![]() | This user may have left Wikipedia. The Kinslayer has not edited Wikipedia since July 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
![]() | The Kinslayer is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia when he damn well feels like it! |
Click
here to leave a message.
Any replies to messages on the talk page will be on my talk page to avoid fractured conversations
The Kinslayer
/Archive 1
/Archive 2 28/11/06 - 17/01/2007
/Archive 3 24/01/07 - 09/02/2007
/Archive 4 09/02/07 - 13/03/2007
Just back after trip and I see your last statement:
I agree that those sources do prove you and your companies notability, but the picture your showing us is a computer generated image? What the heck is that supposed to prove? Your company can produce an image using a computer? Well done. Moving on, I suggest a compromise. I'll change my opinion to keeping both articles, but I must insist that the claims of creating the Silicium escapement wheel stop. There are multiple readily available sources of other companies who also make the same claim, and theirs goes back further than 21 days, such as this one. More are available on demand. Is this acceptable? The Kinslayer 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, as far as I know, following brands have introduced or announced silicium parts for watch calibers: Patek Philippe, Brequet, Ulysse Nardin and Frederique Constant. Please let me know if you have found more.
Frederique Constant is the only watch brand in the Middle Segment (core collection retail Euro 500-5000) that produces its own movement (a Manufacture Caliber) with a silicium escapement wheel. I do not yet have any feedback that others will have similar in nearby future.
Above is not intended to have another heated discussion on what we claim. I fully follow and agree with you that we should not claim that we were the first to come with a silicium escapement wheel. As mentioned before, created to me as a Dutch, meant that we developped and produced such wheel. The picture was only intended to show a screendump from our CAD CAM system showing this part (the FC Silicium Escapement Wheel).
Meanwhile, both articles are deleted. Do you have a suggestion how to proceed? Pcstas 11:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my talk page where I have placed a draft for two articles. Can I ask your assistance to check. Once you agree, I would like to ask if you can re-create deleted articles to avoid I make another mistake. Thank you in advance. Pcstas 12:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just back from Japan and see that you have not replied to above. Feb. 22 you proposed compromise to keep both articles when we stop claiming that we created silicium escapement wheel. Believe I have done so in draft article and asked you feedback. Hope you can answer {{ helpme}} Pcstas 08:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
why was my article deleted it makes absolutely no sense. The comment said something like it was spam, but i am not working for the company but am a subscriber. If I am a subscribe to the magazine that i wrote a wikipedia article for is it therefore not allowed. What made the article that i created spam as apposed to anything else on wikipedia. Do i have to be someone that hates the organization in order for my article to be received? The article was no more or less partial then almost any other article on wikipedia. Do you actually have any criteria or do you just sort of randomly select what you think you like or not? Also what credentials is required to be on the article selection team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgilisleading ( talk • contribs)
Yo
I felt you were a bit quick to delete numerous entries in this page. I refer in particular to the Ireland section which was deleted in it's entirety. While citations may not have been forthcoming all of the instances are well known either in local or national folklore. Perhaps you could allow more time for citation in future.
Besides, they are ghosts, is it not a bit ironic that you are deleting them out of suspicion that they don't exist?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.40.126 ( talk) 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
I want to put the tactics section back in. You took this out citing NOR and the Wiki is not a game guide. I dispute this. There are no articles on the web describing the game to the extent the wiki does, so all the material on that page is in that sense OR; it's not quoted from elsewhere. The page describes the game and the material that was removed describes part of the games behaviour just as much as (for example) describing that other countries can go to war by themselves. Toby Douglass 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on my recent edit. You're right I didn't mean to delete material. I got a bit confused with the codes being there and that is what I deleted, thinking it was unnecessary/typos. These codes are harder than I thought. Whoops! Janeybee 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi... Think you could add places from Ireland? Far as I'm concerned, the castle ghosts there are numerous.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altazen ( talk • contribs)
My sources seem to be accurate, so why delete the article? I could change some things in it, but if you'll delete it, at least tell me why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Altazen ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Where can I download this, by the way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Altazen ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I saw your edits to issues related to Teabing-Leigh and would like to get your attention to a matter of serious misrepresentation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_League%27s_Civil_Disobedience_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_League%27s_Direct_Action_Day (presently redirected)
are both POV forks of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day
Some of them have been AfD'ed, but others remain.I suggest in the strongest terms that these articles be deleted immediately. The references cited in Direct Action Day by this editor are falsely represented by him and not in the citations given (I am well-familiar with them). In contrast, he has removed numerous references that did, in fact, exist before that were reliable.
In particular, this website: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/gandhi.html
cited by him across these numerous articles,
Is an Afrocentric pseudohistory website with no mainstream credibility.
Thanks for your attention.
Kjartan8 12:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you did not notify people who had edited Institute for Mathematics and its Applications when you decided to delete it? Your deletion of that article was vandalism. Michael Hardy 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm surprised to see that Kinslayer is arguing the issue instead of simply telling us all where to go, since his actions in this matter did appear to be in bad faith. It has NEVER been a widespread practice for Wikipedia articles to say "This subject is notable because..." in language that would be understood by persons unfamiliar with the subject. The administrator who deleted the article has told me that the present version does assert the notability and the one he deleted did not. Just what assertion of notability he thinks is in the present article that was not in the one he deleted I can't guess and I've asked him to explain it. However if either Kinslayer or that administrator,
Coredesat, had asked anyone actually familiar with the topic, they'd have found an assertion of its notability that could then have been added to the article. It still looks to me as if Kinslayer was simply rushing into things he did not know enough about to judge, and he should have realized that.
Michael Hardy 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Kinslayer,
Contrary to my previous estimate of you as being unjustifiably partial for some reason, I must however rescind my earlier comments to you and admit that I was wrong in the said estimate.
As someone who does not understand Wikipedia policies a lot, I'd like help and guidance to improve my articles on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.163.67.241 ( talk) 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Honestly, why? The Cock-a-doodle Fetus article does not need to be deleted. They are an important piece of American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroskate 714 ( talk • contribs)
I have blocked Euroskate 714 as being a disruption only account. It is best not to respond to insults with insults thought. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Kinslayer,
Since you nominated the article Gandhi's views on race for WP:NPOV and WP:NOR... I have since then made an effort to finish these two things from the said article.
Kindly have a look and see objectively if this meets the criteria now with all the changes and the additions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.163.67.241 ( talk) 15:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Dear Kinslayer,
I request that you kindly close debate and remove tags from Gandhi's views on race, if indeed you are satisfied with the outcome.
Yours sincerely,
Teabing-Leigh 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF and do not assume that my motives are for the sake of that. It could not be for:
You may have been abusing the DRV process for List of Mario Party minigames. Please read this extract of WP:DRV#Purpose
This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.
As you can see, saying that the content was unacceptable doesn't fly during DRVs. Bowsy ( review me!) 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact, after a second reading I am now clear that you have referred me to something completely non-sensical, as it is indeed just describing the only reasons that are considered valid for calling a review, and none of it is relevent to anything I said in that review. I did note this sentence however:
This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome
which seems far more relevent to the review in hand. I ask you, what do you really think this deletion review is about? Procedural correctness, or some people being unhappy their article was deleted? The Kinslayer 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Kinslayer,
If you recall a case was launched against me by user:kjartan8 about 3rr and Sockpuppetry. The sockpuppetry vis a vis my IP address was essentially inadvertent and the user:YLH shall not be using this computer again. Furthermore I am operating under one account which is this one. In addition to all of this my accuser kjartan8 was found to be a sockpuppet of hkelkar and was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.
Given these issues and more, I require your help in the clearing of sockpuppet charges.
Teabing-Leigh 06:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kinslayer
I will leave the page till (our) morning. (I am in NZ) If you don't like it then delete it (but do a goole search first please). If you are happy then i will remove the db corp in the morning.
Thanks Andrew
PS I am sure it will get expanded on in due course —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajexus ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Why did you remove the link to Project Manhunt, and want to get the site blacklisted? It seems a rather good site to me, with lots of relevant info. I don't know if it has comparable status with No Mutants Allowed for Fallout or diabloii.net for the Diablo games, but I think it's a relevant link. — Graf Bobby 10:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that users have the right to remove warning messages from their talk pages. The warning messages I removed were made to restore the user's talk page to the condition in which that user had last left it. In short, I was reverting edits made by someone trying to enforce a non-existant policy. Rklawton 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
OK... I see it has disappeared not to worry, interesting experience. Any pointers to how to make it more acceptable?
Cheers Andrew Ajexus 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
At that point we were using two different computers, I told real life Bowsy that that conversation wasn't necessary but he wouldn't listen. WE ARE NOT PUPPETS!!! Henchman 2000 08:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I said that because I thought you had because you did so in the past, but you didn't. I am very sorry for saying that about you when you hadn't done it. Please accept my apology. Bowsy ( review me!) 10:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi
I saw that you put a speedy deletion for the
Online Basketball Association. I left an opinion in the
talk page. I think the page about the league should be kept but the individual team pages created by
yellow lime should be deleted.
DCUnitedFan2011 11:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Bowsy and I fully understand anything we put on a page, and read it before we do so. We are not the idiots you're suggesting we are. Stop it. Also, why did you mention Bowsy on the npa template, that was me and me alone so stop dragging him into it. And what did you mean by all the dust we're kicking up. Henchman 2000 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Quoting you: Reverting vandalism. I said discuss, not unilaterlally edit the pages to suit your perceived genre. Do you realise that I am an administrator and have been part of the project for three years? I don't think you do. Foremost, do not attack users needlessly and keep your cool, see WP:CIVIL. Second, do not impose what you perceive as correct and do not order other editors, have respect for people who are merely trying to make the Wikipedia better. Third, the genre was not changed. The genre stayed exactly as it was. What I changed was the definition that "Later works" encompass only Industrial metal and Electropop, as Storm is a gothic metal album or rather some crossover of gothic metal. Either way, do not accuse me of being a vandal. If you want to discuss this in a civil manner, do contact me and explain what you perceive as wrong in what I said. -- Sn0wflake 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
(copied over cause I realize there may be a misunderstanding :)) Fair enough. I'll go with that. The Kinslayer 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the first of two edits there - I have not played either of the games, but going off Boll's past adaptations, I just automatically assumed that it would be a "loose" adaptation. Just thought I'd mention that it wasn't a bad faith edit on my part, or anything like that. :) -- Dreaded Walrus 10:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed your {{ db-spam}} because it was actually G4 - that failed an AfD previously. More likely to be a no-brainer for the admin to decide if it stays or goes. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Kinslayer, I apologize for the confusion. I was given prior approval for this social-concept experiment. It is fully within propriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OKSoda ( talk • contribs)
Kinslayer,
I am an undergrad at UC Berkeley and am doing this as part of my senior thesis in sociology. I have an e-mail correspondence with Jimbo Wales and would be happy to forward it to you if that is necessary. I understand that you are doing your job but just judging by the content of my submitted page I am not doing vandalism or disrupting Wikipedia in anyway. Thank you for your time and I apologize for the confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OKSoda ( talk • contribs) 19:57, April 10, 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I removed the {{ db-empty}} tag from the page A Wise Old Owl as it seems to offer sufficient context to be understandable and could possibly be improved to become a decent article. Let me know if you disagree with this. Cheers, -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 12:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, since you occasionally edit video games articles, I thought I'd inform you of a debate currently taking place in the WikiProject Dragon Quest. It is about whether we should use the name Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest or Dragon Quest Heroes for the slime spin-off series of the franchise. There are currently not enough people involved to actually reach a clear consensus, so you are invited to read the discussion (or have a look, if it's too long) here and here and give your opinion on the question. Thank you! Kariteh 08:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
Mkunga lalem, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{
db-author}}.
B. Wolterding 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Just wanted to say thanks for your work protecting WP from Pcstas's articles promoting his watch company and himself. -- Chetvorno 16:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC) |
I am advocating editing down Pcstas's remaining article, Silicium escapement wheel, and merging what's left into Lever escapement. Would welcome your comments on the talk page. -- Chetvorno 16:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My name is David Kildare manager of The Fabs and Fabiola Gatti. I read that you have been instrumental in removing Fabiola from Wilkipedia. It may be true that the information 1st rendered to Wilkipedia was poorly written and we would like the opportunity to rewrite this information, but it appears that her name is somehow blocked. If you are in any doubt about Fabiola Gatti's credentials to be included, just google her name. My email is [email protected] and I would grateful be very much obliged if you would take a moment to reply. Thank you in anticipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.23.58 ( talk) 13:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)