The Original Barnstar
	For being awesome and getting involved more. LibraryGurl (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y'know all those empty articles of mine you had deleted? I need those. They serve as templates so I can copy-paste the data in without having to manually set up every one of dozens of articles individually. Get an admin to restore them. Seriously. I'm in the middle of a huge project trying to list every fossil-bearing rock unit and you're making life really difficult. Abyssal (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abyssal - Per Wiki guidelines, an article can be deleted for having no content. Your last edits were days or weeks ago and no changes had taken place. As part of wp:cleanup your articles showed up as deadends. That's where I am focusing my efforts right now. If you wish to contest deletion you can do so directly as it was an admin that accepted the deletion for each instance. Please see below for the policy. As for your being "middle of a huge project trying to list every fossil-bearing rock unit", as you're creating articles, you should have that in there so that they don't get deleted. Further, you may want to consider creating them in Sandbox before pushing them out to the general Wiki. If it wasn't me that found them, it would have been someone else. Kobuu (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A3. No content

Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images. This may also apply to articles consisting entirely of the framework of the Article wizard with no additional content. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet the criteria mentioned here. This excludes poor writing, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles.

The guy was/is a musician who was interviewed about being a musician by the G-D Rolling Stone magazine. There's not a snowball's chance in hell the article would be deleted at AfD, and trying to do an end-run around that isn't appropriate. Yes, the intro has slightly over the top language, but that can be fixed with a minor copyedit; it doesn't require deletion. If there's any information you can't verify, remove it, but that's different from saying you can't be bothered to verify it. It took me ~5 seconds to verify the first two awards, for instance. WilyD 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for finding a source for the awards. I mostly edit while at work and am unable to traverse the internet as much as I would like. Finding sources usually requires going to pages that I cannot access and would only be able to do so at home. I was merely speaking to the language of the article and, to your point, I was not trying to make an "end-run" around the deletion process. This is why I asked if a PROD tag was more appropriate. Hearing your argument, I agree. It would take some copy editing, rewriting, and a lot of source hunting but it could be a viable article.

On a side note, it was not my intention to incite confrontation or anger, rather to express my opinion of the language used in the article. I'm not sure what "G-D" stands for but I can only assume "god damn"? A little belligerent, no? You didn't hurt my feelings but others might not take kindly to such an aggressive tone. Thank you for your input on this particular article. Kobuu (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

God-damn, yes, but only to emphasize that the Rolling Stone is not small potatoes, but only going to interview someone who's a notable artist. Given that, concluding an article should probably deleted is at odds with what you know, and should only be seriously entertained after a serious search for other sources, since you can reasonably conclude they almost certainly exist in abundance. In this case, probably, the last two sentences of the lede could be cut, and it'd be a perfectly viable article, if one that could use more sources. Maybe the article was partially written by the guy, maybe not. Who cares? Ultimately, Wikipedia should have articles about notable musicians, so that's the goal to work towards. If an article's written in promotional way, such that none of the content is usable for the article we ultimately want, then delete it all and start over. But a musician article that's mostly just a list of albums/songs/awards is a pretty reasonable place to start; that's mostly worth keeping. WilyD 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I thank you for your input. I certainly see your point. To that end, I have edited the text of this article to be more encyclopedic. I've added another source and fixed up some formatting. I won't likely continue working on this but in the idea that Wiki is ever-changing, I feel these are good faith edits. Thanks for helping me understand the fundamentals. Kobuu (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you certainly shouldn't feel obliged to do anything (except, perhaps, to report attack pages), but if you're doing new page patrols, really the most important task is to help clueless new users figure out the ropes, and this is being sorely neglected (and consequently, the rate at which new users are being converted into experienced users, and the overall participation, are both dropping rapidly, which is a significant problem). If an article is really being written by someone about themselves, probably there's no real hope there. But someone who's just a fan will often look similar, and may well make it (in the case of Goosen, this isn't as applicable. Probably User:Antongoosen is him, and has edited the article, but someone else started the article, back in 2007.) WilyD 07:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've declined your speedy for vandalism because this is a proposed term. I seem to remember seeing it in New Scientist, and if I can find the issue, I'll add it as a reference. There is a body of scientific thought at present that relates diabetes with Alzheimer's and their reasoning looked interesting when I read it. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 September 2012 according to http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/10/alzheimers-junk-food-catastrophic-effect. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peridon, Fairpoint. But after reading that article, it speaks more to the progression of Alzheimer's and the metabolic causes thereof. I would propose, then, that Type 3 diabetes mention Alzheimer's and point readers to that disease. A Google search brought me this: [1]. I proposed deletion based on the fact that nothing in the article actually spoke about Type 3 diabetes when I found it. Cheers! Kobuu (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tip: vandalism is usually unreferenced to anything recognisable as a potential reference ("me", "himself", "Fred Bloggs", etc), but hoaxes often have references to hard copy books. Some are clever enough to invent ones that look good and heavy, but most aren't. Anything else is probably good faith and best taken to AfD (along with non-blatant hoaxes too) where someone will probably fix it, or equally probably it'll be demolished with great glee. Yes, the Alzheimer's is the best bit of the thing. The article could do with some work. I'll have a look at it again. Peridon (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peridon Yeah, I have not gone into the AfD areas yet. I worked a bit on the Type 3 diabetes article so it's not terrible now. Still could use some content and sources. Thanks for your input! I've seen a lot of discussions that breakdown into just name-calling. Thanks for keeping it civil. Cheers! Kobuu (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beat me to it. Nice one. I've sparingly added two wikilinks. I can get rude when the occasion demands, or on occasions go into 'exasperated parent' mode. Most of the time, what's lacking in a situation is a word or two of explanation. I learn that way too. BTW you don't need to ping while a discussion is live. Only in odd places where something is starting or an opinion is wanted from someone who hasn't followed the crowd to the body on the pavement yet, or revivals of dead threads, or when the pingee is a hopeless newbie (who probably won't notice anyway...). A related tip is "Don't template the regulars". This means not to use templated warnings on people who have been here for some time (especially admins, who can get quite snotty about it - not me, though). Type the message instead. Bots are exempt from this, as they talk in templates by nature, and can't help it. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good tip! Thanks. Technically I'm still a noob, not going to lie. But I'm picking it up pretty quick. Thanks for your help! Kobuu (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	you are welcome l santry (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Kobuu. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Government Medical College Surat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The college is eligible for its own article. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Eastmain, no problem. Article makes a lot more sense now. Actually, I meant to merge that one but if you think it needs its own article, fine. It needs content and sources. I'll go back and add wikilinks. Thanks. Kobuu (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a follow up, personally I don't think this needs its own article. You can get that its a college from the Surat article and that article is more descriptive. Unless this particular college is notable for something, just because its a school doesn't mean it needs an article. Kobuu (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've merged them now into Surat#Medical. Kobuu (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for updating the page I created about Little Africa, SC. It's a work in progress. I wanted to add more links and pics. How do you add information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysundra (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sunnysundra, You can add pictures from WikiCommons as long as they are sourced properly. As for names and things, just get the relevant sources! That's it, really. I am working mostly on wikilinking content across the wiki so that people can get to other articles. Kobuu (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Kobuu,

I am working on a project to support the development of current and future newcomer mentorship programs on Wikipedia.

Because you recently participated in The Wikipedia Adventure, I would like to interview you about your experience in this program.

If you are interested, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu and hopefully we can find a convenient time to conduct an interview via Skype or Google hangout.

Thanks,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Kobuu, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mike Bozzi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you Kobuu for your explanation but your edits are based on articles that were extracted from kickstarter or crowdfunding campaigns that took place when the Gator in the Bay hadnt even begun - please reconsider removing the incorrect information - there were hundreds of people who contributed along the way - but no one stayed - you have your information from kickstarter is incorrect - please view the Discovery Channel Interview which took place in 2012 and then when we finished - (2012) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f-6wWIZWK0 (2014) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tijO4g1JC-Y

in the beginning, when we were trying to explain the project and raise funding and sponsors, we had a publicist and were using crowdfunding, we created a media buzz but never raised the funds and everyone left the project - since it is my concept and i am a professional full time artist, i stuck it out and completed with volunteers - the Discovery Channel followed me around and filmed the project and followed the project for the last two years of its completion, without other artists - also please dont describe me as the brains behind the project - i am the artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloydsite (talk • contribs) 14:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Lloydsite. As stated on the Talk page of Gator In The Bay, I used published sources. I cited them appropriately and did not reference Kickstarter at all. Your statement is untrue. As for stating that you are the "brains behind the project", I merely summarized what I read from this source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/gator-in-the-bay_n_1724867.html. Again, this is a good faith edit based off of a published source. Kobuu (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kobuu: Thanks for your work to clean-up articles listed at Wikipedia:Cleanup. Just a note that per your commentary there regarding clean up you have performed, dead links should not be immediately removed from articles. Dead links can often be repaired using webpage archive services, such as the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. For more information, check out WP:DEADLINK. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Northamerica! You know, I totally forgot about the Way Back Machine!! I had done some searches but couldn't find anything for 3333. Guess I need to look harder. LOL. Thanks for the tip! Kobuu (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks for the reply, and have a nice day! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kobuu: Thanks for all of your participation at Wikipedia:Cleanup. Just a request, when striking out entries there, please consider only striking the entry article name and rationale after performing cleanup work, and leave the user signature of the original poster in place unstricken. Thanks for your consideration, and happy editing. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey NorthAmerica1000, no problem. Kobuu (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...regarding my request for clean-up followed by a delete request, I first want to apologize for my tardiness in responding. Secondly, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism which User:Northamerica1000 noted in a tag at the top of the article's talk page. Perhaps some of the comments posted there will help answer your questions. I didn't want you think I was ignoring you or trying to avoid your questions. Atsme☯^Consult 18:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making sure you get an official invitation.

Decemmber 7 - Pollard Memorial Library and UMass Lowell Library Edit-a-Thon - You're invited

Date Sunday December 7, 2014 Time 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. Location Pollard Memorial Library 401 Merrimack St., Lowell, MA. 01852; Please use side entrance on Colburn St. Event An editathon on Downtown Lowell related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslowell or #glamwiki. Registration http://uml.beta.libguides.com/wikipediaeditathons or use Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/downtownlowell_editathon. Yours, LibraryGurl (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--LibraryGurl (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just registered!! Thank you so much! Kobuu (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Kobuu,

My name is Gabriel Mugar and I am conducting interviews for my dissertation research about newcomers to Wikipedia. Since you have been around Wikipedia for a few months, I would like to chat with you about your experience so far. The interview will last for about 1 hour and I will compensate your time with a $10 gift certificate to either the Wikipedia store or Amazon, your choice. If you are interested in knowing more about the interview, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page

Thanks,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kobuu! For Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Internet Censorship, there's now an IRC channel at #editathon on Freenode. There's a handy web interface for the chat if you don't already have a favorite IRC client. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Morning! Thank you for the information! I wasn't able to make it due to some unforeseen life events, but I should be able to make the next one. I'm hoping locally, too, so that I can go in person. Thanks again! Kobuu (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have one on me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, TREKphiler!! I'm just seeing this now! THANK YOU!! I hope you had a wonderful holiday!! Kobuu (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. On Talk:Hand knitting I noticed your post referenced several Wikipedia pages, and most of them came out red-linked just because the second word of their titles was written with a capital: e.g. Arm Knitting. I've just learned that after the first letter, Wikipedia article titles are case-sensitive, though at least they do allow spaces as well as underscores between words: arm knitting, Arm knitting, arm_knitting, Arm_knitting all work. (Machine Knitting wasn't red linked since it happened to have a redirect page of its own. Its article title would be "Machine knitting," but redirects to Knitting machine instead.) Egmonster (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 25 - Pollard Memorial Library and UMass Lowell Library Edit-a-Thon #2 - You're invited

Date Sunday January 25, 2014 Time 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. Location Pollard Memorial Library 401 Merrimack St., Lowell, MA. 01852; Please use side entrance on Colburn St. Event An editathon on Downtown Lowell related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslowell or #glamwiki. Registration http://uml.beta.libguides.com/wikipediaeditathons or use Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/secondlowell_editathon. Yours, --LibraryGurl (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Merry Christmas and happy New Year
	Thanks for making Wikipedia A better encyclopedia. Best wishes to you and your family. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |}Reply[reply]

Hello, Kobuu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook) 1–5pm - come by any time! Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner! We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hello, Kobuu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Kobuu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]