User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions with User:KrakatoaKatie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Bad block?

2602:306:3357:BA0:6078:5A12:A559:D5C8 (talk · contribs) filed an AIV report against 99.22.217.170 (talk · contribs).[1] 99.22.217.170's contribs show lots of section blanking that was reverted by many different editors. A block for 99.22.217.170 seems appropriate. Instead, you did not block 99.22.217.170 but rather blocked the IPv6 (A559:D5C8) who had made the report and had undone some of the vandalism.[2] Is that what you intended? Glrx (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

~~Since you're out, I raised the issue at WP:ANI#Apparent misblock of well-intended IPv6 Glrx (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)~~

New Buckenham

Katie, your helpful message noted, I understand the thing is an evolving project, I will address my proposed input when I have my head round the referencing guide. meantime the following does not seem a very helpful reply I got from the one that I think reported me ? what I sent was an attempt to engage with this person constructively..........

My message to 'imperatrix mundi'; Hello (2). I have now found some material on my talk page that I think is some references that you were referring to, which I can see you have provided in good faith, but what you have sent relates to Old Buckenham which is a neighbouring parish, and aspects of the history of New Buckenham that are unrelated to the material I am trying to post. please don't be offended but could I ask if you have read the material I tried to post, in the revised and sourced/ referenced version?... are you an official editor - how does this work ? thanks Observer900 (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Reply received; If you continue to make edits without providing reliable, secondary independant sources, then they will be continuously reverted. You have been told this now multiple times by different editors; and I for one am heartilly sick of having the same discussion over and over. Since you seem incapable of listening to or taking advice, I see no profit to either of us in continuing this converstaion. I consider this topic closed. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Observer900 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello I am trying to improve and correct the material at the New Buckenham page. this is being constantly reverted, I hope the reverter has been 'warned' as I have ?. Could you help me by explaining are you an administrator ?. Anyway I know the subject matter very well and have sought to upload a re-written and fully sourced and referenced piece, but this is still being reverted by some body who does not know the facts. What do I do ?. I have sought to 'talk' with that person, to no avail ?. thanks..... Observer900 (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Observer900: Welcome to Wikipedia, and yes, I am an administrator. That said, I am not a referee about article content. Sysops deal with technical matters and user conduct, not content.

You were reported to the edit-warring noticeboard for edit warring and violating our three-revert rule, which applies regardless of your expertise or lack thereof. You definitely did pass 3RR but because you weren't warned about the policy, I decided to give you that warning as a show of good faith.

We have a saying here called BRD - bold, revert, discuss. You've made your bold edit, and it was reverted. Now it's time to discuss. The article's talk page is the best place for that. You can keep notes like the ones currently at the bottom of your talk page in your sandbox, which you can start by clicking the 'sandbox' link up at the top of any page next to your username.

We also have formatting guidelines and requirements for references, as well as hard policies about reliable sources. There are links to help in the welcome message at the top of your talk page. You can also find help and ask questions at the Teahouse.

The standard here is not truth - it's verifiability. If you edit with that in mind, as well as our policy prohibiting original research, you'll do fine.

Be patient and remember that this is a collaborative project. It's unlikely you'll get your way 100% of the time. ;-) If I can help further, please let me know. Katie^talk 16:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Katie, thanks, that's about the most constructive thing I had yet, and also I see you did also warn the other person too, just repeatedly striking out somebody's work is bullying not collaboration. I have seen some stuff came my way about how to put up sources which I will look at. it kinda cheeses me off that some person that appears to know absolutely nothing about this village thought it was ok to delete my work instead of asking me about it first, but I'll have another go and hopefully it will be left alone. you were right to be moderate as of course I knew nothing of the 3 deletes policy... !!! thank you. Observer900 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Observer900: Glad I could help. One more piece of advice: do yourself a favor and leave the 'hopefully it will be left alone' wishes at the door, 'cause it's not going to happen. Your contributions are going to get changed and edited and even removed because that's the way this place works. We used to have a sentence right above the 'save page' button that said something like, "If you do not want your text edited mercilessly, do not submit it.' I don't know why they took it out, but those are words to live by around here. ;-)

One idea to get started with collaboration would be to ask one of the other editors, on their talk pages, for help in formatting your references. That person can give you input on the suitability of the references and also help with the prose.

We've had dozens upon dozens of 'experts' decide they're unable to contribute here because they believe they are always right, that no one else has their particular insight or knowledge about their subject area. Sometimes they've become so disruptive and angry that we've had to ban them from the project. Don't be that guy. We really are an easygoing bunch if you can work within our system. :-) Katie^talk 20:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC Closure at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RFC:_Clarification_over_main-space_to_draft-space_moves

Katie, I appreciate that there were many different and nuaunced answers to the question posed. Do you wish to do anything with clause iv at Wikipedia:Drafts#Incubation which states that users may move any article into draft? It is still marked with ^{[under discussion]}. - hahnch e n 16:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hahnchen: You know, I don't think so. There was no consensus to change anything, so it should be left as is. Feel free to remove the tag until a concrete proposal is made. Thanks. :-) Katie^talk 17:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants (film series)

Reverted edits were unsourced claims or claims with dubious sources. Would renewing PC help much? --George Ho (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Patrician Brothers' College, Blacktown

One self-revert and one reverted addition of unsource claim—would they justify PC renewal? --George Ho (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

194.176.105.133

I might suggest the block be made indefinite; as they have threatened sock puppetry and said they will not stop the threats until they get what they want. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@331dot: Can't indef block an IP address. We're having long term trouble with NHS IPs making legal threats over that article - there was a recent ANI thread about it that I don't have time to track down right now (do a search there for 'NHS' and it should pop). For now, it's RBI one by one. :-/ Katie^talk 14:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I was not actually aware of that fact- thank you. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@331dot: All part of the service here at Katie's House of Fun Facts That Have Absolutely No Use Anywhere Else On The Internet (KHFFTHANUAEOTI). I shall make a new page about it shortly because it's certainly notable. I am a rouge admin and I say so. :-) Katie^talk 14:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi KrakatoaKatie!

Hi, I noticed that you changed the protection level for Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Thank you for that! But I will like to request to you to restore the version before that of the dispute i.e., do revert this non-WP:RS addition here, as it will be easier for we editors to resolve the dispute at talk page. Thank You! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: Nope. Katie^talk 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sock back

Hi, you blocked User:203.220.30.241 in January as a sock (not stated but it's fairly obvious a sock of User:Bowei Huang 2) perhaps based on this discussion Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 120#What is this guy doing?. It seems the editor came back with the IP soon after the blocked expired and they've been editing sporadicly with the IP since then (perhaps when their latest account is blocked) with the same old stuff. I'm lazy to open an SPI even though I probably don't need much evidence (and don't see much advantage), so wondering if you can block again. Nil Einne (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Future Perf did exactly that and he won't be back from that address until September. :-) Katie^talk 03:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

On semi-protecting my userpage

Hey - after approving my RPP request to semi-protect my userpage indefinitely it didn't technically go through. I'd appreciate it if it could go through, thanks. NottNott talk|contrib 18:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: Huh. I thought I did that (although I had a pretty high fever yesterday, not even kidding), but it's protected now. It should have been protected already anyway [3]. Did you have a username change or did the page get moved somehow? Because that's the usual reason for indef protection in the log not being indef protection on the page. Katie^talk 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No username change here, I deleted and recreated my page just to hide some particularly embarrassing userpage revisions from when I was younger from 2013 (don't venture too deep in there, trust me) - I didn't want editors to hold me against them to this day, that's all

NottNott talk|contrib 21:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That was it - the deletion. When a protected page is deleted then recreated, the old protection settings don't carry forward but show in the log. Makes sense now. At any rate, all is well. :-) Katie^talk 21:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Trackteur

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Trackteur_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

You fully protected Timothy Leary. Could you review my edit request at Talk:Timothy Leary#Protected edit request on 1 April 2016, please? Msnicki (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Unprotect request

My edit request has been denied even though it merely asked that 6 WP:RS be added in support of the claim that Timothy Leary was a philosopher. This question has been dragged by those who claim he was not (well, one editor in particular) to 4 different drama boards. This should not be a difficult content question and bureaucratic responses like the the PP and to my edit request are unhelpful. I'm requesting pro forma that you unprotect the page but, not meaning to be disrespectful, will also shortly post a separate request at WP:RFP. Msnicki (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, KrakatoaKatie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC). 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.

Music1201 (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

RevDel request

Please see this diff which the edit summary and content of the edit contains offensive material. — Music1201 ^talk 23:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

An IP that you've encountered in the past.

There was an IP that you warned in the past, who is misbehaving a little. To make a long story, slight shorter... This guy is trying to make disputed changes to a few articles, in regards to vehicle classification. He jumps from one IP to another, he seems to have a huge list of IPs to choose from. I'm not sure if he is making good faith changes or is just being a troll. (my negative personality, would say he is trolling) He's already had one of his IPs blocked, but I'm not sure what can/should be done, considering his ability to use a large number of IPs.

Special:Contributions/202.94.72.247

Here are the articles in question.

Toyota Hilux Mitsubishi Triton Nissan Navara

and here is the comment you made on their talk page, in the past [[4]]

I'm looking for either admin action, or some advice. Either would be appreciated gratefully. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Another RevDel request

Please RevDelete the first 19 revisions of the Bazidpur, Samastipur article. They contain copyright violations (here is the source that was copy and pasted). The copyright violations have been fixed. — Music1201 ^talk 22:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Katie^talk 03:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wallingford, Connecticut

There have been reverts this week. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Katie, would be grateful if you could consider me for an RfA nomination. I've been on the Wikipedia for long, and my intent is to build content focussing on the smaller parts of the planet. Thank you! fredericknoronha (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fredericknoronha: I do not nominate editors with whom I am not familiar, sorry. You can submit your name at WP:RFACP. :-) Katie^talk 03:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please

I am Taiwanese, You convert to the correct entry. --223.136.139.100 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:WBSC Premier 12 and Category:WBSC Premier 12 players and Category:2015 WBSC Premier 12 players??? --223.136.139.100 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:WBSC Premier12 and Category:WBSC Premier12 players and Category:2015 WBSC Premier12 players??? --223.136.139.100 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Smartphone

Katie, if semi-protection request is not accepted, can you extend PC protection instead? Almost none of edit that were pending changes have been accepted; most of them were vandalism. --George Ho (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent Auto confirm

Katie, restriction placed on CE is timely for this. Just encountered 6-month old entry revert by a "new" user, 2600:8800:ff04:c00:e53c:d908:2301:35cb, whose contributions page for today, yells:

(excerpt)

   19:11, April 17, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-1,058)‎ . . Portal:Current events/2015 November 27 ‎ (Undid revision 708172189 by RaqiwasSushi (talk)not supported by scientific citation)
   19:10, April 17, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-226)‎ . . Portal:Current events/2015 November 17 ‎ (Undid revision 695724566 by Hariboneagle927 (talk)) (current)
   13:10, April 17, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-232)‎ . . Portal:Current events/2016 April 17 ‎ (Undid revision 715729529 by ProjectHorizons (talk))
   13:10, April 17, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-315)‎ . . Portal:Current events/2016 April 17 ‎ (Undid revision 715729609 by ProjectHorizons (talk)and again SOCK, "YOU" are not an edit warrior?! even thou YOU have made 3 reverts?)
   12:53, April 17, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-315)‎ . . Portal:Current events/2016 April 17 ‎ (Removed blatant agenda pushing - a TV show? - one that has a political objective that matches your personal interests in propaganda = not suitable for an encyclopedia!)
   02:49, April 17, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Portal:Current events/2016 April 17 ‎
   02:48, April 17, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-982)‎ . . Portal:Current events/2016 April 17 ‎ (Undid revision 715664356 by Clubjustin4 (talk)and again removed bias pushing)
   02:47, April 17, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-982)‎ . . Portal:Current events/2016 April 17 ‎ (Undid revision 715662816 by Shhhhwwww!! (talk)again removed your blatant bias pushing)
   02:10, April 17, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-982)‎ . . Portal:Current events/2016 April 17 ‎ (Undid revision 715659166 by Clubjustin4 (talk)and again removed endless bias including your next new sock attempting to revert)
   01:58, April 17, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-982)‎ . . Portal:Current events/2016 April 17 ‎ (removed endless agenda pushing)

(excerpt ends) Thanks RaqiwasSushi (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Again - stated here for endless ENDLESS agenda pusher RaqiwasSushi - the scientific citation for Nov 27, 2015, does NOT LET ME REPEAT - IT DOES NOT support the addition of the item in question!--2600:8800:FF04:C00:E53C:D908:2301:35CB (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This is actually one of my favorite Agenda pushes by RaqiwasSushi - NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE IS THERE ANY SCIENTIFIC STUDY WHICH STATES ANY OF THE THINGS this agenda pusher wrote on that date - you find the study in a reputable journal that states the exact same thing and I will print this page out and take a picture as I eat it!--2600:8800:FF04:C00:E53C:D908:2301:35CB (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

also Isnt it a violation of wiki policy that I should have been given fair warning on my talk page that this user had Inlisted your help as an admin???!--2600:8800:FF04:C00:E53C:D908:2301:35CB (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

New Delhi

This has been vandalized recently; extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer proposition

Thank you for considering my application for rollbacker, and thank you for being generous enough to offer reviewer status to me. I would like to accept the offer in place of rollback permissions in hopes that in a while I will have a passing amount of anti-vandalism work. As a side note - it took a while to get a reply from the request, is that normal? I seems like at least 2 others went through before mine. Thanks. HarryKernow (talk to me) 20:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Vormeph

Hi. I've just seen this edit warring report you've closed with a warning, which I had missed before because the bickering with Vormeph on the Iran article had gotten beyond the annoying sort and I wanted a break from it.

However, I'm seeing some things I find quite appalling, and since you've dealt with this in the report, I'm telling you about it before raising my voice on a noticeboard.

First, he dismissed my concern that sources contradicted him by claiming I am an Iranian nationalist or just delusional to think that Iran is also known as Persia and that he was simply enlightening you on this fact, so you can sit down while I make the required changes that you ought to accept (during an edit war where he was warned and then reported for removing cited material?!).
Then, he concedes to McGeddon that we might have been right after all, although McGeddon failed to take into account that any decrees made before 1979 were annulled following the revolution (I've been telling him like a broken record that "official" names and "decrees" aren't what determines naming on Wikipedia, but he's been totally deaf on that ear), and so, he could come to an agreement on the text to use in the article, but only provided the condition is you must rescind your report of me. Now seriously, what?!? This is basically blackmail in my book. Is this acceptable behavior?
Finally, I visit his user page and I notice I'm actually on a "Naughty List" of his (despite the fact I had even stopped replying or changing the article text that he had actually had the last word on in the end, at least as far as I was concerned). I thought there was WP:POLEMIC? Can he really have that sort of edit blacklist on Wikipedia? Below that list, he explains that he's "always" being reported and "harassed" by "bullies" on that list and urges other people do "avoid" them. Come on. Those are strong accusations.

Basically, regardless of the actual detail of whether "Persia" is an acceptable WP:COMMONNAME for Iran today (which he fails to see is the main issue in the first place, continually citing what's official and what's not, what's a revolutionary decree and what's not, and so on), I'm calling his overall behavior nothing short of heinous. Should I just pretend I'm not seeing it? LjL (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: No, you're not supposed to pretend that. I warned him to remove that list, and since he hasn't, I removed it from both his user and talk pages.

My job at AN3 was to address the edit warring, which had stopped and was stale because we were backed up. I can't block someone for edit warring when the edit war stopped more than a day earlier and he hadn't edited since, but if it hadn't been stale, he would have enjoyed a short vacation.

The disruption and tendentiousness are another issue, though related. He engaged again at Talk:Iran today for the first time in several days, and while his tone is still pretty belligerent he has not edited the article since my warning, which I hope he took to heart (though I'm not optimistic – righting great wrongs and all that). If he does disrupt again I'd like a wider set of eyes on him, and I think ANI has many, many eyes. You can do it now if you like, of course, but we have rope for a reason. If I can help further, let me know. :-) Katie^talk 00:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't implying that you hadn't done your job or done it properly, it's just that since you had dealt with the edit warring report, you were familiar with the situation and it seemed better to come here than to escalate it directly to ANI.

In a way I was amused to be on a "naughty list", but given that contrary to the claims below it, I never actually reported him or "bullied" him but just reverted him a couple of times and discussed on Talk:Iran, if anything, he seemed like the bully, with his "beware of these people!" list. From that angle, and given I'm really annoyed by hypocrisy and turning things around, it was a little less funny, so thanks for deleting it. LjL (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I understand you weren't taking that angle with how I did the AN3 thing. Just easier to explain it all one time, you know? :-) And I'd be kind of tickled about that list thing too; I mean, we've got that userbox for how many times your user page gets vandalized for a reason. (My very first admin action, back in the Cretaceous Period, was to semi-protect my user page, more to see if that new button actually worked than anything else, so I am sadly ineligible to play that game. My talk page gets it sometimes, though.) In the end he's an SPA, and some SPAs just can't get it. Katie^talk 01:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, KrakatoaKatie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC). 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.

TJH2018 talk 02:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It's up. --TJH2018 talk 22:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@TJH2018: Nuts. Well, he'll eventually wear out his welcome on Commons (or somewhere else) and then it'll be ripe. You did good with the wording, though. Katie^talk 23:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm gonna stay out of it for a while, as it seems to be getting nowhere with all this blockage. --TJH2018 talk 01:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

Thank you very much your the consideration KrakatoaKatie along with that helpful tip . I am curious however, would 98 reverts to vandalism and 96 unexplained content removal out of 28,037 total edits in a two-span constitute as being no history? Should that be higher? I was also awarded "defender of the barnstar" by a confirmed user a while ago for this reason. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Savvyjack23: Reverting is great, but you have to warn appropriately and report them when necessary. I (and I imagine the other patrolling admins) place great stock in the quality of reports to AIV and RFPP. You have exactly zero contributions to AIV. There's no set number we're looking for there, but greater than zero is important. ;-)

We get requests for rollback all the time from people wanting speed in reversion, and that's not what rollback is for. It is solely for reverting vandalism, and content removal is not necessarily vandalism. We have to make sure you know what vandalism is and what it is not. If you haven't done anti-vandalism work, you can't get rollback. Simple as. We're happy to reconsider after you've been at it for a while, though – you can ask me here, or post another request at PERM. If I can answer more questions, just let me know. :-) Katie^talk 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ohh okay gotcha. You explanation was very helpful and informative moving forward; I appreciate your time concerning the matter. Yes, one day perhaps I'll take you up on that for another round. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

In continuation of my RPP request, can you also please redirect Rukhsaar Rehman to Rukhsar Rehman (alternate spellings). Thanks!- Managerarc™^talk 06:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Katie^talk 14:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A Head Full of Dreams

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent unsourced content.115.164.180.5 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected one week. Katie^talk 15:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

For various and sundry

		The Admin's Barnstar
		With much appreciation, for a number of situations in which you've assisted with calm intelligence. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thank you. :-) Katie^talk 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)