Jump to content

User talk:KrakatoaKatie: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tag: MassMessage delivery
Warswics (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 365: Line 365:
Greetings from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|Military history WikiProject]]! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2016|'''election page''']]. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|Military history WikiProject]]! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2016|'''election page''']]. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:TomStar81@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=739120148 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:TomStar81@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=739120148 -->

Several of the citations under that Tom Woods article are incorrect. 7 cites James Lowen, pages 167 and 333 as referring to the LvMI and it's neoconfederate leanings. Page 167 of the book does not at all refer to this in any way, shape or form. I removed that citation first. Why was it put back?

Citation 9 is an unverifiable source. How can this be used as proof? How is that website a legitimate source?

Citation 12 and 13 are equally troublesome, especially when making accusations such as the ones the person who inserted this has done. alt.net is a legitimate source? As for 13, the link to the Abeville website does not prove someone is a member, and I'm not sure how this is acceptable.

[[User:Warswics|Warswics]] ([[User talk:Warswics|talk]]) 15:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:59, 16 September 2016



Template:Archive box collapsible


B This user is currently busy
but should return shortly.


User:Countyjail

It appears the (banned) user had made a legal threat prior to block, and is abusing the talk page to continue with threats of legal action.--Cahk (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixed up, there are clear legal threats after the block: [1] BethNaught (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word 'not' by mistake. Oops.--Cahk (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for temporary semi-protection

Can a temporary semi-protection request be granted for the page "Björn Kuipers"? If not then can you please consider removing the unnecessary "condensed" tag at the beginning of the page? The IP has disrupted it but if I revert him, he keeps edit warring! So as an administrator I request to take action and delete it because if I do it he will again start edit warring! The page is being worked at to improve it each day but recent the IP is returning after a few days and starting to make disruptive edits! Please help by removing the useless condensed tag! Thanks! Any suggestions or advice on what steps are to be followed are most welcome! Cricket246 (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Cricket246 (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists

You are invited...

Women in Nursing editathon & Women Labor Activists editathon
Hosted by Women in Red - September 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage[reply]

Blocks

Hi, Katie. You blocked non-existent User:2a01:36d:106:9460::/64 instead of User:2A01:36D:106:9460:6D6E:351A:7D9C:AEF1 (see [2]). Yours, Quis separabit? 16:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: It's a rangeblock. It's one user, and that covers all the IPv6 addresses he's using. See mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6. Katietalk 17:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I just thought it might have been a typo or something; those IPs are L-O-N-G. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rms125a@hotmail.com: It's not difficult. When you see a list of IPv6 addresses, all you need to see to tell if it's the same user is the first four blocks of hexadecimals. If you'll look at the article, you'll find that the first four blocks are identical, so that applies here. It's true that there are thousands of addresses for that user, but if the first four blocks are the same, the probability is extremely high that it's one end user, and that's how most of us treat it. If the first two blocks are identical, it's the same ISP; first three is usually an organization but not necessarily the same end user. It gets more complicated, but with enough experience it gets easier. :-) Katietalk 17:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:-)

Hi KK. This is wonderful! I happen to think that the ideas and sentiments expressed at User:KillerChihuahua rank up there with User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. So it makes me very happy to see you pass some of them on to new admins. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 18:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatus Fee

Hello I want to know since Fatus Fee page keep getting deleted Fatus Fee has everything but Wikipedia he is a Rapper/Actor/Comedian he is all over TV he has video on Bet Jams , he was star on Tv show Gone in a minute Season 1 ,he has IMDb account for proof he has knowledge panel when you Google him just like any other celebrities he is also older brother to celebrity Duo producer's Christian Rich they have a Wikipedia page I work at Rebel Music Entertainment we are trying to link his Wikipedia to his knowledge panel is it possible if you can do the article on Fatus Fee since it seems to keep getting erase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stop deletion (talkcontribs) 20:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions notice

You recently left a general sanctions notice. But I have only reverted just once on the Jarabulus offensive (2016) which is allowed per rules. I don't remember making any multiple reverts and I have received the notice earlier as well. I think you've sent the notice in error. If so,can you remove it please. Thanks. Newsboy39 (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Newsboy39: I did not see that template notice in your edit history, and that exact template is required. You can remove it from your talk page at any time. Katietalk 01:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Newsboy39 (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring to push the Turkey government POV narrative in the Jarabulus offensive (2016) article

Hi, as you demonstrate some administrative responsibility attitude towards the issue, I would like to point your attention to the edit-warring to push the Turkey government POV narrative in the presentation of the Jarabulus offensive (2016) article. There is a small group of users which more or less openly on the talk page even admit their manipulating the article with the aforementioned agenda. It might make sense to take administrative measures to make/keep the article neutral for the purposes and standards of an encyclopedia, I am not sure to which degree normal editors there will have the perseverance to endure that edit-warring and personal attacks on the talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2A1ZA: Administrators are not content arbiters. Dispute resolution is available for content disputes, and if you cannot resolve this on the talk page, I encourage you to use one of those methods. Be aware that the tolerance for edit warring and disruption on these articles is very low. Katietalk 01:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that and initiated some minor stuff. However my time and willingsness to fight over detail after detail with a bunch of zealots who think they are waging a kind of holy war on Wikipedia has limits. Thanks for the answer. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2A1ZA Don't make such comments. You shouldn't accuse others. Occasionaly article might contain some topics might be charged with emotion. And people might fall into bias over emotions of nationalism etc. and even might start getting into uncivil behavior. One thing I've learned is don't let their behavior frustrate you. It won't do you or this site any good. Newsboy39 (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Newsboy39 I neither let such stuff frustrate me, nor do I participate in the personalized fight such editors wish to make it. My point was/is that the Wikipedia community must pay attention to such stuff, otherwise there are articles on issues with much public attention that do not fit the quality encyclopedia Wikipedia should be. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Rodriguez

Hello, James' current club is listed as Chelsea. He is currently a player on Real Madrid. I noticed a few people were changing it. I was going to change it back myself was unable to.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.154.161 (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Safe Schools Coalition Australia

Did you mean to leave the two contentious contents, that the IPs had been removing, deleted from Talk:Safe Schools Coalition Australia, or did you intend to restore them? —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Up to you guys. Certainly not a personal attack as claimed. I'm looking at a rangeblock but that's a pretty dynamic range. Katietalk 20:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not a personal attack and that the removal is far more problematic than the comment. Under the circumstances, I thought it better to ask than guess wrong and trigger yet one more revert on that page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Blocked 49.196.152.0/21 for 60 hours. I don't think longer than that will do much good but if he persists I can renew it. Hope it helps. :-) Katietalk 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you gave User talk:Wicked006 a short block on the 24th. Unfortunately his first edit since his block expired was exactly the same as all of his previous edits. Can you please consider some further action. Thanks Mattlore (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mattlore (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for responding to my ANI report about IP vandalism and for your guidance about a better place to make the report next time I see a similar problem. David in DC (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :-) Katietalk 14:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia basketball team

Why did you protect article of the Serbian national basketball team... and why did you removed all medals from 1992. THAT IS VANDALISM. Serbia is successor state of FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Motenegro national team [3].--Bozalegenda (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?????????--Bozalegenda (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to respond to someone who accuses me of vandalism. Katietalk 13:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well your edit is clearly VANDALISM. In infobox stand - joined FIBA in 1992, and you removed all medals from year 1992. You are removing all history of one basketball contry, and ignoring sources. And how could I call that? just VANDALISM.--Bozalegenda (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you're talking about Serbia men's national basketball team, I have made no edits to the page other than to protect it fully due to an edit war. I haven't added anything, and I haven't removed anything. I couldn't care less about Serbian basketball.
I'll give you one last chance to retract your accusation of vandalism. Pro tip: don't come asking for admin help by making a personal attack. Katietalk 14:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well you locked article, its your fault because there is FALSE INFORMATION standing for days. Why didnt you locked just for anonymous, not for all users. Im one of main basketball editors for European basketball here, and for years i edit articles here and now i cant remove your mistake. This is not personal, I just cant believe that admin could make such a big mistake.--Bozalegenda (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've been here "for years," you know how this works. This is a content dispute, and you're basically complaining that I protected The Wrong Version. You guys will either work it out on the talk page or you won't. If you do, great, though I'm not optimistic because there's no discussion there. If you don't, it's going to get locked again to stop the edit war which, BTW, was going on between registered users as well as IPs. This is the last comment I'll make on the subject. Don't accuse me of vandalism again. Katietalk 14:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of god are you even reading my posts on your talk page??? In infobox stand - joined FIBA in 1992, and there are no medals from 1992. SO WERE ARE MEDALS??? You locked wrong version, and now for days is standing a FALSE INFORMATION and makes wikipedia not reliable. JUST REMOVE YEAR 1992 or put back medals from that period.--Bozalegenda (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove my reviewer and auto patrolled rights

Hi Katie, in June this year, after my discussions with Iridescent on the rollback right noticeboard (and another page), you had rejected my rollback rights request, quoting trust issues with me; you had advised me to reapply in December (after 6 months). I only now realized that it was you who had granted me reviewer rights too. I realize that these rights too are absolutely equivocally associated with the trust the community may have with an editor. Because I respect your (and Iridescent's) judgement on rejecting my 2nd rollback request, I request you to please remove my reviewer and auto patrolled rights. I shall request them again from you in December, if you believe I have gained the required trust of the community by then. Thank you. Lourdes 02:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Done Feel free to ask back of KrakatoaKatie or apply at WP:PERM in the future. — xaosflux Talk 02:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Lourdes 03:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War article against edit warring

Hello Katie, would you please protect the Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War again? Some user User:Beshogur has now for a second time reverted against talk page consensus that the promotional label "Free Syrian Army" must not be mis-presented as a fictional organizational structure in infobox, I would not know what to do, as I do not want to engage in edit warring. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @2A1ZA: I saw the little edit war that went on earlier today. I've posted a 1RR reminder to the article talk page, as my protection last time was only because I didn't want to block so many editors. I didn't have to do that – I could have blocked all of you for a long time without any prior warning. Now that everyone's been notified and the notifications have been logged, you're all on your last dime. If there are violations of 1RR, go to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. Katietalk 20:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions notice

Hello. I received that notice on my talk page after I reverted four vandal edits from the IP "42.80.192.145". Does that mean I can only revert only one time per day, even if he/she continues vandalizing articles?--Andres arg (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andres arg: Reverting clear vandalism is an explicit exemption to 3RR and 1RR. Katietalk 22:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

As you have deleted those pages that I listed on WP:AN, I am assuming you have read my post. I found them through recent changes clicking various options under new user contributions as show only page creations and selecting "Templates", "Wikipedia".

The problem is that I can't see beyond one month, as recent changes list only one month old pages. Every hour the oldest page vanishes from the list. That's why listed them on WP:AN.

And right now there is no way anyone can find any such templates and Wikipedia pages created before August 2016 and still unpatrolled.

I am not able to explain others properly, what exactly I am trying to say. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: I understood it, though I had to read through it twice. That's on me, though. :-) This needs to go to WP:VPT, where the coders hang out. I'd file a Phabricator ticket myself but I'd probably futz it up. Just tell them what you told me: that the New Pages feed doesn't cover new pages outside the mainspace, there's a problem with new users creating wacky templates and so on that aren't templates, and that the new page patrollers need to be able to see all the new pages, particularly those older than one month. Katietalk 14:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Marvellous Spider-Man: I saw your post (and post here) - I'm currently working on a db query which may be able to present the information you need. It's not done yet, and I'll drop you a line when its done. I still reccomend Katie's suggestion to contact WP:VPT -- samtar talk or stalk 14:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samtar:I won't be able to explain it to them properly as I lack technical knowledge about Wikipedia. I have tagged other pages also which I didn't list at WP:AN as in September CSD log User:Marvellous Spider-Man/CSD log. I am still unaware of Wikipedia's internal process. It would be better, if any experienced editor/administrator do it. If you want, you can request some other administrator with technical knowledge to make such request.
If in one month space, I found so many templates/wikipedia:____ pages which are speedily deleted, then just think how many are actually surviving (created before one month). I am a new user, why nobody thought about this before?
When I first found out pages like this, I was surprised and made a WP:AN post without thinking much. And an administrator reverted my post, then Another administrator Fram reverted the other administrator:Stephen. I made mistake at WP:AN, and If I request at WP:VPT, I will make mistake again If no other experienced editor helps me. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marvellous Spider-Man: You've done fine. As I said, it's my problem that I had to read it twice, not yours. Samtar is all over it now, and he's one of the good guys. AN was as a good place to start as any, because it is an admin issue. We've had some disruption at AN recently and some people are too quick to revert – again, that's their problem, not yours. There are eyes on it now and a solution in the works, which is what you wanted. It's all good. Give Samtar some time to work on it. If I can help further, let me know.  :-) Katietalk 15:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you Katie @Marvellous Spider-Man: I'm afraid to say this possible solution doesn't look all too promising. Myself and Musik have given the idea of a database query a go, but to no avail. I would again recommend a quick post to WP:VPT (or I'll do it later, I don't mind) -- samtar talk or stalk 14:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

I think it is fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okfarmerjohn (talkcontribs) 01:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Handthrown and Mmyers and the RFC

Were you able to measure the Beaufort force of the wind inside the teapot before closing the discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for that, Robert. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little hazy on incivility, it seems that a lot more gets a pass than used to when I first joined Wikipedia, so I have to ask, are editors now allowed to continue making snide comments in ANI discussions even after an admin has closed them [4]? Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In recent history, Mmyers has made a surprising number of personal attacks herself, including:

The accusation of dishonesty against Handthrown is at least as offensive as the comments forming the basis of her complaint (which I still read as saying the article, not her, would be defrauding readers); the other barbs are more hostile and personal than the post-close remark she now objects to. Additionally, she attempted to remove adverse comments from the ANI thread (e.g., Kleuske's sarcastic but merits-based response). Since she has chosen to continue the fight, and in light of the evidence of incivility and hypocrisy above, I respectfully suggest that you consider applying the same standard to Mmyers that she wants applied to others. Rebbing 17:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact, I am a man. And I am not choosing to continue the fight, EEng chose to continue it by posting an additional barb two hours after Katie had closed the discussion (I was merely aprising her of that) and you are choosing to continue the fight with all that. And with the exception of the things I said to Handthrown (which have a context behind them you are omitting), everything else you are diffing was in response to unprovoked sarcasm and self-described "mockery" of me by the cabal you are now advocating for. I filed the ANI while I was very frustrated, but many people come to ANI like that, with something that feels more personal to them than it would to an uninvolved person, and for Wikipedia to allow uninvolved non-admins to pile in and mock people who file ANI reports (this is apparently something at least EEng if not the others in my ANI have been doing habitually), it's appalling that it is allowed to go on without action by admins, it's guaranteed to escalate conflict, not resolve it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are choosing to continue the fight. EEng makes those kinds of comments at ANI. Everybody knows it, and now you do too. He's being snarky, not uncivil. Stop paying attention and it won't bother you.
When something comes to the level of a block or formal warning, an admin will act on it. Did you see any admin participation in that section? Nope. There's a reason for that – nothing rose to the level of admin action, and all that was happening was exactly what's happening here, which is a bunch of mudslinging back and forth that serves no purpose.
Here's my last warning: everybody go write the encyclopedia. I'm out for a while, but trust me when I say there are plenty of admin talk page watchers here who won't hesitate to step in to referee, and you won't like it when they do. Katietalk 18:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:AdamDeanHall jumping the gun with WP:AIV reports. Thank you. RunnyAmigatalk 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I warned KyloRen123 not to add unsourced material to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page, but I shouldn't have reported him on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Jumping the gun with my WP:AIV report was a mistake. Next time, I'll just warn him. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking

Hello there. I just want to ask you something. Is there a feature here in Wikipedia that can make me "patrol" categories? What I mean is if there is something that I can use so I can watch over categories. But the "watch" that I know only notifies me when someone edited a page that I "watched". What I am finding is something that "watching categories", but instead notifies me when an article page is added with a certain category. Example: I am focusing on Category:Abcd but of course, I do not know if an article page has been added with Cat:Abcd. What I am looking for is some kind of a tool that notifies me when an article page has been added with that cat.

I am looking for this tool (if there exists) because I am focusing in Category:Filipino basketball players and almost all of the pages inside that cat is also in my watchlist. I noticed that there are newly created articles that are added with that cat and I want to know which new pages are those so I can watch and edit it. I hope you do not mind answering this question from me. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you. Babymissfortune 12:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Babymissfortune: You know, I don't know. No inconvenience at all. @Samtar and MusikAnimal: Is there a way to do this? If there isn't, we should make one. Katietalk 12:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Babymissfortune: I believe the watchlist actually does that: when I watchlist a category page, I see entries for pages added or removed from that category (as well as changes to the category page itself). Is that what you're asking? Rebbing 12:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks for your response. Gladly appreciate it. ^-^
@Rebbing: Yeah that is what I am asking. Well I tried it but I have seen nothing on my watchlist. Maybe I should try it again. Thanks for the info. Babymissfortune 13:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Babymissfortune: Has the category had any recent additions or removals? Try watching Category:1989 births or any other heavily-used category; this is what it looks like for me. Rebbing 13:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rebbing: As of now, I think there isn't anything yet. I tried what you suggested moments ago and it worked. You are such a big help. Thank you very much. Babymissfortune 13:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome! I'm just glad I could help. The category-watching feature is a seriously underused and under-advertised part of the watchlist; I happened on it accidentally a few months ago. Rebbing 13:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2016





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in GLAM: August 2016





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Requesting deletion

Good day Ma'am. Could you please delete both Template:2016 PBA Governors' Cup Bracket and Template:2016 PBA Governor's Cup Playoffs bracket? Because the template to be used is really Template:2016 PBA Governors' Cup Playoffs Bracket. Maybe the user who created the template made a mistake in the first one and instead improving the template, he made another template. And because of that there were three templates created. Also, both templates' titles are wrong. Thank you. Babymissfortune 13:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Babymissfortune: I need you to nominate them for CSD or TFD just like you'd nominate anything else. The user in question hasn't had a talk page edit since November 2015, so rather than speculating on his motives, maybe you could ask him. :-) Katietalk 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katie. I understand that there's been sort of an editing war on the article about Ferdinand Marcos. I'm just a new contributor here so I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing.

While almost all my contributions are sourced, admittedly there are a few sources that are indeed not the most reliable. However, I was a little disappointed to see my "entire" contributions getting taken away, when only parts of it were attributed to unreliable sources like "blogsites, hoppler, wordpress, youtube, wikipilipinas". I would have expected other editors just to raise an issue on these portions rather undo everything that I contributed.

I noticed that you have temporarily locked editing on the article. Now that I know the guidelines, would you please unlock the article? I'll be ensuring that only well-referenced sources are contributed. Thank you!

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thetruth16: I'm not encouraged by your choice of username. Those who are seeking to right great wrongs are often disappointed. That said, it's best you discuss your changes on the article talk page and reach consensus on your edits. Some of your sources appear unreliable. Katietalk 13:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: Hello again. The unreliable sources are a minority. I looked at them again and removed them already. Without my contribution, the current article only shows one point of view and has hidden other facts that have been reported by reputable Philippine and international media. Here's the portion that I'd like to contribute, all with reputable sources that conforms with Wikipedia's policy. You can skim through these sources at the very bottom and let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

Thetruth16 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and removed your proposed edits, because they do not belong here. Do not make them to this page again. I've told you to go to the article talk page to discuss this. I have no interest in the topic and I have acted purely in an administrative capacity here. Administrators are not content arbiters and I will not comment further. Thank you. Katietalk 15:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: Hello Katie. What happens next after I go to the article talk page and discuss my points? The article is locked . Will it be unlocked? Who will know and who decides if a consensus is reached and when the article can be edited again?

Thetruth16 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there hasn't been any discussion yet on the talk page, try waiting for that to happen. Reading WP:CONSBUILD might be helpful also. Protection will expire automatically; when it does, don't edit war to get your position into the article. Katietalk 20:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent blocked IP has returned

Hello KK. I hope you are well as we head into autumn. I wanted to let you know that the IP that was vandalizing the Yuma Territorial Prison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has created Kiddie1234456778 (talk · contribs) and is making the same edits. I don't know if a RFPP is in order or not. If you think that is a good idea just let me know and I will made the appropriated request. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the account and protected it for two weeks. Hopefully that gets it. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 22:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you as well for taking care of things. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the citations under that Tom Woods article are incorrect. 7 cites James Lowen, pages 167 and 333 as referring to the LvMI and it's neoconfederate leanings. Page 167 of the book does not at all refer to this in any way, shape or form. I removed that citation first. Why was it put back?

Citation 9 is an unverifiable source. How can this be used as proof? How is that website a legitimate source?

Citation 12 and 13 are equally troublesome, especially when making accusations such as the ones the person who inserted this has done. alt.net is a legitimate source? As for 13, the link to the Abeville website does not prove someone is a member, and I'm not sure how this is acceptable.

Warswics (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]