| B |
This user is currently busy
but should return shortly. |
|
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
|
| Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Hi Katie,
thanks for the protection, but you should have done by not letting the reverted content to be conserved, but that one was left by me, did you read on Ritchie333's talk page (Austrian Empire section) my inquiry? Please modify it as I asked, thus the Administrators who are not experts in the topic can easily see the root of them problem, since they are able to compare it to the two other corresponding articles debated on the same grounds (that was left as the opposing party edited jsut because of our good faith...(KIENGIR (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
- @KIENGIR: Please see my user page. I do not care which version is protected. I care that this edit war on that page stops, and now it has. If you move to another page in this topic area, you've been warned about the sanctions authorized under ARBEURO, and that single warning is all that's required (though now you've had two). Stop blindly reverting and propose some changes other editors can get behind. Katietalk 01:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Katie,
- since the topic has not any real connection to Eastern-Europe, only Central-Europe. Your last accusation is not valid, since I never do blind reverts and I was the only one who gave professional details and argumentation and proof against that type of vandalism the correspondent pages are suffered. Just analyze any of the talk pages. Blind reverts was made by Hebel, not me! An administrator has to be very much careful before making accusations, since in a way you are the judges of Wikipedia!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
..for the "autopatrolled" approval. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @George Ho: I'm going to let the Khan article expire. On the fence about Venkat (BLP), but I think I'll allow it to expire also. Let's see what happens over the next few days. Katietalk 01:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your final warning of Jrwilson1997 (talk · contribs) didn't have much impact. That user deleted your warning, then made two more edits where they cited a source called "The Los Angeles and Neighborhoods Real Estate Blog". I've been trying to clean up this editor's lengthy mess. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Magnolia677: Don't care that he deleted the warning 'cause that means he saw it. Looked at the source, which is a Vox Media site. I don't know what is and isn't an RS for real estate and stuff about where people once lived, but it's a source, he's making an effort, and that's where I came from at AIV. Keep trying to engage the guy. If he continues to refuse to discuss, that's something for ANI. I know your patience must be tested. You're doing a great job. :-) Katietalk 13:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Katie. Thanks for blocking the ip address that kept vandalizing Disney's Animal Kingdom. Unfortunately, that hasn't seemed to stop whomever is vandalizing the page, and they have also moved onto List of Disney's Animal Kingdom attractions. Though it seems that all of the vandalism is coming from ip addresses registered to Comcast Communications in Mount Laurel, NJ, they seem to be using different ones to vandalism the page. I was hoping you could semi-protect those pages. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elisfkc: Don't need to semi-protect them. Today is lesson one - well, maybe 0.5 - in IPv6 addressing for non-admins.
- This is all the work of one guy. His range block expired, so he's back. That's all this is. Look at one of your page histories (and give me diffs next time, would ya? thanks!) and examine the IPv6 addresses that have been doing this for weeks. See how the first four groups of numbers and letters, up through CF54, match? That's the biggest clue for the non-technically minded that this is one person. It's like the duck test only with mathematical proof. When we put the list of IPv6 addresses into our handy dandy rangeblock calculators, it comes out that it's one end user. IPv6 addresses look intimidating and scary because OMG MATH THINK OF THE CHILDREN but they're really not. In some ways, it's much simpler, once the headache goes away and your eyes lose their glassy feeling.
- Since he knows better, and he began disruption immediately after his one-week block expired, he wins a brand-spankin' new one-month block for disruption. I can do this all year long, so if he decides he has nothing better to do on February 3, let me know. :-) Katietalk 13:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for both the block and the explanation Katie. I figured it was something similar to that, though I was presuming that the same person was using separate computers instead. Elisfkc (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. KIENGIR broke the 1RR imposed by you at Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. I reported him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:KIENGIR_reported_by_User:123Steller_.28Result:_.29. I thought to notfy you about this. 123Steller (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Katie, it just ocurred to me that the existence of a Sandbox Usertalkpage [1] is probably superfluous, so can I just (after today's vandal creation) nominate it for deletion (MfD), or does it need to be maintained now (for whatever purpose, e.g. its history)? I am asking you since you put effort in it by semiprotecting the page. Actually, at first I did not know what to do since rollback was of course impossible, and then I figured I can just blank the page, but then he/she will start trolling again, and so he/she did.
And about thanking people for edits (in the History view): after one thanks, it says "thanked" in black letters, so one cannot double thank someone mistakenly for one and the same edit. However, the next day this is not visible anymore, and all edits are blue clickeable again. How do I make sure I do not double thank people for one and the same edit, if I cannot remember I did already (unless the software simply does not let it through)?
Thanks, Poepkop (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- @Poepkop: I'll delete the page for you if you want, or you can tag it as {{db-u1}} and it'll go into the CSD queue. As for the Wikilove thing, I'm not sure. Maybe it's a bug. Or maybe it's a feature. :-) Katietalk 22:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Katie, mm well yes if and when you have a minute please do remove it, I guess you will put some lava onto it and its gone? ;-) Poepkop (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks! Poepkop (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, you wisely protected the Royce Gracie page a few days ago to stop the edit warring going on. Well the IP user(s) and an account created precisely for more reverting, reinserted the unreferenced content. I suspect that these accounts are controlled by CrazyAces, the only other editor who had kept reverting SubSeven and others when he removed the content. CrazyAces stopped editing from his main account awhile back to, again, avoid scrutiny and potential blocks. Do what you will (or not) with this user, but what I'm more concerned about is the integrity of the article. Is it possible for you to reinforce the protection to the page and revert the disputed content? Thank you for your time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheGracefulSlick: Can you give me a few diffs here? Just a few, to refresh my memory. It's not the only iron I have in the fire. ;-) Katietalk 12:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No to both. Please stop worrying so much about pages with expiring protection. We're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and we take that seriously. We can always add it back later. Katietalk 16:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't do that, especially when pages are at stake. I know which ones to ask. If you refuse anything from me, I guess I can take things to RFPP next time. --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I just saw that some reports I made at WP:AIV was removed in this edit you made, and I am trying to figure out why so that I can be even better in reporting (and choose when to report).
First of all I am wondering about 208.95.241.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 208.58.72.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which actually is the same editor, has not been blocked? The nomination was supported by an other editor. One of the IP adresses was blocked until 6 January, and when that expired both IP's started vandalizing immediately. The case has been discussed at article talkpage Talk:FC Bayern Munich but the two IP's still continue.
Secondly I wonder why Ilirsejdiu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not blocked after posting this personal attack after final warning?
As I said, I am trying to learn why, so please dont take this as criticism. Qed237 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Qed237: No problem, and thanks for asking. You can criticize me all you want. :-)
- I remember the registered account better, so I'll take him first. The PA was from two days ago, and I have a hard time blocking someone for something done that long ago, particularly since no one acted on it in the meantime. His edit today goes back to something I said at AN yesterday about American admins, me included, being clueless about football and footballers. I don't know if the edit he made today is good or not - I know there's a timestamp you guys use and it looks like he updated that, so it's not clear vandalism to me. (More on that in a sec.)
- To your IPs: the first IP hasn't edited today at all, and the second has made one edit today. That may be long term disruption, but it's not current vandalism. The reports sat for several hours with no action, and it's become our practice at AIV to clear the old and/or stale reports after, say, five or six hours. If they're sitting there that long with that many people watching and no one has acted yet, they're not going to, and any vandalism or disruption from those accounts has stopped (or never started in the first place - you'd be surprised).
- I know Ymblanter is familiar with football, so if you're having some trouble with current, ongoing vandalism to a football/footballer article and haven't found a solution, you might see if he's active then and ping him to take a look. We're trying to get these early American am problems resolved; it's been an ongoing issue for many months now. I've been a little under the weather and one of our main AIV/RFPP admins is on a break right now, but hopefully we'll do better. If you have more questions, lemme have 'em. :-) Katietalk 21:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thank you very much for the explanation. I have been very busy myself IRL so I may have reported a bit late, which seem to have had an affect on these cases. And the edit from the registered account that was made after the personal attack was actually good. However, I do believe that I will come across both the IP's and the account in the future as well, so I may re-report them in the future. The IP's maybe to ANI instead.
- There are som admins I know are involved in football related editing and I talk with them a lot about different things but sometimes I feel AIV/RFPP/ANI is a better choice, especially if I can not find an active admin. I was not aware of the fact that there is a American am problem, but now that I think about it I may have noticed it.
- On a side note, I have myself considered to become an admin. Two times other editors have opened a RFA for me, but I have declined both times feeling I was not ready, and editors have said they would support me in RFA. I have since read through a lot of guidelines one by one (making sure I understand before moving to the next one, no rush) including guidelines for admins and perhaps soon I will make a request or at least WP:ORCP. Being heavily involved in football, I think I could specially help with RPP as many BLP's needs protection during transfer seasons (a lot of unsourced edits based on rumours) but also at AIV. I have a very high "success rate" at both places and being a European it could help the American am" problem. Also in the notability part I think I can be a good help, all of my created articles have been accepted without any problems and only one AfD I have nominated has led to "keep" (have probably nominated at least 50 articles). The major issue is that I am not an English native, but I think my English is good enough, and although I have never been blocked I have been close two or three times (edit warring). Qed237 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, when you get ready and need a co-nominator, I'd be happy to do it. Your English is terrific - I couldn't tell you're a non-native speaker. Keep up the good work. :-) Katietalk 01:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've blocked thousands of accounts myself, I'm uneasy about the hard block here
- The name appears to be a "Mark at WidgetsUSA" type specifically excluded here
- The user had accepted that he had a COI on the article talk page
- He had accepted that he should not further edit the conflicted article
Your call, but I'd be inclined to unblock, or change to a soft block to permit a name change. If he then transgresses, a hard block would be justified, cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jimfbleak: I'm not normally a hardass about this kind of thing, but we're going to have to disagree here. I might buy into your last two points (although his accepting a COI certainly doesn't help your argument IMO) but this account to Enzo Biochem is the same as Google Earth is to Google, or Disney Parks is to The Walt Disney Company. If he wants a name change, I'll unblock him for that, but he can request it without changing the block. Katietalk 13:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, personally I'd have this sort of account name blocked on principle and I've blocked similar myself but I've had my knuckles rapped a couple of time for blocking "Mark at WidgetsUSA" names as out of procedure and discouraging COI disclosure. I've also had the point made to me that although COI editing is strongly discouraged, (bizarrely) it's not actually banned. I must be getting soft, thanks anyway, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
80.44.162.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) could we get a block please? -- samtar whisper 14:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring here to a vandal (Oswaglll) who I have already reported, but has been uncommonly active this morning vandalizing my user and talk pages several times, in addition to other pages. Thanks for your help. Cheers, Caballero//Historiador ☊ 15:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the time. Vsmith has already blocked the vandal. Thanks. Caballero//Historiador ☊ 15:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
anushasana parva
Greetings, from User talk:37.217.133.213
Thank you for your message
"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."
I have followed the advice to the letter. I have given my explanation, my point of view, and left a message on the talk pages of the two editors who repeatedly deleted 89.11 percent of the page "Anushasana Parva", a part of the sacred texts of the Hindu religion. I hope to reach consensus
- Shall we take it here or there? --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:KrakatoaKatie, I was just wondering what you consider a good amount of AIV edits to be in order to apply successfully for WP:RFP/R. Thanks. Boomer Vial (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boomer Vial: It's not the number of AIV edits so much as that's an indication of your counter-vandalism activity. Rollback is only for reverting vandalism, so we don't give it to people who aren't active in that area. Contributing and reporting at AIV is simply one way to measure that. Don't be the guy who acts like he wants to collect user rights. If you need rollback, we'll give it to you. You don't need it right now. Katietalk 14:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to be honestly, I was just asking out of curiosity. Thanks for the response anyhow. Oh, I love your name, by the way. Cheers. Boomer Vial (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please revert their edit? I would but I'd violate WP:3RR and I'm not doing that again. I did it once, long long ago. CrashUnderride 19:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crash Underride: Removal of unreferenced, controversial content on a BLP is an explicit exemption to 3RR. You're fine, but I reverted it anyway. :-) Katietalk 19:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm....well, I was given bad information recently. lol. Thanks for your help. CrashUnderride 19:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You protected this page [2] due to edit war but it seems this is not enough for Gala19000. He has edit warred in many articles including Gülbahar Hatun, Selim I. The user has also removed sourced content from Gülbahar Hatun article. Now Gala19000 is playing with Siege of Plevna. Probably another warning or even a block could cool off this user.Lostrigot (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
