User talk:Kuru

Ever considered applying for CU? I think it would be a benefit to the project if you were and would align with the work you already do. S0091 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I've looked at it before - would certainly save time. I'll likely get more involved when I retire; which should be relatively soon. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kuru, for real, please do. In the meantime, when you make UPE blocks, mind giving me a heads up? I just nabbed a pile of people connected to two accounts you blocked, one from November, one from August. I'll link you the SPI when I'm done. It'll save you a lot of cleanup work if you can G5 everything. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Here, two for the price of one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snoiox, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soccermad89. -- asilvering (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Kuru. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to the email, but . Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 09:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, you speedied Rahul Kanal G5 in July. How similar is Rahool N Kanal, posted today by User:Nira Omega, created a few weeks after your block? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Prior version was created by the Richard Dotx sock and structured the same; one section is word-for-word and many of the sources are the same. This editor was created shortly after the farm was all globally blocked, and their first real edit was to vote "keep" on another re-created Richard Dotx AFD. Clearly the same person. Probably best to get a checkuser involved as I'm seeing multiple unblocked UPDE socks floating in there. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kuru: Can you reinstate this block? It seemed to have stopped them until it expired (see also the email I sent you about this.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so I'm here to learn and understand the preferred editing and citation requirements and conventions.

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kistler%27s_Imagination_Station&diff=prev&oldid=1320513158

I added a link to an external kid friendly data base related to the topic of MKIS and it was removed indicating that the linked site (Kiddle) was a wiki mirror? Is there some kind of policy regarding wiki mirrors?

There is a lot of detailed information on the Kiddle site that is not present in the Wikipedia entry - in fact the Kiddle site has the most accurate description of the MKIS series episode breakdown anywhere on the internet - please help me understand why this site with additional, highly accurate information (in this particular instance relating to the series season episode count and the nature of the shows regional Emmy win) is not relevant or reasonable to be linked?

Thank you and best regards, WillArms (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Kiddle is a hot mess, frankly. They typically copy content from Wikipedia or other sources with without a proper license (requires attribution to the original authors, in our case), and sometimes they treat it as a fork (essentially, random and unsourced information is added on by unknown parties). Given the problems with copyright, the promotional nature of the language in that article, and the absence of any semblance of sourcing or editorial control, I can't see any value in linking to it. If there's information that needs to be added to the article (such as the regional emmy), add it with a reliable source.Sam Kuru (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Much appreciated. WillArms (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Due to a content dispute, a user repeatedly warning me (with personal attacks in my talk page) and removing the cleanup templates on 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election, instead of waiting for consensus on the talk page. I request you to intervene on this issue and clarify the user about Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this. Thank you. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Would be best to continue the discussion at the exiting ANI topic. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Whats a mirror Bshuler1 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bshuler1: That's a great question. I usually leave a link to a more descriptive guideline page; I'm not sure why I did not the first time I removed that site. A mirror is a site that copies material from Wikipedia under license. In this case the site copies material and modifies it a bit, but they still attribute the original claims back to Wikipedia (there's a note at the bottom of the page you're linking to that states this). These sites are not acceptable as references for obvious reasons, and they should not be used as external links since they do not state anything not already covered in the article (or in a prior iteration). You can read more about them here: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kuru. I am a newbie on citing content on Wikipedia. Could you help me recreating again my page? I learned the lessons here. From now on I'll be more conscious about my contributions. Thank you. JustineHC20 (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I cannot. As noted above: "I also do not typically assist declared paid editors; I'm here as a volunteer to improve the project, not to help you turn a buck."Sam Kuru (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I reverted my block of this user thinking it was perhaps a bit hasty, but I see that I'm not the first one to have a strong suspicion of undisclosed paid editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I suspect you were not hasty at all - I was on the cusp myself. Let me take a look in a sec. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: That was a terrible answer to my request for compliance with PAID (they were well aware of the need for disclosures - I warned them in August). Within two hours of saying they would avoid any more COI edits, they "improved" a draft article created by an obvious "Seasoned SEO Expert" (simple google search on author's name), and then moved it into mainspace despite two prior declines. They've been called out several times before for promotional edits, LLM creations, and COI edits - including at ANI where they at least copped to the LLM usage. That whole Tibetian casino spam was beyond the pale, and got them indeffed on wikidata. I'd say at this point remove mainspace at a minimum, or just reblock entirely if you're better at avoiding LLM gaslighting than I am. Happy to push buttons if you're in alignment. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Kuru.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I've gone to find better sources for the Wikipedia page elsewhere. You can check to make certain that it is okay.

Happy holidays if you celebrate them.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I checked deprecated sources etc, it wasn't on there as unreliable. Especially not for... saying who founded a company and what year it was founded. Can you explain? Revolving Doormat (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure. "The Silicon Review" has been used extensively on Wikipedia for unmarked paid placement articles by spam socks, along with another site in the SEO farm: "ciobulletin.com". They also run a vanity / pay-to-play "business awards" product. There are hundreds of ads for stealth promotional guest posts on the site; just google "Silicon Review Guest Post". You can also find first hand accounts of the problematic nature of the site. Let me know if you need more; I have an extensive list here if it helps. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Is there a reason why this isn't listed in the deprecated sources or in the perennials list? Is it just too long to track everything that shouldn't be used? Revolving Doormat (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Sidenote: that list is terrifying Revolving Doormat (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Typically RSP is for things that are a little more nuanced and could cause confusion - tabloids, junk news, etc. In this case, I'll likely just blacklist the domain at some point, since it is falling into the "frequently abused and clearly with promotional intent" category. Not that you are - many of the sites on the lower part of my list are a little more nuanced. They often mix reliable information with the unmarked spam, or they are domain hijacks that used to be very reliable source. It's just a mess, and LLMs just make it that much more harder to spot. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

 Template:Company list editnotice has been nominated for merging with Template:Lists of companies and organizations editnotice. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Kuru. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 18:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello mr Kuru how are you doing??? I edited Tennin article with a lot of accurate words and details about them. What did i do wrong??? Please with all the respect what can i do??? ~2026-17514-5 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You added quite bit of material, and then sourced it to Wikipedia articles, user-created web pages, AI-generated pages, and some vaguely defined academic sources. Frankly, the entire thing seemed like it was generated through an LLM or AI. It may be more useful to propose smaller changes on the article's talk page so that others can help you with the sourcing. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I saw that you had deleted the article for Warner V. Slack about two years ago. I reviewed sourcing for Slack and found multiple, meaty sources, such as this one from Harvard that demonstrate that he is notable. Rather than start from scratch. I'd like to ask if you could undelete the article and place it as either a draft or as a user page, so that I can rework the article and put into mainspace. Please let me know if this makes sense or if I should follow another path. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it was terrible; just an addition by a banned/blocked editor. Will restore to draft. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Done here; move it back to mainspace when you're comfortable with the content. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking care of this. I will review the content and sources. Once they're good, I will move into mainspace. Much appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see that...nor did I notice your help a month ago, but very late thanks for clarifying the link on Baseball at the 2002 Central American and Caribbean Games!!

-Sincerely Redbreadwater (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Sam Kuru (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kuru! As I work on teaching myself about doing anti-spam work, it's been great to learn from what you're doing - I just found your list at User:Kuru/fakesources and it's amazing. I've been running into so, so many small websites that appear to be pay-to-play but present themselves as legitimate news sources, and I don't really know what to do when I find new ones. Wondering how to share/discuss/escalate signals about these kinds of websites, including so that they can hopefully become part of tools like meta:Cite Unseen. Should I keep posting them to WP:RSN, like I did for CEOWORLD and these apparent blackmail websites? They don't quite seem right for reporting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam because the people adding these to articles usually aren't really trying to promote the websites - they're either trying to promote the subject of the article or they're working in good faith but didn't realize the website was low-quality. Also wanted to share a link to meta:WikiCredCon 2026 in April, in case you'd be interested and hadn't heard about it. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, for part of my question, I just found Meta:Talk:Cite_Unseen/Suggestions/Archive_2#Large_number_of_sponsored_sources and Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_list_of_fake_sources - glad to see others thinking along the same lines. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a one-size-fits-all approach to tackling these, unfortunately. Sometimes they're blatantly obvious (fake authors, fakes meta-data, IP/SEO linked to PR firms, etc), other times they're really hard to tell (domain takeovers, extensively crafted back history, etc), and then there are legitimate sites that allow for paid placement and "guest posting" (Forbes is the worst). I usually scan through all the fake sites I know of each week, and then blacklist them if I see patterns of abuse. Postings like you did at RSN for CEOWORLD are very, very helpful when something falls into that second category - I was able to leverage that to remove all of the links and blacklist the site. The bigger problem is that there are thousands of these sites - I have offline lists where some of these farms just mass produce populated domains but never really use them here; not sure how to watch all of those. Thanks for the links to the other resources - I'll dig through them! If I can help you in any way, please let me know. There's a lot of angst that goes into anti-spam work, especially now that every spammer can gen up AI-created drama at the drop of a hat... Sam Kuru (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, very helpful food for thought! I believe there's a gap in our processes for effectively handling the thousands of websites that get cited despite being dubious/unreliable, but don't quite fit the criteria for deprecation or blacklisting. I started compiling some notes at User:Dreamyshade/Reliability resources as I learn about this. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kuru Draft talk:Ruslan Saberov Hello! Please help me with this article if you can. ~2026-11244-84 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)