User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Help with a CSD Log?

Hi Katie, I was wondering if I could get some help with creating a CSD log to track the pages I tagged for deletion. I'm asking as I put in a poll for my worthiness as an admin here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#RickinBaltimore, and this was suggested to me. Any insight you could share I'd appreciate! RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Twinkle. Twinkle is the answer to all your prayers. If you use Twinkle to do your CSD and PROD noms, you can set it up to log them to the subpage of your choice AND you can choose which pages the log pricess should ignore. I've never used Huggle so I don't know if there's a similar function there. There are some folks who look down on automated edits but I'm not one of them. Twinkle and Huggle and the rest are simply tools, and it's how you use the automated edits that matters to me. Hope that helps, and I think you'd be an awesome admin. If you decide to go for it, I'd be happy to nominate you. :-) Katie^talk 14:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That is very high praise and I thank you for that! I want to see how the community responds to my poll, and if you wanted to nominate me, I would honored. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to retro-add pages I've tagged for deletion to my logs? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so because you can't see your deleted contributions. I was going to say I could take screenshots and email them to you but there are just too many. I guess you could go through your user talk contributions and find them that way, through the redlinks, but I think that's just making work. It doesn't matter what the deleted articles are, really – they're more interested at RFA about the noms you made that were declined and why. However, I'm not the Twinkle and xTools expert. This dude => MusikAnimal is, and maybe he can help us here. Katie^talk 15:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigma's edit summary search tool to the rescue! Here ya go [1]. But yeah, moving forward you may wish to have Twinkle log your nominations. But I guess if you're an admin you might be doing more actual deletions than nominations :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You all have been a great help, and I went ahead and enabled the logs in TW. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Giving it more thought, should you find that I would be a worthy candidate, feel free to nominate me if you so choose to do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You need to be ready to do it, because it can be a stressful week. Are you ready? ARE YOU? (cues this song and rocks out)

Seriously, I'd be happy to nominate you but it can be a time sink for you at the start, so you want to not necessarily clear your schedule but definitely make sure you've got ample room. You might want to wait until you've got a good set of data in the new CSD log, and we want to make sure we have some solid content contributions outlined for the content creator !voters. In addition, I'd like to find a co-nom if possible because I'm a virgin at this whole RFA nom thing and while I feel confident I'd like somebody to hold my hand. I think co-noms do better, but it might be my own bias. If you have a particularly good collaborative relationship with someone, particularly an admin, that would be a good choice. Katie^talk 21:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me with all that. At the earliest, I'd say next week, just because weekends for me are a time I'm not around as much as I like. I can of course play it cool and wait if needed, no big rush. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to dissuade you for applying to be a candidate, Rick, but unless you are one of the lucky few who breeze through their RfAs with hardly an Oppose, you can expect it to be a solid week of editors combing over your contribution history, bringing up edits they believe were mistakes as well as making pronouncements about your character (or the lack thereof). I'm proof that these experiences aren't necessarily fatal to a nomination but you really need to have an RfA during a relatively stressfree week. It's a long seven days and a great many editors' votes will be influenced by your behavior during the RfA so you don't want to have it during a period of time where you are stressed, sleepless or frustrated. So, it could be now or in a month or a couple months. When you have an RfA is one of the few elements of the process that is totally under your control. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What Liz said. I came up in 2007 and had an easy time and I was still a basket case. You'll have to answer optional questions (dunno why they call 'em optional, 'cause they're SO not) and you'll need to have someone tie your hands down during the rest of it to keep you from responding to the opposes. The timing is entirely up to you but I will say that it will be much better for me to wait until mid-June, because Commencement is in two weeks and I'm going to this little race and then I'm going to see the Mouse. I can do it during this time frame if necessary but I'd rather wait until June. We also need to let the CSD log ferment plus I'd like you to find the content contributions of which you're most proud; it might not be a bad idea to start doing some more content work. We only want to have to do this once so let's give it our best shot. To avoid weekends for you, we could transclude it late on a Sunday night, so it will be in the end stages on the following weekend. Think about it, and start digging through your history. ;-) Katie^talk 14:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If you and Liz (both of you I have the utmost respect for as editors) feel it should wait a bit, then by all means I'll wait till June. One thing that I feel won't be an issue is that I won't take this personally. I ran for ArbCom (former user name Wildthing61476) last year, and THAT was a grilling and a public open display for all to see. I didn't win (or come close), but honestly I didn't let it bother me. Should I not get chosen to be an admin, I'll take what the community has to say to heart and go from there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Resting bitch face

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Resting bitch face. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

...for dealing with the admin requests at SPI. Your work there is really appreciated. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The UTRS Barnstar
		Thank you for your dedication to the UTRS tool. You've resolved 68 appeals in the last 5 months and handled nearly 10% of the workload all by yourself. I appreciate the dedication! Also, you're the first person to get this barnstar!--v/r - TP 03:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Ten percent? SERIOUSLY? Wow, I had no idea! Thanks so much, and I shall guard this barnstar with the Katie Sarong of Protection! :-D Katie^talk 03:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Katie, thanks for protecting Israel. Just an FYI: when you make a page extended-confirmed protected, because {{pp-30-500}} has not been integrated into {{pp}} and the related family of templates and modules, it is necessary to add it manually. BethNaught (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: AHA! We do have one! And that is a lovely shade of rose. (It should be called ARBPIA Rose. I'll get Pantone on that right away.) I was looking last night for a 30/500 template and couldn't find one (guess I wasn't looking very hard, was I?) and I was going to ask MusikAnimal today to work one into Twinkle and into {{RFPP}}. Thanks! :-) Katie^talk 12:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

{{pp-30-500}} is in fact in Twinkle, but not RFPP. Cyberpower says he doesn't have the time to reprogram his bot at the moment. :( (Also, it's blue; you're confusing with the template protection icon (which is displayed on pp-30-500 because that is itself protected).) BethNaught (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. I'm still on my first cup of coffee. I don't see the blue padlock on the template documentation and I think that's what bumfuzzled me. I like the rose better for 30/500 than for template protection - makes more sense to me - but oh well. Katie^talk 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Radiohead

Was my closure of the deletion discussion not valid? I thought this is possible in certain cases (non-admin closure)?--Laber□^T 22:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laberkiste: Oh no, you were okay, but you didn't do it right. There's a procedure - I just undid yours and reclosed with the appropriate stuff and bells and whistles. :-) Katie^talk 22:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hello, me again! Could you possibly have a look at this edit: [2] and RevDel it for the posting of a personal phone number? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Lectonar (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) In the future, please send requests to hide non-public information to the Oversight team. They can suppress it from being viewed even by administrators. @Lectonar: have you done this? BethNaught (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Am at work...only wanted the number to be gone asap. Lectonar (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I will then. BethNaught (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Beth! Wasn't sure whether this should have gone to OS, or a RevDel request! RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As a rule, if you're unsure always contact them. They will use normal revision deletion if they think that is more appropriate. BethNaught (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We can hide in the meantime, though. Usually OS is really quick but sometimes it can take a few hours. :-) Katie^talk 13:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion. Contacting to the Oversight team is especially important to avoid the Streisand effect. Especially with WP:BLP issues and defamation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

An SPI case needing review

Hi,

would you have time to look over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Theweditor ? I know there's a backlog but it's repetitive vandalism that's required a 6-month semiprotection to the page.Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, an update for you - with some judicious signups, I managed to get into some of the Oath Keepers forums on their website. They're REALLY paranoid about this as with most of the things they do, requiring one signup to be in a "state forum" and only letting you into the national one if you give them money.

The forums for Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, and Texas all have threads created to link to the Wikipedia article, and at least 2 of those threads were created by a "Jason Van Tatenhove" on the forums, which I believe to be related to this discussion on the talk page for the article in which someone claiming to be their national director wanted to have their "leadership" given editing authority during a period when the article was semiprotected due to their IP sock/meatpuppetry. I would keep checking but unfortunately, they seem to have deleted or blocked my access now, probably because I had to create new accounts to view each state.

It is my belief that they resorted to organized sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry after being shown the conflict of interest policies and being informed that they would not be given control of the article. If you'd like me to post this somewhere else, please do let me know. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: You need to put that into the SPI investigation so the clerks and CUs can have the information. I might comment again there afterward. Katie^talk 14:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've copied the information there. Thanks! Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Ysmael Villegas.jpg

What actually happened here? You wrote that you deleted the page for splitting it, but I don't see any moving of any revisions which you were splitting from the other file. It looks as if you just undeleted files and then redeleted them, which doesn't look correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I restored the wrong version initially and had to delete again to restore the correct one. What can I say - I'm human and I make mistakes. Made another one just a minute ago and I'll probably make more. The restoration process for files is not as straightforward as it is for articles but I'm plugging along. Since the alternate image was PD-US, I downloaded to local storage and uploaded it to Commons myself. Katie^talk 22:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this File:Ysmael Villegas1.jpg? It's better if you mention the names of both files in the deletion log - and include an original upload log. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Like I said, I'm learning, and I'm getting better at it. But since it's PD, an original upload log isn't required. Katie^talk 22:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It sometimes helps to know the original uploader if someone later disputes the copyright tag. The original uploader might know more about the source which might turn out to be useful. It's easy to generate an original upload log using toollabs:magog/fileinfo.php (to which there is a link in the {{Now Commons}} template). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Protection on Jon Jafari

Hey Katie. I think you may have made a mistake in full protecting the above; the request was just for move protection while the RM is open. See the RFPP. Thanks! — foxj 00:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

...Actually, even the move protection seems a bit much. There's no actual threat of vandalism on the page currently with edits or moves (the one place the page might move is salted already). Maybe just revert to the old settings? — foxj 00:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! — foxj 01:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

AIV and non-admins

Hi Katie,

Regarding this - as far as I know, non-admins reasonably declining non-applicable reports is OK. They obviously can't block - and to be honest, when AIV is super backlogged, or busy - I've asked non-admins to help me triage AIV in the past. My understanding is that much like AFD - the only part of the process that requires an admin is the blocking. SQL^{Query me!} 04:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: My problem and that of a bunch of others that work AIV and RFPP (we've discussed this a couple of times at either WT:RFPP or WT:PERM, but I can't remember which) is

a) it's often not done correctly, and we know that because

b) we have to investigate every report anyway and the clerking is pointless. It's not like AFD at all. AFD is not immediate and time-sensitive. Using the admin templates also infers that an administrator has addressed the issue when that has not happened. I know they want to help because God knows we need it, and I think Oshwah should be an admin sooner than later, but clerking at RFPP and AIV takes their time away from reporting and reverting to perform futile actions. That's my thinking. Katie^talk 04:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That's true - it is very much more time-sensitive. That being said, I haven't seen him/her make a mistake yet - and I have definitely leaned on Oshwah to help clear backlogs before. At the core of the issue, I just don't see why longstanding, experienced users shouldn't decline cases that... well, need declined. SQL^{Query me!} 04:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I know I used to decline AIV reports before I was an admin. That was back in 2006, but as long as it is done right I think it is helpful. HighInBC 04:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I've often thought that both AIV and RFPP could use more messaging templates – e.g. something like "Watching" would be one (to indicate that an Admin has looked at it, but is waiting for further developments before acting) esp. at RFPP. Templates for non-Admins might be another possible application – rather than just removing a report at AIV, a non-Admin could leave a followup templated message with a recommendation – if such a non-Admin "templated" report at AIV was not followed up by an Admin after a certain amount of time then the bot would simply remove it. I dunno if something like that would save Admins time, but with growing backlogs it's increasingly clear to me that some "clerking" by non-Admins at some of these noticeboards may become a necessity... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

All good points. Mine remains that in order to know that a case does or doesn't need declination, we have to look at it ourselves and make a decision. When I see this --> , I think that an admin has decided to decline that report. I mean, I don't think there's a hard and fast policy against it, and Oshwah did pretty good last night. I think I might have ended up blocking one that he declined, and a couple of others were declined with incorrect rationales - I remember he tagged one as insufficient activity when it was actually stale, and another as a content dispute that I thought should have been 'wasn't vandalism' - but that's splitting hairs. Not every non-admin trying to clerk AIV is Oshwah, though, and if I don't know the user and their judgment I've got to investigate it myself and it's all just a big waste of time. Something like 'IP still vandalizing, see this diff and that diff' is helpful and I think a 'non-administrator note' template could be useful for such comments. When the vandalism is really fast and furious, though, I'd rather non-admins be busy reverting and warning than investigating something that's got to be investigated by an admin anyway. But that's me. :-) Katie^talk 12:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I hope all of you enjoyed your weekend and that you're all doing well :-). Wow! It sounds like my clerking at AIV has started quite a discussion here! As you (hopefully) already know, I was simply trying to be helpful; the last thing I'd want is to make anything worse or cause anybody frustration. So... I stared clerking AIV on my own a few weeks ago. I wanted to do something new, and I wanted to gain experience in an area that I care about and where administrators need to be routinely familiar with. I was visiting AIV one night and saw that it was backlogged out the wazoo! I thought to myself, "Hey! Why don't I help out, start looking at reports, and make responses at AIV!", and that's what got me to start doing it.

I'll be honest with you... I'm quite happy that I chose to start clerking AIV! I didn't realize how crazy different that being in the "verify the report and decide whether to block" role was! It's a totally different skill and mindset, and it's an area I feel takes time and practice (as with anything else of course) to get a feel for. All administrators who work in AIV had to build that skill from scratch as I started doing; what's nice is that I'm building the proficiency now so that I can (hopefully.... someday!!!.... lol) walk into the administrative role with the experience already well established.

However, I do understand that my clerking needs to be accurate and helpful. While I really want to continue to build AIV investigative skills and make recommendations and responses, I will completely understand if it's determined that I must stop clerking there. It'll honestly be a bummer, since I really do want to build that skill, but I will (as you all know) respect consensus and I will honor the wishes of the admin community. However, I hope that you'll continue to be okay with me looking into AIV reports once in awhile as I've been doing, and responding (not removing - I let admins do that) to any reports in cases where a block isn't needed, but also in cases where a block is absolutely needed. I think the participation has given me a head start on becoming proficient in that area and that its been helpful to me, but ultimately, it's up to how the admin community feels :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: You're fine, babe. You're really close to getting a shiny mop of your own (though it sometimes ain't all it's cracked up to be). Like I said, there were a couple that you tagged with a reason other than the one I would have chosen, but those are small details. The problem is that new(er) users who have just gotten rollback or reviewer will go in and start declining stuff with some pretty pompous comments. I'm familiar with 98% of the admin corps so I'll take a second look, but the problem that arises from the first problem is that the reporter probably isn't familiar with 98% of the admin corps, and will think an admin has decided not to act. We had one reviewer with about 250 mainspace edits make up his own set of templates to clerk RFPP. I need those guys reporting and reverting, not making up new templates.

I'm kinda getting on board with the 'non-admin comment' template idea, because that could be helpful as long as it's tagged that way and there's some kind of threshold for being able to use it. I worry, though, that if we start any informal or formal clerking-type process that we'll get user A reporting someone, then commenting on user B's earlier report of someone else, then user C comes along and comments on the reports of A and B, and they tell two friends and so on and so on and so on and then AIV really gets cluttered. I have that screenshot in my head as I type this and it's not a pretty one.

Here's how I look at it in the end, and this has happened, sadly, more than once (fortunately, not to me or any of my patients to the best of my knowledge): on my user page you'll see I'm an RN, and before I retired I was an ICU charge nurse for patients who had cardiac and vascular surgery. When someone returns from bypass surgery there's a big flurry of activity with about a dozen people getting them settled, and one of the things that has to happen is an initial assessment - head to toe, all body systems. If that patient's RN is me, I have two choices there – I can do the entire thing myself, OR I can document it as others do parts of it and call results out to me. I know the other RNs are competent and capable, but it's my license on the line and I'm responsible for that person's life. If I choose the second option and something goes wrong, or the assessment is somehow incorrect and I didn't know it but documented it anyway, tragedy (and lawsuits) can result. If I choose the first option and something goes wrong, I know what I saw and heard and felt, and it's right there in writing and, while things did go into the crapper, I have no one to blame but myself.

Obviously we're not doing life or death stuff here, but I look at this admin thing in a similar vein (no pun intended). I'm the one who has to place the block or not, or lock or delete the page or not, and I can't really take anyone else's word for the veracity of the report. As I said earlier, that's just me, and others have different opinions. Just know that if I'm working AIV, I'm going to second-guess you. Hey, that's great practice for being an admin after all! :-D Katie^talk 15:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the way to handle it is to maybe (quietly?) let some experienced users like Oshwah know that it's OK if they clerk AIV or RFPP. Buy any no0bs wander by to "clerk", and you drop them a talk page message that they're not ready to and shouldn't be "clerking" noticeboards like that. (If they ignore the message, then anything up to blocking for disruption is appropriate.) If it becomes a perennial issue, then Admins could think about making a more "formal" clerking process (a la SPI) to keep out newbies. But I'm guessing Admins would rather avoid the latter hassle, for obvious reasons. Still, while I think it's fair that the newbies shouldn't be clerking, it's maybe OK if experienced editors do a little of it (esp. if there's a backlog building). I'll leave the discussion about whether more/new AIV and RFPP "messaging" templates are needed to the Admins... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie - Thank you for your kind, detailed, and humorous response above (that link you provided gave me a good chuckle). Citing the recent experience I've had with clerking AIV, I will say that I absolutely 100% understand your viewpoint when it comes to making the final decision. Performing blocks is an administrator responsibility that should absolutely never be done without care and full attention. If I were in your position, I'd second guess me too. Handling AIV reports correctly is damn important, and making even an honest mistake can result in very very bad consequences (in many aspects, as you know). A good over-the-top and random analogy I can provide is that processing AIV reports and performing blocks is like bungee jumping. You're trained and fully certified to properly tie the safety equipment to yourself, but also have the choice of just trusting someone who is pretty experienced, but not certified, to just tie the safety harness on for you. Obviously, you'd be crazy to just "trust" someone else and roll with it. As KrakatoaKatie said with her analogy above, AIV is obviously not a situation where life or death is at stake. But I understand the principle behind her statements: There are areas and situations where you just need to perform the procedures or tasks yourself in order to be sure that they're being processed correctly. I completely understand that some administrators will feel this way when it comes to AIV (and probably rightfully so).

I think it may help if I briefly explain my thought process behind the responses and clerking that I make at AIV when I do so. I always side with caution when it comes to making a response to an AIV report. I'd absolutely much rather leave a comment declining a report for someone that should have been blocked than endorse a block for someone that should not be. You will not see any comments from me endorsing a block for a report that should instead be declined.

1. If I determine that an AIV report was obviously not correct, or that there's no recent activity, not enough warnings, etc -- I will respond with my findings.
2. If an AIV report is for a sock like Ghankis Khan, or for someone who is making large quantities of blatant disruption or vandalism, AIV reports and situations where any admin would say, "oh yeah... without a doubt" (you know the kind of reports I'm talking about - the ones that should be handled right now) -- I will comment and endorse the block.
3. All other AIV reports (including "normal" ones that are correct, or where there might even be a grey area) -- I leave those AIV reports alone and do not touch them. I obviously don't remove any AIV reports, no matter how bad or inaccurate they may be. I leave that for administrators to do.
4. I'm obviously not going to comment on my own AIV reports, because..... duh..... lol

Hopefully this will give you an idea of my thoughts when going through AIV reports, and the situations where I leave comments or responses. Again, clerking at AIV has been a tremendous new opportunity for me to learn and grow, and I feel like I've gained a lot of administrative-like experience and practice in this area. I have, do, and will appreciate it's significance on Wikipedia and it's importance, and I will perform any and all clerking with complete attention and care (so long as you're okay with me doing it) :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

World Wide Web

Hi krakatoaKatie,

I would like not to participate in a edit-war,

But look at the last edit from EthelDavis, no reference only an opinion.

The document there https://www.w3.org/Proposal.html shows the proposal, and it is clearly firmed by Tim Berneres-Lee and Roberts Cailliau.

Why should I not modify an article based on thrust full sources, when people change it only based on personal opinion?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongo76 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

World Wide Web

Hello there! I have added information to the Talk Page on the World Wide Web and reverted a revision which rendered the article inaccurate. In point of fact, Robert Cailliau was the first callaborator on Tim Berners Lee's World Wide Web project - http://home.cern/images/2014/02/robert-cailliau-web-pioneer, but not a co-inventor. This information comes from the CERN website, the place where the invention took place in 1989 - http://home.cern/topics/birth-web . This issue has arisen before, and creates some confusion, but I have stated on the Talk Page that Wiki policy states that sources must be reliable. It is so easy to find inaccurate information on the Web! I hope this solves the problem on the page. (Etheldavis (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

I am sorry but you are wrong, My information come from reliable source. The Formal proposal of the World Wide Web hosted on the W3 org is firmed by Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau, The site of the CERN saies that the proposal was submitted by the pair of them. The modification of the website made by Ehteldavis made the article being inacurate, but also incoherent with the content of the article.

Finally I think that when an article is in revision for Edit-War, at least the part that is investigated should not be modified. Bongo76 (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The site states that the second proposal was submitted by Bernes-Lee and Cailliou, but that Cailliou was Berners-Lee's first collaborator and not co-inventor. I have already provided links for that. The World Wide Web was invented by Berners-Lee - http://home.cern/topics/birth-web and http://home.cern/about/updates/2014/03/world-wide-web-born-cern-25-years-ago. The second proposal, which refined and honed it to some degree, was post-invention. Television has been greatly refined and honed since its initial invention! (Etheldavis (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

@Bongo76 and Etheldavis: While I'm sure this is fascinating, the discussion doesn't belong here – it belongs at Talk:World Wide Web. I acted solely in an administrative capacity. If there is difficulty reaching consensus, you should seek dispute resolution. Katie^talk 14:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry to have troubled you. I noted that you had intervened on the page and, as the Talk Page discussion seemed to be generating more heat than light, sought your help. This did not actually begin as a dispute between myself and the other editor. There was an evident problem when I looked at the article, Talk Page and Page History today. I simply intervened as I happen to have studied the development of the Web and have read all the details on the CERN and other sites. Thanks again.

(Etheldavis (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

@Etheldavis: You didn't trouble me at all! I just want to make sure you all talk about it where you should all talk about it, and that place isn't here. :-) Katie^talk 14:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You are very kind! Thanks again.

(Etheldavis (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

I am sorry for publishing on your wall and agree it is not the good place for this kind of discussion, and I ask your pardon for what I am going to write:

I just want people to realize something here ... if you see what :@Etheldavis: did here ... it is called manipulation!

He is not really sorry for having troubled you, if he was he will only have to write "I am terribly sorry to have trouble you, I will try not to do it again."

But he wanted to justify his self : "I noted that you had intervened on the page and, as the Talk Page discussion seemed to be generating more heat than light, sought your help",

And then wanted to try to proof he his right "There was an evident problem when I looked at the article, Talk Page and Page History today" (meaning :"I disagree with what other write".)

And finally trying to force people giving him reason : "I happen to have studied the development of the Web and have read all the details on the CERN and other sites" (Meaning :"I have the absolute truth").

So sorry against for what I have done before and just now, I will try not to do it again. Bongo76 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bongo76: It's called courtesy. Get some. I promise you that nobody manipulates me, including you. Stop it right now. Katie^talk 15:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

              Sorry Katie, I will try not to do it again, and learn from your gran Wisdom ઔBongo76 (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email so we can coordinate the close on the draft RfC between the three of us. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)