Chealsye <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Chealsye|Chealsye]] ([[User talk:Chealsye#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chealsye|contribs]]) 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Chealsye <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Chealsye|Chealsye]] ([[User talk:Chealsye#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chealsye|contribs]]) 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== [[Tonic (band)]] ==
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but [[Talk:Tonic#Infobox image|"''I will revert this again, and keep doing so until you stop since you keep reverting to a photo that is not as informative''"]] reads as a proud refusal to comply with your order that we [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=744372143 "''Work it out on the talk page.''"]. As you know because you were pinged, I tried repeatedly to talk it out and that person went radio silent, as I said would happen, and only reappeared when I'd reverted them. My revert came just shy of eight days, almost 24 hours after I could have first done it; theirs came ''while'' they added that promise to keep reverting and two days after mine. [[User:RunnyAmiga|<span style="font-family:Cooper; color:#960000">'''RunnyAmiga'''</span>]] ※ [[User talk:RunnyAmiga|<span style="font-family:Cooper; color:#006400">talk]]</span> 23:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
B
This user is currently busy but should return shortly.
UAK IP
Hi Katie, saw you blocked the latest incarnation of UAK on an IP, could you kindly lock down their talk page access too? They are doing their usual thing there RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RickinBaltimore: Good to see you! BethNaught got it. I've been meaning to ask: when do you want to do your RFA? Think about it and let me know in a few days. I've put my name in for CU and Oversight, so it should probably be after that question period is over. Katietalk 14:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time (and best of luck!) with the CU/OS requests. Once that's over I think I'll be ready to go for the RfA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back from Wikicon in San Diego on October 11, so we'll touch base then. And if you've ever done anything like declining unblock requests, I'd like to know now. ;-) Katietalk 14:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no LOL, worst I've done is somehow click the rollback vandal link when I'm trying to reply to a message on a talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then. You're clearly not fit to have the tools. Why bother? :-D Katietalk 15:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So very true :) But I'll take that risk next month sure! Let's touch base once you get back from sunny San Diego. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been three weeks since Oshwah got the tools and he hasn't blown the place up yet. I'm kinda disappointed. And his friendly attitude. Who needs that? --NeilNtalk to me 15:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That one stung... ohhh man! Damn... that was a good zing, Katie ;-). Oof. I gotta give you that one... well done. LOL!!! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and RickinBaltimore... if you need any input, thoughts, advice, ...anything ....from someone who had a very tough RfA and barely passed.... I'll be more than happy to help you or give you input or advice. You know where to find me ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely will be looking for insight in the upcoming weeks, believe me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rick! Talk page stalker here, with a comment. It happens that last month I checked you out, to see if I might want to approach you about RfA and possibly offer to nominate you. I had noticed your obvious clue, your pleasant demeanor, and your excellent cleanup work around the 'pedia. (Were your ears burning? I am always looking for good people to nominate, and when I see a good prospect I do a background check before approaching them.) Doing my usual research I found that you have been here more than 10 years; there are some huge gaps in that record, but you have been editing steadily for more than a year. You've got 30,000+ edits. I found that you have a strong record at CSD, AIV, UAA, RFPP, and similar areas; that's excellent, those are important areas for an admin to be acquainted with. But (here is the caution) I found that only 18% of your edits were to mainspace, and that you have created only 16 articles and no GAs. That record will draw oppose !votes from the "content creation" crowd, of whom there are many at RfA. It might not be enough to fail your nomination, given your excellent record in areas that are more important for administrators anyhow, but it will definitely impact it. I concluded I would certainly support your RfA but I could not nominate you. If this was the pre-RFA opinion poll, I would give you 7 or 8 out of 10, and urge you develop more of a track record on the content creation side before applying. Just a suggestion, and good luck either way. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN Yeah I know that's an area for improvement. My issue is honestly....I stink at writing it seems like. (Well at least non-academic papers, those I always did great at) I know I have a few articles created, and nothing that is earth-shaking (mainly because they are areas of my interest, and aren't going to have a lot of info on), but I try my best. When I do finally go for the RfA down the road, I'll try to explain myself and my not-so-great area of content creation. I'd hope that wouldn't be seen as a huge black mark against me, as I feel I do contribute a lot to the project as a whole, but that's a biased opinion of myself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And although I have highlighted it, and I know that it always comes up at RfA, I just looked at some recent successful and failed RfAs and I don't see any that failed for that reason alone. Bottom line, it will probably impact your percentage but not your ultimate success. As I said, you have a great track record in the areas that really count for an administrator. (As you may notice, I am not part of what I call the Content Creation Crowd.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I'll have my detractors regardless. Heck I ran for ArbCom last year as a non-admin and finished last. That was an interesting experience, I ran mainly because I felt I would be good at helping resolve conflict by bringing a level-headed and neutral mind to the cases provided. Don't think I'll run again though, however helping out as an admin here I still would like to do. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is awesome! 😁 Katietalk 18:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! I would support your RFA, RickinBaltimore. Best of luck if you decide to go ahead. Zerotalk 18:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Katie, If you're still up to helping me out I'd be more than welcome to go for that RfA next week (or whenever works for you!) RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Blue Rasberry: Thank you! I had a college boyfriend who had a chinchilla – they're so soft that it's like petting air! Katietalk 11:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Email
You have a non-urgent email from me, no rush -- samtartalk or stalk 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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 keptongoing, 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. Katietalk 11:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. :-) Katietalk 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
I'm logged in right now on our school's shared IP and there's a warning from you about disruptive editing. This is probably a weird request, but you should probably just preemptively block this IP since it's used by hundreds of students and it's bound to happen again.
I understand your concern, and thanks for the message. We don't preemptively block IPs because we take the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit' thing seriously. If you want to create an account, which will allow you to avoid any future block of your school's IP addresses and give you a bunch of other benefits, let me know and I'll help you do that. Have an awesome day! :-) Katietalk 14:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Katie
Hiya, just a quick thanks for blocking this IP earlier - it's one of a range used by our college and the maturity level of a few of our new students is, shall we say, questionable (though I note they decided to behave and get themselves unblocked too!). A couple of more experienced Wikipedians edit from this IP, so am just hoping it doesn't get non-anonblocked any time soon! Many thanks again. 31.48.63.149 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the "Under discussion" tag on the Project Page for the discussion that you closed last March. If you look at the edit history on the Project Page, you will see why I'm making the request. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Rest assured I'm sure I'll be back to request it in 6 weeks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. You should set up an alternate IP talk page so we can protect the main one for several months if he returns after Thanksgiving. I think JamesBWatson has one if you need a prototype. Katietalk 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify why and on what ground you performed this action, and especially why you performed it with an indefinate duration: [1]. There is quite sufficient discussion, and no rationale for the indefinate protection. Carl Fredrik 💌📧 14:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is there a relevant WP:RPP-post or any indication that the recent dispute caused damage to any article, nor any indication that there even was a continued dispute.Carl Fredrik 💌📧 14:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing another discussion, I think it would be appropriate to restore Template-editor protection to the pages. There is very little likelyhood that any future dispute will continue. Carl Fredrik 💌📧 14:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: There was an RFPP post when I locked the templates, here, which was withdrawn while I was in the process of protecting the pages. I'll unlock them as soon as I'm done writing this. I locked the one indefinitely because I wanted to make sure that whoever unlocked it set it back to template protection. If it expires on its own, the template gets completely unlocked with no protection at all. The other isn't as widely transcluded, so we could manage for a bit if it were somehow not reset. At any rate, please stop reverting each other and work it out. I'll yank both your TE bits if this stuff continues. Katietalk 15:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks for the explanation. Carl Fredrik 💌📧 15:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The IP that has been vandalizing Presidency of Thomas Jefferson has moved on to Wikisource and is persistently and repeatedly vandalizing there. They have created a fake WS article "Thomas Jefferson's Third Inaugural Address" (which has since been deleted) and have also created links to that article within Wikisource. I have reported them to Wikisource's Admins Noticeboard and have reverted their vandalism as soon as I can but they keep on vandalizing there - can their IP maybe get a Wiki-wide/global block or something? I have no doubt they think they are oh-so-clever but they are really oh-so-annoying and causing nothing but harm to Wikipedia and its various Wiki sister projects. I am thinking WP:DUCK as to a school-IP or library-IP... Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) A global block would be something that would need to be done by the Meta admins, if I recall correctly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure how to proceed, just thought I'd throw the possibility out there. I've rarely (if *ever*) come across such a persistent vandal who creates crap at Wikisource and then links it to articles there and also to articles here... shame they don't use their powers for good. And isn't it odd how experienced they are at editing... Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: I can't do anything about Wikisource because I'm not an admin there. The stewards have to do a global block. On IRC, go to the #wikimedia-stewardsconnect channel and write '!steward' in the channel. One of them should be monitoring it. Katietalk 15:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thx KK. They seem to have stopped for now. The whole mess is just one of the oddest vandalism-incidents I have ever come across - so much work on something that was fake and then to go to all the associated articles, creating links to the spurious content. The faked WS article has since been deleted and they have apparently stopped their marauding ways for now. If they crop up again with their multiple vandal-edits spanning different Wikipedia-Associated projects... then I'll go to the stewards. Shearonink (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Katie, could you look at Jennifer Palmieri again for revision deletion. Same BLP vandalism that you deleted before. Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue on Jennifer Palmieri this time on the talk page. Also, homophobic slurs at the Robby Mook might merit revision deletion as well. Thanks for all your help on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question regarding the implementation of this WP. Several hours ago, a user changed the order of the names in the lede of this article, citing a fraction of the content on "WP:NCGN" as the means to do so. However, I believe that this is plain wrong. The way I got it, is that WP:NCGN only counts for "geographical names" or "place names", which the page explicitly mentions so on numerous occassions. E.g. the "Gulf of Finland", "Constantinople/Byzantium", etc. As far as I can see, it cites absolutely nothing about the needed order of the names of administrative entities/provinces of former empires on territories that centuries later became (part of) independant nations. The article in question (the Erivan Khanate), was an administrative province/territory of the Persian Empire, a historical entity, where Persian was the official language, as it was in the rest of the realm. This is all verifiably sourced. Furthermore, it was not Armenian ruled, and Armenian was not the official language. Hence, it makes logically seen no sense at all to put the Armenian translation at front and the Persian one at the end, which is what the user did. Its as if we'd put the Georgian translation at front on the Tiflis Governorate page, just because the letter "G" shows up earlier in the alphabet than the letters "R" or "O" -- that would make 0.0% sense as well.
Based on this, I reverted the user, but he reverted me again, and after that, another uninvolved user reverted me as well, again, both only mentioning a part of WP:NCGN. As I believe that said actions are not backed up by this WP policy, I thought I'd ask a moderator for his/her independant opinion about it. If it isn't too much asked for, of course. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: Of course it's not too much to ask, but this isn't an area in which I work, and admins are not content arbiters. It's great that you asked rather than edit war. I suggest you start an RFC on the article talk page. It might take some time to resolve, but the encyclopedia won't burn down if it's this way or that way for a while. Katietalk 22:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the response. RFC is indeed a good one, however, based on my experience with RFC's that I've seen in similarily sensitive topic areas, I can't say I'm very positive about it, as it all unfortunately endede up at votestacking, rather than reaching a concensus. Or even worse; whoever could collect more sock/meat IP's/accounts to vote for his/her stance. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remember me?
HBC AIV bots appear to be down at WP:AIAV. Last known action by a bot was at 1:00 PM (PDT). Someone spilled coffee somewhere! :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Robinson12345
Hi Katie (assuming that's your real name),
You were involved in warning the user about RPP, and now is abusing Twinkle in my opinion. I was hoping you would look into the situation further, if you wish and can, and impose some sort of solution if possible. Thank you. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 12:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Callmemirela: I laughed so hard when I saw that first line! I thought, "I know that's not your real name, 'Katie' – NOW TELL ME WHERE YOU HID THE MONEY!" 😁 If you want the story, read my user page then look on YouTube for 'Krakatoa Katie'. You'll see. ;-)
But back to our problem child...he hasn't edited since he got called out for that ridiculous SPI thing. We had a similar issue over the past few months with VarunFEB2003 that ended in an indef block. I'm not willing to go there quite yet because I'm thinking he's young, like Varun is, and I don't want to completely discourage him. Call it an AGF infection on my part or whatever. However, if he does one more dumb disruptive thing, I'll absolutely block him temporarily for disruption. Let me know when/if that happens. :-) Katietalk 18:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Can I email you right now about a mistake I believe I just made please? — Calvin999 18:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just sent. — Calvin999 18:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
F5 tags
Hello, Katie!
I would like to discuss the F5 tags of File:Litex renamed to CSKA - Sofia.jpg and File:Cska-sofia logo.png. Both files were part of PFC CSKA-Sofia which another user has been vandalising and redirecting to PFC CSKA Sofia for over a month, as you can see from the history. Note that there is no reason for redirecting because PFC CSKA Sofia and PFC CSKA-Sofia aren't the same team. Their names are almost identical and actually the only difference is "-" but the two clubs have nothing in common and therefore they shouldn't share the same page. My efforts to improve PFC CSKA - Sofia were sabotaged by another user who never had a single contribution to the page. Both files are of big importance because the first in an excerpt from an official document showing that CSKA-Sofia and CSKA Sofia aren't the same club and the second is the logo of CSKA-Sofia. PFC CSKA Sofia is currently under protection but shortly before the page became protected the user who has been vandalising PFC CSKA-Sofia redirected it once again to PFC CSKA Sofia and now it's protected too. In my opinion those files should not be regarded as orphaned because they are part of PFC CSKA-Sofia. The person who put the tags is trying to delete the files because they prove there is no ground PFC CSKA-Sofia to be redirected to PFC CSKA Sofia. The last sentence in the template is: Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles. Here are the reasons why I believe the tags should be removed and the files should not be deleted- both files are certainly relevant to PFC CSKA-Sofia but they can't become part of the page again until 24 September when expires its protection. I will highly appreciate your opinion on the matter --Ivo (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BG89: You and the other user are very lucky I didn't see the edit warring going on on those pages when I looked at that RFPP report, because both of you would be blocked. Then you both extended your tirades to these files. I have no opinion on the content dispute. I do have an opinion on edit warring, and I won't tolerate it. It's pointless and stupid and serves no purpose.
I have two things to say that might help. First, you could open an RFC or request a third opinion on the article talk page about this same-or-different-club issue. Second, you need to understand that we must delete unused non-free media – it's not optional. If the content dispute is resolved and everyone agrees, we can undelete the files later (or they can be uploaded again), but WP:NFCC requires deletion if they're not being used, period. Full stop.
Short version: stop edit warring, don't worry about the files because nothing ever really goes away here, and start discussing this content dispute with other editors. Katietalk 11:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, thanks, guys! :-) Katietalk 12:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by what Ks0stm did, do you need to request access here? Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They've given me instructions and I've done my part, so it's waiting now. :-) Katietalk 13:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You know, Katie, I don't feel like I really know you, but everywhere I see your name I know you're doing something good for Wikipedia. These appointments will permit you to do even more (don't overdo :-) ). Congratulations!--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Right back at you – I'm sure you'll hear a cry for help from me soon! Katietalk 13:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Katie. Well deserved. :-) Patient Zerotalk 15:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just joining the chorus of congrats. So well deserved and now you will be knitting new sock patterns daily :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KrakatoaKatie, just wanted to mirror the comments of the others and say congratulations. As I said on MusikAnimal user talk page, I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to comment on the other candidates but I too would have supported your CU and OS request. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 19:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: Thanks, and I totally understand because I felt the same way. I had reasons to support everyone! Katietalk 19:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to offer my congrats too!! RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rick! :-) Katietalk 11:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gkable
Doesn't he need a notice on his talk page? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangemike: Do you mean a warning? Don't think so, not for NLT. AFAIK it's block on sight. Katietalk 00:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant a block notice; there wasn't one there when I stopped by. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cloak request
This is confirmation of my IRC cloak request. Katietalk 00:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you're going to be more often on IRC? That's amazing! [1]. Dat GuyTalkContribs 05:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I haven't been on IRC in months and now I'm having an issue accessing freenode. I'll have to find a freenode administrator to help me sort it out but IRC isn't at the top of my very long list right now. :-/ Katietalk 11:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mail Call
Hello, KrakatoaKatie. Please check your email; you've got mail! 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.
I've added you here as I've noticed that you've now been assigned the right (also did MusikAnimal at the same time) - but please feel free to revert if I've jumped the gun or (likely) made some other mess-up in doing so! Mike1901 (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 has reverted me so I was obviously right regarding messing something up! Ah well - my trying to be helpful didn't pay off. Mike1901 (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike1901: You got Katie right. It was MA that was partly wrong. You made him a CU and an OS (like Katie). He has the CU permission only. I don't normally touch that template because (a) I'm afraid I'll screw up () and (b) to make sure you've done it right, you have to check the lists themselves that draw the names from the template; it's not like you can do a show preview and know whether you've done it right. Anyway, I've put them both in I believe properly. Took me two passes, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could've sworn I'd removed MA from Oversight - whoops! Thanks for fixing it Bbb23 (I genuinely didn't know what the protocol was for the re-activated functionaries announced at the same time, so I left them out deliberately) Mike1901 (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, this template is usually updated by certain people, one of whom isn't me. Those administrators appear to know what they're doing, and I just let 'em do their thing. Sorry for cluttering your Talk page, Katie.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made some additional changes to the template, and I also hope that I didn't break anything. It's possible to preview the template using the box near the bottom of the edit screen by previewing it on WP:Functionaries, WP:CheckUser, and WP:Oversight. —DoRD (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes were more complete. I think the template is a pain in the ass.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to have extra CUs around SPI - I look forward to working with you there in the future. We've got quite the backlog, as ever... Best, GABgab 18:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GAB: Thanks! The mountain of information is insane and I'm trying to feel my way through, but I'll help with that backlog as soon as I think I'm not going to really screw something up! :-) Katietalk 19:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, actually; that's why I try to stay away from Indian/Pakistani nationalist sock cases because the history is so messy and the cases are often intertwined (CosmicEmperor, LanguageXpert, et. al). GABgab 19:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G6 and related deletions
Hi Katie. Thank you for your note on my talkpage. I have a quick question... I occasionally come across files similar to these but without any deletion tags/requests. Can admins delete such files, without having to wait for someone to tag the file? I.e. can I quick delete on sight? Also, does such cases apply for other situations like test pages and other obviously-deletable content? I know such uncontroversial self-decided deletions are allowed on Commons, but I'm not too sure about Wikipedia. Thank you! Rehman 07:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman: You can, but personally, I'll almost always tag instead of unilaterally deleting files. I'd rather err on the side of caution when dealing with the file deletions. They're more complicated to restore, though not much, and the less hassle the better, I think. For other CSDs, I'll go ahead and delete unless there's the slightest whisper of doubt in my mind, or I'm involved somehow, and then I'll just tag it. One of us is going to come around eventually to take a look, and the place isn't going to burn down while the page waits. You can always courtesy blank a G3 if you're in doubt.
Hope that helps – I remember how confused I was with all those shiny new buttons. (I'm even more confused with these shiny new buttons I got on Sunday. I walk around now with this stunned look on my face.) I think on the second or third protect I ever did I put cascading on it, because I didn't understand what that did, and it was a big article so I locked something like 300 pages. It was gently pointed out to me that I probably shouldn't do that anymore. :-D Katietalk 11:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Katie. :-) Will follow your advice. Yours, Rehman 11:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for unblocking FGCU's IP address. It’ll help me have a successful edit-a-thon. Since there is a limit of six named accounts that can be created from an IP address in 24 hours, I think being granted an account creator user right would be very helpful. This is the first edit-a-thon at the uni, so I don’t know how to the turnout will be - but I do plan to have edit-a-thons more frequently. Thank you very much!
