but hardly a nefarious scheme. An edit filter that prevented the addition of completely unsourced tables to awards articles was so problematic as to warrant a desysop? Not in any universe that takes WP:V seriously.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You definitely shouldn't have lost your mop, I'll say that now. Very few other editors I know of are quite as attentive to sourcing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry about this. You've done a lot for the project, and the bravery I've seen in standing up to malign folk should earn you plaudits, not this. I've long since given up on ArbCom as something necessary for the project I hope you stay. I understand if you do not. In any event you have my great respect and gratitude.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's disappointing that you were desysopped and I think it's a shame that you're scaling back your time here. I can't think of a more productive, effective and efficient admin in the music articles than you, Kww; it won't be easy for others to fill in for the work that you've done. Acalamari 13:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked and dismayed by this news. Although I am not involved in this dispute, I wish to echo the sentiments of Acalamari and others. I have come to consider you the MAIN MAN when it comes to music articles and have learned much from observing your edits and project activities. One thing that I remember learning from you particularly is that Bubbling Under charts are not true extensions of their parent charts, as songs cannot fall back through the BU positions after the song has been on the parent chart.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too am very sorry to see that this has happened. I am not as active on Wikipedia anymore, so this comes as a huge surprise, as I could not foresee anything like this happening. I say this because our previous experience has shown you to be extremely diligent and effective, with you being able to route out problematic editors of any kind. You will be sorely missed. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made several edits to the music wiki page of starkillers only to have been reverted by a rookie editor. I seek your assistance. This article is full of wiki:puff including talks of funding from (fictional) gangsters, unsubstatiated claims of chartings, an un-notable podcast internet radio show, etc. Its clearly authored by the dj himself as in the ASSOCIATED ACTS section, when you check to edit it, it states 'please don't add associated acts here as starkers is a freelance producer'.

It is a ridiculous promo piece.

Please check it out and revert the page back to my edits.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housexpose (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unrelated to anything you've done (if you've even done anything; I don't know) before or after the decision was announced. Basically, several people were confused by remedy #2, so I've filed a request to get Arbcom to clarify what they meant. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant. Thank you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy notification since you have been mentioned on AN. Well, technically you're mentioned on Technophant's talk page which is partially transcluded on AN (long story), but the end result is similar enough that I feel it warrants the usual notification.. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you give up, perhaps we all need to. Thought of losing an admin devoted to verifiable content saddens me. Best wished. Hope all that was needed was a break, not retirement. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to cause drama and strife, please do not post on The Rambling Man's talk page again. I can't put it simpler than that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't want to to respond, Ritchie333, he shouldn't intentionally ping me while insulting me. I don't know how much simpler than that I can put it.—Kww(talk) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to go to TRM's page and advise him of the same, but he has scrubbed the message off his talk page, which I take to read he wants to forget it about it. Seriously, all that happens when the two of you bang heads is trouble; walk away from it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much have walked away: in the conflict between the content-creator cult and those of us that value reliable sourcing, the content-creator cult has won. I remain flabbergasted that an admin that intentionally violated WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLP, and WP:NPA had such widespread support, but a dissent-free Arbcom decision made it pretty clear that I'm no longer welcome. I only monitor my talk page for the occasional ping that I receive to take care of any issues that I may have left open.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration clarification request dated 4 August 2015, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived to the Kww and The Rambling Man case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but look at other discography pages. They all have numbers greater than 100 for songs who peaked in "Bubbling Under Hot 100." WikiBrainHead (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You previously gave an opinion about the filmography section at Kim Kardashian. Please see Talk:Kim Kardashian, where a request for comments has been started. 31.54.158.76 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone taken the edit requesting of her surname not being used more than once after her occupations as a model and TV personality respectively? It sounds messed up and out of place. The tape made her famous after all.

I know that you retired from adminship, but let someone take the opposite to Kourtney Khloe and Kylie's surnames being repeated after said occupations because using she is repetitive.

Thats all,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED --Guy Macon (talk)

I'm not sure if you remember me (you're probably more familiar with another username, which you can see on my user page), but I'm sorry to hear that you lost your administrative privileges. I only just now found out while keeping up, though I'm not participating, with a discussion regarding possible tool misuse by an administrator. (Do a CTRL + F for your name "Kww." You're mentioned three times.)

Both you and Apparition11 frequently tried to help me when I was in my "stubborn era," and as you can see from my block log, I never really "soaked" all the advice in, so I was out for a while. Amaury (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin. I'm having a problem with an IP at the article The Stone Roses (album). They continue to restore their controversial edit to the article, without responding to content of their changes at the RfC (I opened for them), calling WP:BRD an "irrelevant doctrine" and refusing to leave the article in the condition it was in before their bold edit was made, like BRD states, instead reverting and edit-warring once again. Could you please help restore some order to the article? It appears it is the same who disrupted the article in November of last year when they forced several RfCs at the talk page in an attempt to introduce similarly synthesized material into the article using the same sources. Dan56 (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No admin tools left here, Dan56.—Kww(talk) 09:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kww, I'm sorry to see you won't be around any more – for various reasons, Wikipedia has lost quite a number of longstanding excellent editors like yourself over the last 12 months, and that can't be good for the project. Anyway, just a quick question if you are still reading your talk page: are there other editors who will be maintaining the Singlechart and Albumchart templates in your absence? Best wishes for the future. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I keep track of pings and messages. Not as quickly as I used to (depends on how bored I am). No one in specific has taken over the templates I used to maintain, but there are a number of editors that do OK with them.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks, I'll direct my query there then - the German chart website has changed its layout and consequently screwed up all the links that pointed there. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kww! I just wanted to ask you for help because in the page "That's the Spirit", at the composition section, backing the genres, there are a lot of sources which reliability is not clear at all. Could you help me to clean up this sources i'm talking you about? Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Anonpediann (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you unlock the article had been protected so I can add some details not for vandalism, is for own good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.199.242.44 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit this page to reply to me, please read the message that comes up.—Kww(talk) 21:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you be amenable for me removing the protection on this talk page you added back in March? [1] Another IP (unrelated to this one) wants to discuss something, and it's pretty rare that we lock talk pages indefinitely to anyone. PS: I know you don't have the tools anymore, but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why anyone chooses to discuss it any more, Ritchie333, but if you want to put up with it, feel free to put up with it.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kww

Your section on the evidence page has been moved to the evidence talk page as it does not meet the requirements for inclusion as evidence. This has been undertaken as a clerk action and should not be reverted.

For the Arbitration Comittee. Amortias (T)(C) 12:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

User LikeDude23 keeps vandalising the 5 Seconds of Summer page, by constantly changing the genres of the band to pop and classing them as a boyband. Their acts have been extremely annoying and as you protected the page, I ask you to do something about the user's constant disruption to the page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafire94 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was on the Lucifer DC comics page and noticed that a user Lucifer Morningstar, is adding information that Jdogno5 previously added to the page that is speculative. Looking at his contributions show that he had been editing pages that Jdogno5 use to and adding the same/similar information, similar grammar and wordage, etc. As you previously blocked Jdogno5, and it is rather blatant that they are the same person, I fighters I should let you know to see if there is socking going on. Sorry to bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.76.228.45 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

		Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
		May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

happy new year, kww! i tried to add an archive.is link to the ian murdock article as no reference otherwise but a pastebin link confirms that he announced his death. but i get an error that archive.is is not allowed. i read the rfc and i would be annoyed as well by some bot adding links to a users own archive service. but in this case i find it not so practical. i read on the rfc that it is not on the spamlist. can you please detail the exact conditions when archive.is would be allowed and when not? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. It's never acceptable under any condition for any reason. If you can't find a reliable source to point at, don't add the information. If you can find a reliable source to point at, feel free to use a reputable archiving service to archive the link.—Kww(talk) 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kww. The clerks have redacted parts of your statement at WP:ARC. You are welcome to rephrase removed content in a way that is not inflammatory and does not contain personal attacks. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know on my talk page. (Specific actions may or may not have been taken by me personally.) Questions may also be directed to the clerks' noticeboard, the clerks' mailing list (clerks-llists.wikimedia.org), or the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org). Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker)- now that's just silly. How is someone supposed to say another editor is being disruptive on purpose if they're not allowed to say "being disruptive on purpose"? I think you clerks are far too overzealous with the redaction. Reyk _YO! 14:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond silly, but every interaction I've had with TRM has involved Humptydumptyism of one kind or another. He's a well-respected former bureaucrat and long-term administrator, you know, which means that we no longer expect him to be held to the same standards as mortal men, like actually following WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to discuss this with L235, but you're not welcome to just reinstate it. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Penikett[edit]

• Tony Penikett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: Expiration Date. Mo

• Why don't you responding unprotection of Tony Penikett few days ago?

• Because anyone that read the edit notice when they made the comment on my page would know that I can't do a damn thing about it, for one. For two, I don't believe that there's any need for anonymous editors to edit articles about living people.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you do it for god's sake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.132.63.52 (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to read indicates that no one should unprotect any article that you are interested in. Please go away until you become literate.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony Penikett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: Expiration. Mo

Let's repeat this: I cannot unprotect the page. It's impossible. Every time you leave me a message, you get a message explaining to you why it's impossible. Since you have failed to explain to anyone at any time exactly why the page should be unprotected, it's quite unlikely that anyone else will do it either. So go find something else to do.—Kww(talk) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Listen to you, your,re the one protecting the article I been not editing the article for 2 years so its your responsibility do it I say and no gets hurt GOT IT?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.132.216.5 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond one more time: I cannot unprotect the article. It is not possible. Even if I thought you had good intentions (which I don't) or thought you were competent to edit the article (which I don't), as the message you see every time you leave me a message explains, I am no longer an administrator. Go away now.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• please just once more I'll do anything I could? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.132.216.5 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• *sigh*—Kww(talk) 20:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the conclusion that it's no longer worthwhile to even engage "Mo" at all anymore. As of now, if I see any further "unprotect" requests from them on Talk:Tony Penikett or my own talk page, all I'm going to do is hit the revert button and walk away. You might want to consider that option as well, even if just as a sanity-preservation tactic. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awilley informed me that you were instrumental in the blocking of Funkatastic, so I just wanted to thank you for doing a great service to Wikipedia. Veteran users who reveal bad intentions late in the "game" are more dangerous to Wikipedia as a whole than most know. Happy editing! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you gave warnings to User talk:42.60.241.232 because their disruptive editing on VIXX, they seem to be at it again concerning what they think is unnecessary by removing it but that information has ALWAYS been on the page. Is there someway we can block this person from editing please? Alicia leo86 (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theepicwarrior has asked for a deletion review of UFC 157. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 22:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in 2009 you started an AfD for Croatian Airplay Chart, it was recreated in 2012 and I created an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian Airplay Chart (2nd nomination) to see if it should be deleted. Your input would be appreciated. Aspects (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I didn't notice the past history. I set the semi-protection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, can I request you to just per glance this discussion I initiated at Ericorbit's page here? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please take a look at the decision to collapse the discussion of Hyder, Alaska at WP:Editing policy.  I don't find it credible that this is not suitable for discussion from a policy viewpoint, especially in the context of the ongoing identical discussion on the talk page.  If you don't think that an un-collapse is appropriate, perhaps you would provide your own insights/viewpoint.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh, I see that you have not contributed to Wikipedia since my brief edit a week ago at WT:Editing policy.  Thought I'd let you know that this issue has gone to a noticeboard.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kww. Since you haven't been around for a while, I've added you to the page linked above due to inactivity. Please remember to remove yourself from the list if you come back. Your efforts will definitely not be forgotten either way. Best regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an edit war occurring that has been going on for the past few months now. And there seems to be no resolution. Inaccurate information keeps being embedded alongside improper grammar and lack of reliable, accurate sources. May you or another contributor of your power weigh in on the issue and reel in the users for the article's talk page? ChocoLantern88 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, ChocoLantern88, but I lost my adminship as punishment for my efforts to keep unsourced articles like that in check. I can't recommend any procedure that will work and not have you disciplined as a result. I found that giving up helped my attitude immensely.—Kww(talk) 02:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry to hear Kww, you were definitely a go-getter when it came to make sure that articles would not be congested with poorly misconstrued content and always set an end goal to ensure that the article lived up to a neutral tone in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you greatly for responding. ChocoLantern88 (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping you have a happy and successful 2018, and remember: "Illegitimi non carborundum". Reyk _YO! 09:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an edit request at Template talk:BillboardURLbyName#No longer works that begs for your help and attention. Please take a look. Happy New Year to You and Yours!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BillboardURL has been nominated for merging with Template:BillboardURLbyName. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Single chart/billboardref, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Muhandes (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BillboardChartNum has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BillboardEncode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you reduce the protection from Relax (song) to pending changes? There have been a few requests to make edits and Charlie is inactive (as far as I know). Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That edit notice you saw when you left this comment wasn't kidding, Tbhotch. They stripped me of adminstrative rights over five years ago for blocking an administrator that insisted on forcing unsourced material into articles.—Kww(talk) 04:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. I didn't read it and I didn't know about it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Singlechart usages for UKchartstats requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10764-018-0063-5 : "Originally expressed in English as “babewyn” (or “baboyn”), it was first applied (fifteenth century) to grotesque statues and decorations (e.g., how gargoyle is used today). In the fifteenth century, the word in English also became associated with monkeys of any origin (Oxford English Dictionary 2018). By the late 1800s, the term was used mainly for members of the tribe Papionini (i.e., large-bodied primates of Asia and Africa); but, in the 1900s, it quickly came to be associated particularly with large-bodied, terrestrial, long-snouted monkeys of Africa. These included members of the genus Papio (standard baboons), members of the genus Theropithecus (geladas, T. gelada), and members of the genus Mandrillus (mandrills, M. sphinx, and drills, M. leucophaeus). The continuation of the historical narrowing of the meaning of the term “baboon” ..." - so that reference is relevant and should not be deleted, methinks?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs)

User:Strecosaurus: there's no evidence that your citation is about a chimpanzee, then, so no, it should not be restored. What did they use in your Italian reference, and how do you know that it specifically refers to a chimpanzee and not some other ape?—Kww(talk) 05:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before anything I would like to point out that the most dubious of the three is the one that's actually preserved in the text of the article, from Damian, which only talks about "maimo", i.e. monkey - which is highly unlikely to be a sub-Saharan ape in the 11th century Liguria! Now, the text from the Italian-language reference (from travels to sub-Saharan Africa, and in particular Luanda is mentioned as being near where this supposedly happened) explicitly mentions that the crossing was with "macachi grandi", i.e. large monkeys (as opposed to mediocre and small monkeys, as mentioned/differentiated in one of the the previous sentences). This is as explicit a reference to an ape - either gorilla or chimpanzee - as can be in such an old and non-biological text. Now, I certainly cannot infer it is a chimpanzee but not a gorilla (and the same with the reference from the English text [which is of major importance, e.g. this work was cited in Roe vs Wade and many other proceedings], although, if true, it must be one of these because any other crossing is almost certainly too distant to be possible). But do you really think this therefore justifies purging this information from the article as irrelevant? [Or do you think there should be a separate page for human-ape hybrids? Or, if "no" to both, then information about possible crosses where it's uncertain if it's a chimp, bonobo, or maybe (less likely as they are more distant!) gorilla, should be omitted from W.?] I'd argue we should collect the highly relevant information - and even on the pedantic side it's possible it was specifically chimpanzee, that's not counterindicated either, and the talk is of possibility, so this is relevant even if more general human-ape hybrids are (pretty strangely!) considered irrelevant to the article.

So what I'm saying is, if an explicit reference to chimpanzee and not say even bonobo is necessary period, then most certainly the reference to Damian should be removed, too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs)

I'd prefer removing the older reference. If you want to write an article about ape-human hybrids, I'd have no objection. By the way, if you would end your comments with ~~~~, you'd be signing them.—Kww(talk) 14:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BaftaURL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singlecert has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singlechart called without song has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singlechart usages for Wallonia Tip has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1 § Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kww, RiSA launched The Official South African Charts which is based on streaming data primarily for South African music replacing EMA. I think it is necessary to add the chart data to the Wikipedia:Record charts/Sourcing guide along with its airplay and all. I'll be on the lookout for your response, Thank you. dxneo (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Billboard also launched Billboard South Africa songs dxneo (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Unsourced-award-warning, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Unsourced-award-warning and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Unsourced-award-warning during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]