User talk:Krett12

Read the history for all the messages.

You knew this was coming

This is your only warning; if you template a regular again, you may be borked from editing without further notice. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, man, I wanted to do that. :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't template a regular, nor did I know that this "was coming". Krett12 (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you did [1] -- what is "special tool"? Anyway, you can ignore those cranky old Wikipedians, as long as you're not intentionally disruptive, their snark is worse than their bite. (But lay off comments like Hey genius -- that's not good. ) How'd you even find the template, it's barely linked from anywhere. NE Ent 01:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The special tool I use is called Twinkle, but I don't like to give out its name because I'm hoping it'll reduce on tool abuse. While my attempts will almost always be futile, I'll never change. I agree about the hey genius thing tho--I was just mad. I actually knew about the template for a long time, I just never got around to it. Krett12 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive test edits

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point or for experimental purposes, as you did in this edit. Saying that you "sincerely apologize" does not justify your action, especially as the " apology" clearly wasn't sincere, or you wouldn't have been doing it. You may use a sandbox for experiments, but not articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally use the Sandbox, but I had to because I needed a warning from ClueBot NG because I was changing the way it recognized already existing warnings and wanted to see if it worked. BTW, please don't wait 3 months then give me a warning, just do it then. Krett12 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trumpet

A tag has been placed on Donald Trumpet, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the redirect page's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 17:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Etamni: Yeah, I agree now. I don't know WHAT I was thinking. Krett12 (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Krett12. The funny thing is I found the redirect when I typed "Donald Trump" into the search box, and "Donald Trumpet" was a choice in the drop down menu. I was expecting either a joke or someone completely unrelated to Donald Trump, so I clicked it out of curiosity. When I saw it was a redirect, I decided to tag it (which is something I rarely do). I laughed when it took me to your page for the notice. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 04:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Etamni: Yeah, doesn't seem like something I'd do, does it? I was half asleep when I created it, and I don't blame you for wanting to view it (I guess it could seem like vandalism). Speaking of vandalism, is that why you were trying to find the article on Trump? I assumed it would be semi'd, and just went there to check. Krett12 (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw something on the news about him that I hadn't heard before and I went to see if the article mentioned it. It did. As for seeming like something you would do? Yeah, it does. But on EnWiki, there are lots of people who would do that, so the coincidence of it being someone I interact with on another project was humorous. That said, creating dumb redirects like that isn't humorous. There are editors here who would give you warnings over stuff like that, and you know what would happen with something like that on Simple, right? Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 06:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I actually have a BETTER track record here than on Simple, and I agree that it was better that it happened here. But let's not talk about simplewiki anymore---my account might get locked. Does it really seem like something I'd do? Krett12 (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not editing the encyclopedia when you are too Sleepy. That Mode will lead to disaster, if you know what I mean. Get some rest. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good, I was just up late that one night. Krett12 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to Wikipedia

Have you checked out this link yet? You can listen to Wikipedia, and you can click on the screen images for links to the articles making the music. It's kinda cool. I've made a userbox for it as well. If you are interested, you can find it at User:Etamni/Userboxes/ListensToWikipedia. If it doesn't interest you, that's ok. I use the site for vandalism patrol -- after awhile, you will get a sense of which edits might be vandalism and can click on them to go directly to the page and check out the edit. Sometimes they are vandalism, and sometimes they are not, but it's definitely more interesting than other methods of counter-vandalism patrol. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 06:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Etamni: I got a "refused connection" error. Krett12 (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Wikipedia did something to the link. Manually type listen.hatnote.com into your browser; it worked for me just now, but clicking the link above didn't work. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 06:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There, fixed. Wikipedia was trying to make it an https link instead of http -- It works now. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 06:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty cool, but I can't use it because the links move faster than I can click the one I want :P Krett12 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can click on the colored circles to select articles. At least until they get covered by another circle. And you can always note the title and just type it into a search box if something keeps you from clicking it. (BTW, always ping me if you reply to anything I say here -- I have too many pages on my EnWiki watchlist to notice a reply from you without a ping). Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 18:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Etamni: Doesn't work Krett12 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on a PC? Tablet? Phone? Something else? Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 03:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Etamni: I was on a PC when I tried it but am doing near everything now on my phone due to batery problems. Krett12 (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parda Parda

Hi Krett, please can you explain the rationale behind leaving this message at User talk:Parda Parda? The user concerned hadn't made any edits for over a week (since 3rd January) and had already been indefinitely blocked some 12 hours prior to you leaving your message, as is clear from reading their talk page. It's not as though you'd just reverted one of their changes either. Seems a totally unnecessary action on your part — please take more care in future. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like to walk the extra mile. However, give me one good reason why I should NOT and I will never avain.Krett12 (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop misusing

Stop misusing tool-based editing or you will be reported. In year articles, nothing tends to be referenced. Learn before doing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to who? The bureaucracy of tools? Krett12 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Krett12, a friendly word of advice. Do you know how to see the credentials of the person leaving you a message? If you had done so for Carlossuarez46, you would have seen that they are a sysop with nearly 13 years of experience and more than 470,000 edits to their credit. Having learned this, you might pause a moment and consider whether they know something that you don't yet know about editing Wikipedia, its policies, etc. – and you might also reconsider the impulse to respond with a flippant and dismissive answer like the one above. I wouldn't expect Carlos to call his history, hence authority, to your attention – we try to be egalitarian around here – but I will. You will be much more successful here if you develop a little more respect for those with a great deal more experience, and possibly even better judgment, than you have achieved, or could possibly have achieved in the relatively short time you have been working here. My advice; take it or leave it. General Ization ^Talk 22:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see how some of the behaviors that led to Krett12's 6 month ban at the Simple Wikipedia are cropping up here. only (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting that I want to keep simplewiki out of this. Krett12 (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're welcome to want that, but that won't prevent it from being brought up and being relevant. Your behavior at another wiki is definitely a telling sign for admins about your behavior here. only (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: While that is the case, the one-strike rule is one way. But you're still right tho. Krett12 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no one strike rule, here, but if admins realize that there's a pattern continuing from another project, they're more likely to block sooner or longer than they might for other users. only (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: But it's different. This is about misuse of Twinkle, the other one was disruptive editing. Krett12 (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is exactly like the kind of behavior that contributed to your ban on Simple. only (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful

While the bulk of your vandalism work has been good, I'm noticing some of your edits are resembling those that resulted in your block on Simple Wikipedia. Your move of the Keith Thomas article, for example, shows a lack of understanding, yet you went in decreeing basically that "this is the way things should be" when you didn't know that that was the correct way already. Your nomination of Template:Uw-vandalism4im, a template that has been in use for 8 years, seems terrible misguided to me, but we'll see what consensus says. And your edit at Help:Edit conflict is a perfect example of the behaviors; you're making such a minor/unnecessary change that didn't need to be changed, which is why it was reverted. It would really be a good idea for you to avoid any administrative aspect of Wikipedia such as these types of pages and instead focus on editing articles or reverting vandalism. only (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signs (journal)

You need to go back and look at the history of Signs (journal). You warned CherryZero123 for removing content without an explanation, in reality you removed content that CherryZero123 added. As you have been told many times you need to slow down and make sure you know what you are doing. -- GB fan 18:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content WAS removed. Krett12 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did remove those, but they also added them a few edits before and they don't belong. You still are not looking at the whole piccture -- GB fan 19:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the mistake is I reverted two edits, I added back one of them. Krett12 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But those links do not belong and the editor removed them after adding them and having them removed by a bot. The editor then reverted everything the bot did and then just removed the content that did not belong. -- GB fan 19:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You win. Krett12 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to win, I am trying to understand your actions. -- GB fan 20:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not being very open about it, so how could I possible tell you? Krett12 (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for (see below). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: What does "see below" even mean? Krett12 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]