User talk:Kanabekobaton/Archive 1

Could you please explain this edit? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior

You are not doing yourself any good. Blanking this talk page and refusing to reply when your actions are questioned will not help you in the eyes of other editors or admins. It is in your best interest to stop your surrent course of action and explain yourself, either on this page or at WP:ANI, where a discussion concerning you is in progress. DarkAudit (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Beasley Coliseum, you will be blocked from editing. DarkAudit (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts (specifically, 221.106.246.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) to avoid a block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm confused by this. You're blocking him for logging out and making edits, where only one account was used? There is no entry in this user's block log other than this current block, so there's no block to avoid. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa, this is not vandalism. If you look, his formatting is correcting the infobox. When the edit was reverted the image was removed. Somethings not right about this situation. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the verge of blocking the user for making rather disruptive changes without discussion, and no edit summaries. I asked what the editor's reasoning was rather pointedly, but got no response. Though he soon reverted his edits (also without explanation). —EncMstr (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I state below, it's almost certain that English is not this user's first language. More than likely most if this is a misunderstanding, followed by assumptions of bad faith. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|On behalf of this user I am requesting an unblock. On the userpage the user indicates being a native speaker of Japanese, and it's very possible we're dealing with some language/understanding issues. Assuming good faith, the blanking edit seems to be a mistake. Other edits that involved fixing the infobox were reverted as vandalism, without actually being checked. Now this user has been blocked for logging out and editing with his IP. We don't know why the user logged out, it could have been a mistake, but there was no block on the account, and no reason that the user would have to log out to get past a block. I'm very concerned about the conclusions being drawn here, and what appears to be some admins and users not paying attention to what's actually going on. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

See below.

Request handled by: —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user is edit warring without any explanation for their actions, ignoring or blanking all attempts at communication, and then comes back on an IP to continue reverting once they attract admin attention. I do feel that accusations of vandalism are iffy at best and that the confrontational tone with which the user was faced was unnecessarily adversarial, but at the same time I'm alarmed by the sequence of events. I just don't see myself behaving that way on a wiki where I didn't speak the local language (assuming this user doesn't, which is a tough call to make when they seem to be editing English pages but make no reply to messages). If consensus determines this user's actions were acceptable and that they should be unblocked, I have no particular objection; I'd feel a lot better about the whole thing if there were any reply from the user at any point in this entire situation. =\ – Luna Santin (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that the user had enough understanding of English to see that this account was threatened with a block, and therefore continued the same pattern of edits from an IP. I'm going to go ahead and assume good faith here because of this one edit from the IP: I'll say that's enough of an edit summary to at least be trying to explain what he's doing.

A reminder to the user: edit summaries and discussion on talk pages explain why you are making the edits you're making and avoids this kind of confusion. Please make sure to use them in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note about removing comments and not answering

Regarding this edit: you are certainly within your rights to remove discussion from your talk page. However, removing this question without addressing it means you have declined an opportunity to explain your edits. Since part of the reason you were blocked was confusion about the reasons for your edits, please consider how this action may couple with your future edits if confusion arises again—i.e., it could contribute to your account being blocked (again). —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Paralympics Beijing 2008 logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Paralympics Beijing 2008 logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Athens 2004 logo2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Athens 2004 logo2.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current tag

Please at least provide an explanation for reverting edits. The {{current}} tag was removed because it is intended for occasions when many editors change an article at the same time, and not only to indicate an article with some current news. See Current#Guidelines. --Kildor (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Miss USA 2009

I have nominated Miss USA 2009, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss USA 2009. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? TN‑X-Man 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision

Please don't undo the edit I made on List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest‎. The building has both a French and a Dutch name; and it is common for wikipedia to mention both in order to maintain language neutrality.--Hooiwind (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my request. My edits are legitimate.--Hooiwind (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Cup (disambiguation)

Hi,

Could you please explain this edit? Why have you redirected a disambiguation page? Surely it should not point to one topic, making it hard for editors to find, for example, the Scottish Challenge Cup. --OZ OO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits on said subject. The rugby league version is the Challenge Cup and is known as such, the various others would have pre-cursors. It is the same situation as the FA Cup being an article for the English competition alone. Alexsanderson83 21:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Eurovision 2009

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Junior Eurovision 2009. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Britain's Got Talent (Series 2). If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mallocks (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I jumped the gun on this one. Mallocks (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Dusti^{complain/compliment} 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always and Forever (song)

why are you taking the link out????????? Grk1011 (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The O2

Hi Kanabekobaton. I don't want to change anything without consulting you first so can I ask the reason for your removl of external links [1] and some categories [2] in the article, The O2. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate

There is a heavy discussion right now, in this article, Miss Pakistan World here and it was nominated for deletion here; your opinion will be highly appreciated, especially your vote. Your participation in this matter is noteworthy, in view of the fact that you have editing Wikipedia Beauty Pageant articles. It doesn’t matter if your vote is favorable or not, but what matters most is your involvement since it seems to me that some commenter are against pageantry. Personally, I think that the article should be kept but should be freed from tremendous advertisement lines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japan cricket administration

If you have any questions about the category structure established by WP:CRIC, please raise them at WT:CRIC. Do not empty cricket categories without project consensus and do not then try to get them deleted without project consensus. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make any more edits to Japan Cricket Association. If you wish to question the category structure, raise it at WT:CRIC. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

96th Grey Cup

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Montreal landmarks, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Montreal landmarks. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Template:Montreal landmarks. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS??? I've reported you at 3RR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring, until such time as there is consensus to remove the Grey Cup reference from the template. Otherwise, you will be blocked. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there in the lead of the Grey Cup article, for heaven's sake:

"It is Canada's largest annual sports and television event, regularly drawing a Canadian viewing audience of about 4 million.^[1]^[2]"

To claim that it is "non-major" as you have done in the your edit summary is absurd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

3RR on Template:Montreal landmarks, per a complaint at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WaMu Theater

I see you sent WaMu Theater to a disambiguation indicating that something at Qwest Field is named that. I don't see anything in the Qwest article referencing WaMu or Washington Mutual or theatre. Americasroof (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth TOC conflict

I brought back the article to its original state here before the “edit disagreement” pertaining to the Table Of Contents (TOC) of Miss Earth article, please use the discussion section of the article to convey your ideas so we can come up with a common decision to resolute the matter. Your active participation is needed to resolve the conflict. Please do not do any edit regarding the Miss Earth TOC without coming up into a common decision with the exception when bringing back to its original state before the disagreement --Richie Campbell (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WaMu Theater

I see you sent WaMu Theater to a disambiguation indicating that something at Qwest Field is named that. I don't see anything in the Qwest article referencing WaMu or Washington Mutual or theatre. Americasroof (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth TOC conflict

I brought back the article to its original state here before the “edit disagreement” pertaining to the Table Of Contents (TOC) of Miss Earth article, please use the discussion section of the article to convey your ideas so we can come up with a common decision to resolute the matter. Your active participation is needed to resolve the conflict. Please do not do any edit regarding the Miss Earth TOC without coming up into a common decision with the exception when bringing back to its original state before the disagreement --Richie Campbell (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Night in Canada

Hello. I assume that you reverted my edits to the above article in error with this edit. If you did want to remove it, please discuss why. --Farmerman (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

Hi, as is explained below the edit box, it's polite to add a comment about why you are reverting an edit when that edit is not vandalism. Specifically, I'd like to know why you reverted my adding an image to Point Theatre. It's not as if the article is packed with pictures, so I don't see any problem on having the image there. It provides an image of a fairly well-known band playing there. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming pool

I have reverted your addition of {{TOCleft}} at swimming pool, per the accessibility guidelines which say:

Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages. If you must use a floated TOC, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency. Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading.

I am a screen reader user, as it says on my user page, so this especially affects me. Graham87 05:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good look.

Simply deleting my comments isn't going to take the issue away. Is it too hard for you to explain why you believe the rowspan is necessary/useful in a sortable table? Have you actually tried to sort the table? If you try you'll see what the problem is :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Ninepin Bowling Association

Please read the proposed deletion policy. You cannot re-add a prod tag once it's been contested. If you feel this article should be deleted, you need to bring it up for discussion at articles for deletion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Baseball World Cup

Thank you for creating Women's Baseball World Cup. Kingturtle (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA Cup trophy

Please do not keep repeating the same change with no explanation. Quote from Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects:

There are some situations where categorizing a redirect is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories. The following are examples of some of these situations: [...]

Subtopic categorization – Some subtopics of articles have well-known names and, over time, may expand to become separate articles. [...] Often there are redirects pointing to these subtopics. These redirects can be categorized. In some cases the categories for the redirects that point to the subtopics will be different than the categories for the entire article.

Here the trophy is a subtopic of the competition. Every football competition has a trophy, but Category:Football (soccer) trophies doesn't include articles about the competitions, it just says :See also the following categories"

If you disagree we can discuss it but it is rude to ignore other editors. Regards, jnestorius^(talk) 22:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change this time. Please discuss before removing it again. --Farmerman (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the change because I saw that you added the category to FA Cup Trophy, and it is reasonable not to have the same category at two so similar redirectly. However, this is why it is critical to provide edit summaries! Without them, your edits are easily misinterpreted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that only one should be in the category. However, why should it be capitalized? From what I can tell, the trophy's name is actually the "FA Cup". So, the word trophy is added to disambiguate it from the competition. If that is correct, it shouldn't be capitalized, because it is not part of the proper name. --Farmerman (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Cup

Once again you have made a change to this page's infobox, this time to my revert, that is incorrect -with no edit summary or explanation. I reverted it back and gave an explanation of why it was correct the way it was. Please do not keep editing the same change with no explanation. Please also be aware of the three revert rule. Please don't just ignore me and continue with this. JoelUK (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

What do you think you are doing at this article here and here. You are not helping at all. Give reason for removing the infobox and the future events templates. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give an explanation. Avoid 3RR--SkyWalker (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please not mark reverts of good faith edits as minor as you did at Template:UK in Eurovision - it is not good etiquette, and a reason is good too. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:International Skating Union.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:International Skating Union.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Houston, William (December 20, 2006). "Grey Cup moves to TSN in new deal". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2007-06-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ William Houston (2006-11-20). "Minor rise in Grey Cup ratings good for CBC". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2006-12-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

[Houston-1] Houston, William (December 20, 2006). "Grey Cup moves to TSN in new deal". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2007-06-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Houston_2006-11-20-2] William Houston (2006-11-20). "Minor rise in Grey Cup ratings good for CBC". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2006-12-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

[1]

[2]