User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

RevDel request

I would like you to delete this and this revision to User talk:Drmies, on the grounds of grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Katie^talk 22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You missed a spot... ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Eep - now I got it. I did these under RD3, though, not RD2. Katie^talk 23:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

New woman, same old tricks

I couldn't resist the section heading, heh. New woman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked yesterday, has been abusing their talk page access by continuing to post random messages completely unrelated to the encyclopedia. This has been accompanied by using the {{help me}} template, which is disruptive. Could you look into possibly removing talk page access? Thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 08:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Yamla beat me to it. Can't wait to look at the inevitable UTRS appeal(s). ;-) Katie^talk 13:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

KATIE

Hey I was commenting on that on AIV I suggest blocking him for disruptive editing and delete his/her page for WP:Snowball Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

LeonRaper

Everyone at Wikipedia keeps giving me the BS about web links. Guess what, my real business is Vegas88.com. For over 40 years I have been booking TV and film stars all over the U.S. and Canada into personal appearance events. I have been using Wikipedia for many years to find out how to contact these people. Wikipedia lists their personal web site. links to imdb.com, and sometimes many other contact links. I was also a Talent Agent in Beverly Hills for 10 years. Dance is not my business. I do it for enjoyment and to help other dancers find dance information.

Regarding my proposed Wikipedia page. I don't think you read it. In my most recent submission there are no links to click on. Also, you said I needed to provide information that others have provided about me. Please look at the 17 REFERENCES below:

REFERENCES Le chant des Eve, La danse des Adam, by Stephanie Del Regno, 2012 ISBN 978-2-36696-002-0 ... West Coast Swing (Page 294 Article & Picture) Queen of the Stardust Ballroom Movie (February 1975) ... Mr. Raper was a dancer in the movie Bug-Bitten Boogies Bounce To Jammin; Slammin' Beat, Orange County Register, October 27, 1974 (Article & Pictures) Dance Terminology Notebook, by Skippy Blair, 1995 ISBN 0-932-980-11-2 ... Mr. Raper was a Proof Reader of this book - Dancer - Teacher Disco To Tango and Back, by Skippy Blair, 1978 ISBN 0-932-980-01-05 ... Jitterbug Club of America (Note Pg 189) Resident Has Links to the Stars, Camp Verde Journal, October 2, 2002 (Article & Picture) Two Left Feet No Obstacle to Dancing the Night Away - With Proper Teaching, Verde Valley News, Arts & Entertainment Section, January 19, 2001 (Article & Picture) Cutting a Rug Ballroom Style, Camp Verde Journal, by Rachel Flegenheimer, November 1, 2000 (Article & Pictures) Let's Go Do the Hop, Verde Valley News, by Pamela Williams & Paula Blankenship, November 1998 (Article & Pictures) Swingin it, Lumberjack News, September 1998 (Article & icture) Lindy Hop Class, Camp Verde Journal, July 1998 (Article & Many Pictures) US Swing Dance Council, Swing Dance Journal, October 1992 (Article & Picture) Thousands of spins later, he's still swinging, Arizona Daily Sun, June 8, 1992 (Article & Picture) Champion dancer two-steps his way from Hollywood to NAU, Lumberjack News, April 8, 1992 (Article & Picture) Swing Around The Circuit, Jitterbug Magazine, September 1992 (Article & Picture) Dance Instructor H. Leon Raper, Swing Dance Journal, October 1992 (Pg 5) ... (Article & Picture) Arizona Daily Sun, April 16, 1989 ... (Words & Picture)

Regarding Biographical information. Wikipedia has biographies all over Wikipedia.

Now, you can just delete what I have submitted, or I first suggest you send my information to those who work in the Wikipedia dance community.

Hubert Leon Raper 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

@LeonRaper: First, this is not BS. I'm really trying to work with you here and I'd appreciate it if you would be civil. There are others here who are already tired of your attitude and are urging me to delete the page. If you don't like this part of the editing process, you should leave now because you really won't like it when others start editing the article. As to the references, that's a good start (except for the one about proofreading, unless your claim to notability is as a proofreader). Now add those to the draft article in the appropriate format. We have a language here and we need to be able to read what you write. And stop giving out your phone number. Just sign your posts with four tildes, like this --> ~~~~ which will sign your name. Katie^talk 18:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter

FP of Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands by Godot13

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Advice regarding appeal

Since you were the closing admin on my ban from editing disambiguation pages and talk pages of disambiguation pages, I would like to consult with you on the proper form and venue to appeal the talk page ban.

My primary argument would revolve around the fact that the talk page ban was not part of the original proposal and that many of the votes had already been cast by the time the talk page ban was proposed, thus only a handful of the support votes were actually in favor of the talk page ban. My secondary arguments would specify that the talk page ban should never have been proposed in the first place since talk pages are not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, but exist rather for suggesting improvements and every single one of my disambiguation talk page contributions contained lengthy suggestions for improvements. Also, none violated talk page etiquette (copyright violations, incivility, etc). I would like to present a detailed point-by-point argumentation as to the reasons that the talk page ban is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and ask for its rescission. Although it was not at issue, I realize that you mentioned overlength of argumentation as one of the problems, which I will keep in mind.

I would appreciate any help in providing a link to the proper Wikipedia venue where the disambiguation talk page ban may be appealed. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: Sure. Ban appeals go to WP:AN; title it something like 'Ban appeal by Roman Spinner'. I won't comment at the discussion, but I will give you this advice: make your appeal based on your understanding of the circumstances that led up to the ban, how you caused disruption, and how you will not do it again. Talk pages are absolutely part of the encyclopedia because we use them for collaboration. We ban people from talk pages all the time, so don't even go there or talk about it being 'against the spirit of Wikipedia' because it's not. Be concise – you don't want to do a point-by-point rebuttal thing unless someone asks you to do it, because that's part of what got you into this in the first place.

Here's a thought: you might read the this section and this section of the guide to appealing blocks – I know this isn't a block, but the principles of convincing people that you have a clue are the same. I hope you really do understand why your behavior was so disruptive and frustrating to many people, because I think you're a valuable contributor and you have a lot to offer the project. Good luck. :-) Katie^talk 23:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I am grateful for your kind reply, as well as comments regarding my contributions, and will follow your suggestions. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

My RfPP requests

Why did you configure pending changes for the pages I requested? The sockpuppets in question are those of The UPN Vandal. Pending changes will NOT stop him from editing the pages, and if page protection expires, it's just an "alarm clock" for him to continue editing again, which is why I requested indefinite semi-protection - to prevent him from editing the pages at all. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Electricburst1996: Welp. Okay.

• First, if you claim sockpuppetry, you should link to the SPI or LTA - we can't read minds and there are like 15,000 SPIs and that's not even an exaggeration. It's not our job to go searching through the edit history back four or five years to figure out which vandal to which you're referring, and we don't have the time.
• Second, the pages aren't edited heavily enough for indefinite semi-protection, nor have we progressed through longer protections, and we haven't tried PC here yet. The longest any of those pages has been protected is six months. We have to balance the disruption level with that whole "encyclopedia anyone can iedit" thing, and PC fits the bill perfectly here. Besides, it must be incredibly frustrating for an IP who wants to vandalize to go to all this trouble only not to see his edit. I keep picturing the guy on his bed in his underwear in the dark banging his head against the headboard and screaming, "WHY CAN'T I SEE MY VANDALIZMS?!?"
• Finally, if we use PC, I can get more data for a range block. I looked at that hard, but it's a /17 or a /19 range from AOL (at least this group is) and while it's about 40% disruption, I'd like to narrow it down a little. I did get a /24 range out of a couple of them but I think he's changed IPs since then.

If you disagree with any administrative decision I've made, you're free to take it to another admin or to WP:AN. I rarely have objections to modifications of protections or blocks I've placed and I certainly don't have an objection to someone else modifying these, but I believe this is the best course for now. Katie^talk 19:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Salim Mehajer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Salim Mehajer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Rougned Odor vandals

Felt like I was obliged to thank you for protecting the Odor article - I was the main person reverting the trolls and had no time to warn them. Zia224 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zia224: You're welcome, and I apologize for not thinking of it as I was watching the video of Odor throwing that punch over and over on ESPN. Katie^talk 00:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, thanks for accepting my request for rollback. I have one question if you don't mind: When I click the Rollback button, it says that the edit has been completed without letting me see the edit or putting in an edit summary. I tried to read WP:Rollback, but couldn't find the answer (unless I missed it). I'm pretty sure you can still add an edit summary with rollback as I think I've seen it before. Thanks for the help. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: No, there's no edit summary with rollback. It's poof! and done. You can use Twinkle if you want to add an edit summary, but it's assumed and implied that if it's reverted sans edit summary that the reversion was due to vandalism. Katie^talk 13:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. The Twinkle edit summaries must look similar to the rollback ones, just with an added edit summary, which I must have confused for rollback. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Raper dance award

did he ever mention the existence of this video? enough to list him in that article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3cJ7wm7sTg68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

felt a little sorry for the guy so thought it would be nice if he could be listed in that article..68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, you can use that as a source. I'd put in a descriptive edit summary just to make sure. I feel for him too and I tried to help, but he was simply draining too many resources and frustrating too many people. I work UTRS pretty hard and if he appeals, I'll listen. Katie^talk 04:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I posted the video in the TALK of that hall of fame page..a user there articulated policy to suggest the video couldn't be used to support adding his award to the article..I would think in this case "WikiCommonSense" would suffice...but I don't want to get in an argument over it...if you'd like to see what that person reasoned..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swing_Dance_Hall_of_Fame 68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all the great blocking work you've been doing recently -- samtar talk or stalk 14:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Thanks very much – I needed this today! :-) Katie^talk 14:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Language of RfC close

Was there a reason for the following language in the user page/draft RfC close? "Interested users are encouraged to discuss and possibly amend NOTWEBHOST, particularly given the result of the second RFC that drafts have no set expiration date." Nothing in the discussion indicated NOTWEBHOST should be amended, and this reads like the personal opinion of the closers. It heavily supports the minority of users that supported A3, quite literally suggesting that they seek another venue in an attempt to change a long-standing policy to align with their non-majority views. ~ Rob^Talk 13:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: We (Seraphimblade, Ymblanter, and I) didn't say NOTWEBHOST should be amended. We said that maybe people, given the contradictory results of the two RFCs regarding what to do with drafts that do not meet NOTWEBHOST, should talk about what to do next. In case you hadn't noticed, there was a lot of muddy water in these RFCs. One said that there's no expiration date to drafts. The other said that those that won't meet GNG eventually can be deleted. When, exactly, is 'eventually'? What does NOTWEBHOST mean now? The contradictions are not the fault of the closers. It's an imperfect situation and it needs to be discussed, whether at NOTWEBHOST, another existing policy page, or at some page yet to be constructed. Katie^talk 13:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a contradiction in the results. The draft expiration date RfC was worded in such a way that it implied an almost G13-like criteria for deletion after a certain amount of time, where drafts could be deleted regardless of perceived value if they sat there long enough. I don't think anyone ever wanted that (and the RfC proves they don't). Anyway, thanks for your clarification. ~ Rob^Talk 13:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Recently, you blocked an IP, 71.224.11.148 for six months for vandalism. Now, that person is using 71.34.88.78 to make the same vandalous edits. Would you like to take care of it, instead of me having to go through SPI (I believe they're the most relevant at the moment)? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for closing the stale drafts RfC. I wasn't very involved with it, but I really appreciate how you took the time to read the whole thing and give us a succinct but well explained close. I'm glad that issue is settled. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

IP Range Block - please update wrt reason for block

Hi Katie,

I prefer to edit Wikipedia anonymously, but I am a BT Wi-fi customer and I'm currently being hit by an IP range block you have created. This isn't an unblock request - I've already asked for an unblock but it's been denied without consideration, so I've given up on that. What I am asking for is just an edit to include a reason for the block - is that possible at all? You've blocked a good chunk of BT Wi-fi addresses for a period of three months - I don't know how many other people have been hit by this block, but it's quite frustrating to not have any information about what it was for.

Apologies, I don't know how to link to the block directly, but here are the current blocks affecting that range: [1]

(Apologies, I also don't know whether it's possible to link that through markup instead of by URL!)

Regards, Cfmdobbie (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cfmdobbie: Thanks for the message, but next time please use UTRS if you're going to give out personally identifiable information. You can ask there to have the blocking admin contacted, and I work UTRS regularly myself. :-)

There are two blocks for this range, which is dynamic, meaning that the IP address can change with each edit. It makes it difficult to stop disruption and vandalism sometimes, but range blocking is our last resort.

• The first was a block by Dennis Brown, who blocked a range twice as large as the one I blocked because we had significant disruption and block evasion. There's an ANI thread here. Dennis can weigh in on the problems with this user if he wants. This block expires in a few days.
• The second is to address a serious problem we've been having with an anonymous user hounding one of our editors. That was the block I placed and I stand by it. There are several ANI threads about this guy, and the issue briefly referenced in the ANI report I've linked to here. Since March 1, there have been 274 edits from the /21 range and the vast majority of them were hounding or disruption.

I'm sorry you've been inconvenienced, but in my case we've been chasing the jerk all over with individual IP blocks for weeks, and this was the only way to get him to stop. It was an oversight on my part not to put in the block reason, and for that I apologize. If you have more questions, let me know. :-) Katie^talk 15:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie:: Very sorry, I'd not heard of UTRS. I've been digging through the unblock documentation for a while trying to work through these issues, but I hadn't come across that at all. Locating my old account and adding to your talk page was rather a last resort, as I just couldn't find any other way to contact someone.

I've read through the issues with that first user, and I do respect the decision for a temporary block.

I was not aware of the second problem. I confess I did use X!'s tools and flicked randomly through edits from this netblock (there are too many for me to check them all!) and I couldn't see any obvious issues that would explain the block. But I'm sure you have a more complete view on things than me, and anyway - I'm happy that a block exists, if it's serving some purpose. My frustration was that I hit this wall of "no reason given". You or someone else has now updated the reason with some boilerplate, which is better than nothing but still gives no justification for the block. I do feel that as per Blocking policy something specific should be written in there, especially given the number of people this impacts. But on that point, we are at your mercy! ;-)

I must warn you, however, that /21 will not completely block people on this network. You'll have to see once the /20 expires whether the harassment returns - you may need to extend your current /21 to cover /20 instead.

Thank you for your time! Cfmdobbie (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• IP range blocks are used as a last resort. Personally, I probably do one every 3 months is all. You talk about editing anonymously, but the fact is, you aren't very anonymous. Your IP gives a general idea of your location and is subject to getting caught up in these range blocks, which are often the only way to deal with trouble makers. You are more anonymous if you register. This is best covered in an essay I started, Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people. If you have a registered account and you want a protected account for just using your cellphone, you can always create an alternate account, although you need to read WP:SOCK (or ask me on my page if you like) to know how to do it properly. For example, I have User:Pharmboy and User:Farmer Brown as alternate accounts, both of which are linked to my real account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:: When I say anonymous editing, I mean that I see a problem or something that I'd like to add and I just do it - I don't want to have to dig up username/password and log in first. Because of the network I'm on, my IP only really gives someone a country - my account name arguably gives a lot more.

Thank you for the document on socking, and the account links. Reading this and looking at Pharmboy makes me think I should have some kind of disclaimer on my talk page as well (if I'm going to continue editing anonymously) which may help if I get flagged by CheckUser. It seems there's a lot of bad behaviour on my ISP, and now I fear that may happen. Do you have any suggestions on what this could be? Cfmdobbie (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Not sure on that range, I just looked enough to see there was trouble. You COULD use a throwaway account and let all your devices remember the password, like Cfmdobbie2 or Cfmdobbie-mobile for making those kinds of edits, then login to your real account when you want to do real work, but keep the password for it in your head only. That would protect your main account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin help

Hello there! Thank you for taking the time to review my request. I'm afraid, however, that it's quite possible none of the parties involved will be satisfied with such an assessment. The RfC was not heeded and its closure was put into question. What do you suggest we do? As I see it, either the RfC is void or it isn't. Thanks again for your counsel. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I'm sorry to bother you, but I could really use your help! Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Frequent deletion nominations

Hai, my name is jayashankar and i am working with the article Nilakkal for the past two months. I have uploaded several files to make the article look attractive,but whenever i uploaded some files, deletion nominations are coming one by one saying that its probably a copyright violation.I actually provided the source of those files and had given the necessary licenses.But still no use.So I need some clarifications from you as you are an administrator. jayashankar4266Jayashankar4266 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you using two different accounts to edit? Katie^talk 21:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, your problem is at Commons, not here. You uploaded the images to Commons and they weren't freely licensed, so they were deleted AT COMMONS. Katie^talk 21:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Avedis Zildjian Company

Hello, can you restore the page protection to Avedis Zildjian Company? The same IP continued the same vandalizing right after it expired. --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Spotlight on women entertainers!

You are invited...
	Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

IPBE RfC v2

As you commented on WP:IBE RfC Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request, you may wish to also comment on my alternative proposal, WP:IBE RfC Automatically grant IPBE to users by proof of work alone . Sai ¿?✍ 11:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access?

Hi Katie! You may wish to revoke Uncontrolled substances' talk page access... [2] Many thanks as always! Mike1901 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Nthep has beaten you to it - not to worry! Mike1901 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Migosyrn society, one of the less tasteful sock drawers around. Nthep (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I saw you added to that SPI - I'll have to check that one out in a bit. ;-) Katie^talk 21:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Art Briles is still currently the Head Coach at Baylor per Baylor University

According to Baylor University officials as they stated in their news release, "Effective immediately, Head Football Coach Art Briles has been suspended indefinitely with intent to terminate according to contractual procedures." He is suspended, but not terminated or fire as of yet. There is a process this all has to go through. They are the least happy it is being inaccurately reported that Art Briles has been fired or terminated. They say to please refer to the news release posted here, http://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=170207&_buref=1172-91940 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwils (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Bias in editing and organization of entry for Marian High School (Bloomfield Hills, MI).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_High_School_(Bloomfield_Township,_Michigan)

The information in the entry for Marian High School (Bloomfield Hills, MI) isn't factually correct. Continued edits to the page sdo not meet standards for NPOV nor for sourcing.

Beyond recent insufficient edits to address IVF and the school's legally acceptable and enforceable morality clause, and the fact that Barbara Webb's case is listed alongside Charlene Genther's case, the position of the controversies section in the page is inconsistent with the placement of controversies in entries of other Catholic high schools. Controversies should be much lower in the page to be consistent with Wikipedia entries for similar topics.

To make an extreme point, Wikipedia pages for Cuba and North Korea don't list human right issues nearly as highly as they are listed on this page. The entry, as it currently stands, makes supposed "human right issues" more important than the schools' academics, events and notable alumnae. Cuba and North Korea have human rights issues. Marian High School does not. It upholds a morality clause that is unpopular in the 21st century, but it is a clause that every teacher is aware of when agreeing to teach at the school.

An acceptable, NPOV, entry would describe the section merely as "Controversies" and would list that section below Notable Alumnae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakafilipo (talk • contribs) 14:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

World Wide Web raised at WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inventor(s) of the World Wide Web?. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

I've palced a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Jadcherla. But was turned down. The IPs started again their addition.--Vin09 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info at that concerned page, actually I've asked here because I can ask as you were available right now, not any other intention. If the IPs again adds such info. What steps should be taken. As the IP has been adding same content with different IPs and at one of the edit it has directed words personally.--Vin09 (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not really frequent enough. We should be talking about several edits a week, not every month or two. Only been two reverts this past week. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Chris Kyle

Could you please look at the WP:RFPP for Chris Kyle? Insertion of incorrect/inappropriate information is getting worse on it. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)