User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

You've got mail!

Hello, KrakatoaKatie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:13, 19 September 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

 — Calvin999 08:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999's ownership of I Am... Sasha Fierce/RfC

Hi. Calvin999 tried to remove the RfC tag ([1]); the matter is contentious and consensus is not obvious so they should go through formal closure if they dispute the RfC. This is getting out of hand. He gives not one fuck about any compromise I have to offer or any explanation I have as to the flaws in the material as he prefers it; he's arguing a version of one sentence be kept because it was in the revision of the article that passed GA four years ago. I notify a voter who voted my way, mind you, about the compromise and change to the RfC I made, and Calvin follows me there to shit on my intentions and efforts. He's arrogant and obtuse. Please help. Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Me ownership? I don't even listen to Beyonce's music. You've got this seriously twisted lol. The discussion is over. I removed the tag. There's nothing wrong with what is in the article. As I've said already, Tomica and I are friends so his talk appears on my watchlist. You're clutching at straws and it's embarrassing. It's you who is arguing about the one word/one line. You started all of this. None of your compromises are compromises, they are all about your ownership (the fact that you use 'Queen Bey' on the article talk shows you're a fan) and what you want. You're not bothered about what anyone else has to say unless they agree with you. Stop throwing your toys out of the buggy. Note how Dan56 is the one resorting to name calling. I'm not going to engage further on this thread in your attempt to start an argument because this is Katie's talk and it's not the place for you to provoke things, so I will only reply to Katie in this thread, if and when she does, out of respect for her.  — Calvin999 09:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"I changed my vote and struck through my initial comment on the RfC. Your compromise is fair." - Meatsgains. Dan56 (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Calvin, what are you doing removing an tag from an open RFC?? You know better than that – you're involved and you can neither close it nor decide unilaterally that "the discussion is over." Whether you like it or not, the thing is going to run its course and the outcome will be the outcome. Take this back to the talk page and be civil to each other. Good grief. Katie^talk 11:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Katie but Dan56 is now deliberately introducing unsourced content in order to keep a citation needed template on the sentence to spite me, is not letting anyone else edit the sentence though he has changed the entire lead/info box, keeps reverting me and is creating an edit war which I am not buying into. Can you intervene please. This is getting massively out of hand and it is pathetic, all because he is hell bent on using one particular word.  — Calvin999 17:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Run down

Yes Katie, please intervene. Calvin999 keeps changing his argument simply to disallow any change I make to the article that will add an accurate, verifiable statement regarding its reception:

• At first, he argued the first source was inadequate (08:00, 16 September 2016), then he argued the word "lukewarm" isn't adequate (18:14, 16 September 2016)
• I open an RfC, and then Binksternet jumps in reverting me with no rationale behind his objection (05:06, 17 September 2016, 05:14, 17 September 2016)
• I offered a compromise to change the wording (23:12, 17 September 2016), and Calvin999 restores a revision from four years ago with an unsourced wording, explaining that the GA review accepted that version of the article "so there's nothing wrong with that" (11:21, 18 September 2016); I removed the sentence in its entirety, with neither of our preferred version, to wait and see what the RfC will decide (19:35, 18 September 2016)
• at the RfC, Calvin votes removing any sentence saying "lukewarm" or "mediocre" and replacing it with "mixed to positive" because that's what was in the GA-passed revision of the article four years ago and that "You don't need to source the overall reception, it's not a requirement." (08:43, 19 September 2016)
• Calvin revises the content in question, saying something different--"generally favorable reviews"--than what was in the GA-passed revision yet he claims it's from the GA-passed revision (08:51, 19 September 2016)
• I revert this, reminding him of his previous argument and to be consistent in what he's saying (09:28, 19 September 2016); he reverts me, saying that the source he cited verifies "generally favorable" (16:10, 19 September 2016); I revert him, arguing that the source I offered verified "lukewarm" when I originally presented it, but it wasn't good enough for him (16:58, 19 September 2016)
• And now Bink has filed a report against me at ANI, listing a series of diffs that misrepresent what I was reverting or restoring, in different areas of the article, to make it look on the surface as if I was edit warring. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• I've explained several times how there are several sources verifying the album in question received average/lukewarm/mediocre reviews (Exclaim!, Daily Mail, News.com.au), and how the Metacritic source Calvin is now desiring to use is deceptive and not the best in this case ([2], [3]). And what does Calvin999 think of my thoughts? that it "means absolutely jack shite because your opinion is irrelevant just like every other editor on here when it comes down to sourcing and how to use text."

You have the most familiarity with all this so far. Your presence at the ANI would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Crovata1

This user, whom you blocked for socking is back now as this user: 500ГОДИНИСТИГАТ (talk · contribs). Particular edits that stand out here are this and this, in which the questioned user is reverting edits by the account that they are impersonating, similarly to Crovata1. Thanks. 73.96.113.38 (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Welp, looks like they are already blocked, thanks anyway! :-) 73.96.113.38 (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Tiny Dancer 48

Me again! I saw you gave them 2 weeks. Based on the rather nasty slurs they have been posting, might their talk page be locked down during that time (or just indef them and be done with it?) RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

And Doug Weller and Drmies tag-teamed to indef and shut down talk page access. Nothing to see here...RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, then got called away and meant to come back to it. Thanks for letting me know. No chance he's getting that friendly template. Katie^talk 20:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Thanks for flushing him out. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you were already there. :) Doug Weller talk 20:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I am omniscient. Or omnipotent. Or impotent. Or something. Katie^talk 20:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at my UTRS request

I understand that these things take a while. Since it's a block applying to an IP range, not to my logged-in account, I can still get in to do my work using my phone data plan or some other ISP. It's just inconvenient. I can wait patiently for the investigatory wheels to churn.

Thanks for handling this.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have caused trouble. I didn't know how long I was going to be stuck with that bum IP address assignment, but as things turned out, I rebooted my DSL modem a few times over the next few days and finally got back into a non-blocked range. So the CheckUser member's investigation was basically correct, I don't need the flag today and may not need it again, until and unless my ISP messes with me again.

I hesitate to raise this question, but doesn't that mean that the abuser who was intended to be blocked has the same opportunity to get a new IP address outside of the blocked range as I did. By whatever undetermined algorithm Fairpoint hands out IP addresses, I mean.

If you decide to go that way, I just plead that it not be "hard" block on the IP range so that those of us who edit with accounts can still get through unimpeded. I'm taking the optimistic approach of believing that my editing activity is not considered so inessential that it does not matter whether I can edit.

Also thanks to Ohnoitsjamie for their efforts.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A shirt designed with you in mind

Hello KK. I saw this and immediately thought of you. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

How cool! I have some Loopy Ewe shirts and bags and a mug from WEBS. Of course, there should also be a shirt that says "if I'm sitting, I'm blocking vandals". ;-) Katie^talk 11:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely!!! MarnetteD|Talk 14:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I was

wondering why I do not have extented confirmed status despite having over 500 edits and more than a months tenure. Pwolit iets (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pwolit iets: You have 505 edits.Your deleted edits don't count. I think you made your 500th edit with the one to my talk page. The bot should update you to EC today; if it doesn't in the next couple of days, go to WP:PERM/EC. Katie^talk 11:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The software says you have 323 edits. Deleted edits do not count, and I don't think page moves do either. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Protect

Hi KrakatoaKatie. I noticed that you put a protection on the 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season page. However, there is no need for the protection. Can you please remove it? THANKS!Wyatt2049 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wyatt20149. You must be speaking about 2016 Atlantic hurricane season. That article was semiprotected by KrakatoaKatie on Sept 20 for one week due to a problem with sockpuppets. It looks justified to me. Have you ever seen people edit-warring with the the anti-vandal bot? EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin

How do you become an admin. If you can, can i be one?Wyatt2049 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wyatt2049: Hi there! Administrators are trusted members of the community, and as such have normally been around for quite some time. You can read here the procedure candidates go through to be granted the 'tools'. If you'd like to be one, it's a great idea to get stuck into some content improvement and some vandal reverting. You might be interested in the Counter-Vandalism Academy. Let me know if you have any other questions (talk page watcher) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, KrakatoaKatie. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 UCI World Tour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 UCI World Tour. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons

October 2016
	Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Multiple final warnings

Hi KrakatoaKatie, this is 2601 on the road, re: your warning here: [4]. The user did indeed revert the edits where I'd attempted to correspond content to sources. My impression is that it's someone who knows the subjects, I'm guessing a researcher who may be referring to their own scholarship, to the extent of comfortably dismissing reliable sources and other editors. At a glance it appears as if anything that contradicts them, be it published content or Wikipedia guidelines, is ignored--their talk page tells a story. Your thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers, 24.198.73.23 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Puppydog1980

He reappeared as an IP (which is his more usual M.O.) (68.96.104.174 (talk · contribs))and an admin has blocked the IP. If you decide to block Puppydog1980 (talk · contribs), maybe you could have a checkuser look for sleeper socks as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

A big cheesy burger for you for this proposal! VarunFEB2003 09:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

DanEverett45

Hello! Regarding DanEverett45 I wanted to see if you had any advice. The user clearly has good intent behind their edits and has the potential to be a very constructive editor, but their refusal to acknowledge the warnings and attempts to assist are driving them down. Anything you think I can do better? Advice welcomed. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Just keep trying to engage him. I did the block anyway, despite his inactivity since about midnight, because I want to prevent further disruption. Failure to respond to talk page messages or edit collaboratively is a form of tendentious editing. Explain to him about the collaborative nature of a wiki. I wouldn't use the template messages again unless you're doing a final warning, because sometimes that's off-putting, and even then I would be careful. We can escalate the blocks, but if he fails to discuss after several of those, it will be time to take it to ANI. We've banned users in the past for inability or refusal to discuss their edits and work collaboratively. Keep trying, and keep up the good work. :-) Katie^talk 16:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Copy that. Really appreciate the feedback! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Irbox

Hi. Following this ANI, the same user has returned, albeit editing as IP addresses - 93.110.24.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 93.110.44.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) They're adding back the same material that got them blocked in the first place (unref'd additions and copyvios). Example articles include this, this and this. @PamD: has spotted some of these and reverted already. Please could you take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Agree it's the same guy editing while logged out. The edits to Women's Prison (2002 film) are the giveaway to me. The block on the registered account has expired so he's not evading. Given enough rope, I can place a rangeblock if he persists; warning the individual IPs is a good way to keep track. I'm about to get back on the road again for a couple of days, so you know the way to ANI if it gets bad. ;-) Katie^talk 13:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Katie - I've got a few of these articles on my watchlist, so no doubt they'll light up if they persist. Enjoy your roadtrip. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Kurdish Name

Hi, can you help me

I add kurdish name for Mosul

But this user reject the kurdish name User:Beshogur

I sent to him messege but he do not answer me

Thank you Kurdistantolive (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to discuss this at the article talk page. This is a content dispute. Katie^talk 17:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I do that really you can see |this :(

Kurdistantolive (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

HI, this user don't answer me . I hope you help me Kurdistantolive (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map permanently

The module has again become scene of constant edit-warring. Three different users (or possibly even only one) have added some of the same edits with two unregistered editors making the exact same edits: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Now interestingly enough, the unregistered editor who made [this revert also changed Dulab to IS control, something another unregistered editor with a vastly different IP range had done. And he didn't realise until later on that I had sourced Dulab's capture by Iraqi Army earlier. Obviously he only came here to revert, but how did he make the exact same edits out of the blue? This is starting to seem like a possible sockpuppetry. Regardless, the module has been becoming scene of dispute again.

In addition, I have made three reverts however have reverted a registered user only once per sanctions limit. The other reverts are of unregistered users. [9], [10], [11].

Discussions on the module have often yielded results. However, it will be difficult to discuss it with unregistered editors who might not notice it and some unregistered users might also try to exploit the fact that their IP address and even ranges keep changing. The Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map is semi-protected to prevent edit-warring. I will like to therefore request Iraqi insurgency module to be semi-protected as well to prevent edit-warring. Newsboy39 (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

My AIV report, as you spotted, pointed to a level 2 caution instead of the level 4 caution it should have linked to. Sorry. Cabayi (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi , can you help me for Mosul city please Kurdistantolive (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Fangusu

You blocked 134.154.22.162 (talk · contribs) for obvious reason. You made the block anon-only and I'm wondering if it might be worth removing the anon-only restriction? The IPWHOIS notes that it belongs to a university so there's very definitely the possibility of collateral damage, but the IP address has been used by the same person for the better part of a week so far. Anyway, I leave it entirely up to you. I don't mind if you leave the block as-is. --Yamla (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A chinchilla for you!

	A chinchilla for you!
	Thank you for tending to vandalism on the chinchilla article. They are shy animals and appreciate your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Blue Rasberry: Thank you! I had a college boyfriend who had a chinchilla – they're so soft that it's like petting air! Katie^talk 11:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, KrakatoaKatie. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is One Very Important Thought.
Message added 15:59, 28 October 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The link seems to be blacklisted, sadly... :/ GAB^gab 15:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2016

This Month in GLAM – Volume VI, Issue IX, September 2016 Headlines Argentina report: Workshop: ONU Mujeres; Case study: Digitization Project Belgium report: Wiki Loves Monuments in Belgium & Luxembourg Brazil report: A GLAM ostrich makes the day; Wiki Loves Monuments boost in Brazil Czech Republic report: Edit-a-thon in the Research Library in Olomouc Germany report: Presenting four years of GLAM activities in Germany at WikiCon 2016 Italy report: Wikipedians at Tridentine Diocesan Museum; Alpine Botanical Garden Viote Macedonia report: Statistics and news Mexico report: Towards reducing gender gap in Wikipedia: "Editatona" Female writers Netherlands report: Workshop for Dutch WW2 underground newspapers; Project Netherlands and the world; A report on the Iconclass expert Meeting Norway report: Wiki Loves Monuments editing contest; Wikinobel Serbia report: Content donation by an art photograph Maja Stošić Spain report: Wiki Takes Sweden report: A month full of projects Ukraine report: Writing Week Around Content Donation USA report: Edit-a-thons, Wiki Loves Monuments, and Wikiconference Open Access report: WikiCite at OASPA; 3D printing biology Wikidata report: Properties are Deft! Calendar: October's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Joel Embiid Article

It appears you reverted edits to the Joel Embiid article. Please see evidence of the nickname for Joel Embiid at the following links:

Official Instagram account: https://www.instagram.com/joelembiid Basketball Reference page: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/embiijo01.html CBS Sports article: http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/joel-embiid-asked-sixers-pa-announcer-to-introduce-him-as-the-process/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.204.75 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov

Hi Katie,

I have a question regarding the block you imposed on user "Alexis Ivanov" 2-3 days ago. Can I know why said user gets blocked for a month, while the other user with whom he had a dispute, and called him, for example, "You piece of shit" can just walk away from the whole thing as if nothing happened? And then I haven't even mentioned the usage of other WP:BATTLEGROUND violating commentary by the same user in question directed towards Alexis Ivanov, e.g. "Start using your eyes", and "Listen kiddo". I'm not denying that Alexis, looking at the matter, ignited the fire in the first place and was thus reprimanded accordingly, but I believe that a "1 month block for X and nothing for Y" ain't really appropriate either. Bests and thank you - LouisAragon (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Sure. The diff you gave (you know you gave the same diff twice, right?) was from Sunday, more than 24 hours before Alexis Ivanov was blocked. Blocks are not punitive, and blocking Qed237 for something that happened yesterday or the day before is punitive. If Qed237 had kept up with that insult pattern over the next 24 hours, I assure you he would have been blocked too, but he didn't.

On Monday, though, Alexis Ivanov did. He kept on going, and he had been blocked three times for this kind of thing. Taking all that into account, including the ANI threads, I blocked for a month. If you'd like to have it reviewed at AN, I absolutely have no objection. I'm going to be really busy today and traveling tomorrow and this weekend, though, so if I don't give a timely response there, that's why. And if you have more questions, of course, feel free to ask. Katie^talk 11:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me if I erroneously gave the notion as if I wanted to contest your verdict -- that absolutely wasn't the intention of my question. I was just genuinely curious how it happened and why it happened, and also why Qed237 was not blocked so to say in the same way that Alexis was, e.g. for being blatantly "rude". This as I was basically seeing that fire had been fought with fire during the issue. I should have payed more attention to the dates of the comments. No, obviously, he crossed the line way too much, and I don't dispute that he was thus blocked correctly, especially given the correctly mentioned repertoire of said user, and it also, perhaps most importantly, not being limited to one occassion during this matter between the two.

Thanks much for your response, Katie. Appreciate it. Bests and take care. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: No worries! Sometimes it's not clear from questions like this if the questioner (questioneer?) wants to appeal or ask for review, so it's best to just address that right away. Take care yourself, and if I can help further, just shout. :-) Katie^talk 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Heh, will do, and please don't ever hesitate yourself as well if you're in need of any help! No, and I really don't mean this as some kind of "lame formality" as we both (probably) hear so often in everyday life being said by various people. I'm sure a busy admin like yourself could use a helping hand now and then. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)