User talk:Kcmastrpc

Catharine West

Hi, thanks for the message. I had a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography and I felt that the style is fine. Would you mind providing specific examples where you thought the expected style was not followed? Thanks, ~Earthianyogi

I would take a look at some biographies of her peers or prominent researchers in an adjacent space and attempt to model those in styling. Just from a cursory glance, the bolded titles with punctuation, eg. "HELLO THERE:" seems unencyclopedic. I'd also think about creating an infobox for the persons most relevant information. I'm heading to my sons birthday party but when I get back I'll see if I can't find some examples. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Earthianyogi (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other users' edits "vandalism"

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: it is editing that is deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Any edit made in good faith is not vandalism, and by calling edits which do not obviously disrupt Wikipedia vandalism, you are assuming bad faith. It can be perceived by others as a personal attack on them. Please be more careful going forward. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say adding a contentious label to the lead sentence without discussing the edit or even making an edit summary qualifies. I also discussed these actions in the wiki IRC channel before taking them. Nevertheless, thank you for your concern. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say the same -- that edit re-added something that had already been in the article and had been removed by the immediately previous editor, a WP:SPA who seemed to be trying to whitewash the article in a series of large removals of content. Looking at edit histories helps see this kind of thing. Discuss at article talk, not at IRC; other editors can't see the discussion if it's not at article talk. Valereee (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you disagree that given the nature of the edits and their application across multiple BLPs, including the lack of any edit summary, they couldn't be mistaken for vandalism? WP:GOODFAITH works both ways. My apologies for the mistake. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know how easy it is to mischaracterize an edit as vandalism -- I did it myself somewhere literally in the last few days. Apologies aren't needed, we came here to help a less-experienced editor learn our bewildering ways. :) Valereee (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've watchlisted the IP. They do seem to have an awful lot of warnings on their talk lol... Valereee (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nevertheless, thank you for your patience and for keeping an eye out. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Burial garden" vs "cemetery"

I agree that the former is more popular in the sources used at Andy Ogles#Child burial garden controversy. But if we search Wikipedia for the term, that's the only place we find it. I suppose it's not too weird to see a weird term attached to a controversial politician. In most cases, we wouldn't call a genius a very stable genius, either. These things have a way of catching on. Anyway, this freak aside, if you happen to find yourself in a burial ground with tended plants and statuary, cemetery is the most likely explanation, in English. Memorial parks are probably second, in American English. By any name, though, they are hard fields to build, emotionally, financially and logistically. I hope you never need try! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the child is already buried in a cemetery but they were raising funds for the memorial garden. Nevertheless, would this conversation make more sense on the BLP talk page? Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bodies are moved from one plot to another often enough (though that usually involves already established, registered and/or sanctified land). I'm fine with your revision if you are. Just saying, perhaps answering who prefers to call them "cemeteries". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Traefik (March 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

References fail WP:ORGCRIT.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Traefik and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kcmastrpc! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Waldo's Chicken and Beer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Waldo's Chicken and Beer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldo's Chicken and Beer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AOC

On the edit notice that appears on this page when you edit it, it clearly says "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message". As such, you may want to self-revert your last edit. Black Kite (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m aware of the policy, which also includes WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, specifically :BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.. If you feel my edit wouldn’t stand in a discussion on WP:BLPN then feel free to revert yourself since I won’t revert again. I’ve also added two more WP:RS, perhaps instead we should focus on improving the article, not yeeting things we might not like? Kcmastrpc (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Contentious Topics page restriction, which you must comply with per the contentious topics policy. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point - you can be blocked now as on this page the discretionary sanctions mean that you cannot violate BRD at all. If someone were to take this to WP:AN3 now you would be blocked - hence my suggestion that you self-revert. Black Kite (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOODFAITH, per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, specifically, :::An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. I’ve self-reverted, but not after being bullied here by an admin and another editor. You could have just taken it to to the articles talk page like WP:BRD suggests. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You been the very opposite of bullied; after all I could simply have blocked you but gave you a chance to comply with the DS restrictions (mainly because I know many people aren't familiar with them). Your edit may very well be acceptable but the history of this article means that the restrictions are necessary. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now Kcmastrpc is bullying on the Twitter Files article, including shame tagging when not getting their way. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made a claim that wasn't true, there is no healthy discussion, the only contributor to it was the editor who was edit-warring with me. I stated I'm willing to drop the tag once there is a healthy discussion, then you continued to claim I was shame-tagging without any evidence. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the entire article over one paragraph that you don't like and have attempted to change multiple times. By healthy, I mean active and it is certainly active. But yes, you are edit-warring. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Andre🚐 19:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific example or are you just coming here to be disagreeable after making targeted reverts / edits / comments on multiple pages I've been involved with editing? Should I take your actions to AN/I? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andre🚐 19:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kcmastrpc reported by User:Andrevan (Result: ). Thank you. Andre🚐 15:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Twitter Files) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since this is my first blocked, should it not be 24h, additionally, I've self reverted after discovering the mistake. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such requirement, and I'd prefer you not to edit the article directly for two weeks irrelevantly of the self-revert that merely described an intent to wait 12-24 hours before continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to that, I'd still like to participate in the discussion I was trying to solicit feedback to come to consensus on the disputed materials if possible. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're still able and welcome to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks is way too long for an editor’s first entry in the block log, especially after the self revert. The point seems to have taken hold here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was the self-rvt comment that indicated they would continue the edit-war after waiting for the end of the 24 hours. That is, manipulate 3RR. Further, Black Kite just told them a few days ago they could be blocked for actions on another article; and the response was an accusation of bullying by an admin. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not clear already I had no intention of editing the article other than in an attempt to solicit discussion on the talk page regarding the NPOV concerns. Nevertheless, I've accepted the block and if it's ok can we just move on? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t always have to do this. 2 weeks is excessive and you know it. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:British royal family on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Talk:Japanese cruiser Yūbari on a "Warfare" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:Battlemorph on a "Video games" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:Minuscule 1582 and Talk:Humanism on "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Tunic (video game) on a "Video games" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proper sourcing

Can you please add sources as a proper citation, and not just a URL? [1] Thanks, WWGB (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Is there a tool or website that'll generate them in one shot (similar to Refill, but just doing it ahead of time instead of post-submission)? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citer can generate CS1 templates for a fair amount of URLs. It works best with DOI, ISBN, PMID, and Google Books URLs, but it seems to work reasonably well for most major newsorgs. For those that Citer fails, you'd likely have to do it by hand. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo for Waldo's Chicken & Beer.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo for Waldo's Chicken & Beer.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Warfare Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:DeepStateMap.Live on a "Warfare" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Video games Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ada Wong on a "Video games" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Video games Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Makoto (Street Fighter) on a "Video games" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Coronation of Charles III and Camilla on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:William L. Breckinridge on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andrew Planta on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Fascist (insult) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Klete Keller

Hi, if possible please keep an eye on the Klete Keller lead, a vandal is trying to revert it again. It has been proven multiple times "convicted felon" is a contentious label and not appropriate for a lead sentence. Thank You. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive349#Klete_Keller 172.56.160.200 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is blocked user Defeedme, who is making extensive use of the 172.56.160.* range lately. Wes sideman (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the lead on Klete was just vandalized again. 129.222.222.20 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Im Yunjidang on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Video games Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Zarya (Overwatch) on a "Video games" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Warfare Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Battle of Longewala on a "Warfare" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Video games Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lego City Undercover on a "Video games" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pope John XIV on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]