Jump to content

User talk:Ks0stm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Je suis Coffee
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least fifteen years.
This user helped get "K-232 (Kansas highway)" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 6 August 2013.
This user helped get "K-140 (Kansas highway)" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 24 February 2013.
This user helped get "K-143 (Kansas highway)" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 23 November 2011.
This user helped "K-171 (Kansas highway)" become a good article.
This user helped "K-1 (Kansas highway)" become a good article.
This user helped "K-360 (Kansas highway)" become a good article.
This user helped "K-284 (Kansas highway)" become a good article.
This user helped "K-232 (Kansas highway)" become a good article.
This user helped "K-140 (Kansas highway)" become a good article.
This user helped "K-143 (Kansas highway)" become a good article.
This user helped "K-104 (Kansas highway)" become a good article.
This user helped "Storm Prediction Center" become a good article.
This user created File:May 20, 2013 Moore, Oklahoma tornado.JPG which became a featured picture on 2013-08-30.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has CheckUser privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs787sads (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 5 June 2017 (→‎"personal information suppressed", but it isn't?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Ks0stm is currently:

Busy

I may not be actively editing,
but I am around.
Update: On • Busy • Class • Away
Wikibreak • Asleep • Holiday • Off


Welcome!

Hello, Ks0stm, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message. Evolauxia 20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]


2013 El Reno tornado

Isn't it a bit counterproductive to configure semi-protection and pending changes protection at the same time? I would have expected either one or the other. If the page is semi-protected, then the people (largely IPs) who would be allowed to edit under the condition that their edits be reviewed via pending changes won't even be able to do that. Master of Time (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Master of Time: Not necessarily. The way I set it up the page is semi-protected until March 30, which will hopefully dissuade the IPs making the change. On March 30 the semi-protection will automatically "downgrade" to pending changes, which will last until June 16, preventing the IPs from altering the version visible to readers if they come back and change the rating again after the semi-protection expires. Basically, so long as the pending changes protection is longer than the semi-protection it will take over when the semi-protection expires, albeit being redundant until that point. I just set both up at the same time so that someone doesn't have to remember to come back and set the pending changes when the semi-protection expires. (I note that my reasoning was long enough that the expiry for pending changes was cut off in the page history to where this all wasn't clear from that, but you can find it in the page logs, specifically the pending changes log.) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I didn't notice that you set a separate expiry date for the semi-protection. Thanks for the detailed response. Master of Time (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New

Hello, can you please delete this page. Thanks--Alaa :)..! 08:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Materialscientist) deleted it!--Alaa :)..! 08:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I'm slow sometimes. =P Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting Kruncha and Nuckal!

Noah Kastin (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Noah Kastin: No problem! Just doing my job. =) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Wiki virus upload account (2)

I think High speed IP account, also. Sro23 (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved into this section for archiving purposes.
Checking  In progress. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23:
Blocked two IPs, as well. All accounts have been globally locked. Piece of cake. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about ProxyConfig.exe? Sro23 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Confirmed:

And Wiki script editor, New VIP account, Commodore 64 user and Server-side scripting account? Sheesh, this person doesn't ever get tired or take a break. Sro23 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another new account(s): Ks0stm caused HEADCRASH on Wiki RAID array server created at

17:52 GMT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.109.186 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ks0stm, Arturo Quinnlan and Special use account are part of the same joke as Ks0stm caused HEADCRASH on Wiki RAID array server. See my recent block log for a few that I blocked earlier, from another IP. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for article you've edited

An article that you have edited--Pawnee, Kansas--has been proposed for merging into First Territorial Capitol of Kansas. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RM2KX (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent PROD

Hello, I saw that the article Militant Minority was deleted for not meeting the notability standards. However, the book article had citation to 2 reliable book reviews, which is enough per WP:NBOOK. Please check it? Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skr15081997: I've restored the article, since this counts as you contesting the PROD. Any future deletion nominations will have to go through AfD. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Temujin

So it appears that the editor in question was a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user as well as being a vandal. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2013 El Reno tornado

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2013 El Reno tornado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: ^ Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Spring 2017

The Center Line
Volume 9, Issue 1 • Spring 2017 • About the Newsletter

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 on 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
👍 Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2013 El Reno tornado

The article 2013 El Reno tornado you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2013 El Reno tornado for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I want to rewrite an article you deleted

Hello how are you? My name is Andrea, I am a user of a software (Freemake Video Downloader), and I wanted to make its page on Wikipedia. But when I went to do it, I found that it had already been done but the page was deleted. I have experience in Wikipedia and I know how to do it neutral, what do you recommend?, I could prepare the article in the sandbox for you to look at?, or do you want me to upload it directly? Or (a third option) upload it as Draft and submit to be reviewed?--Ane wiki (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ane wiki: I can do you one better. Since the article was deleted via PROD, it can be restored upon request. Accordingly, you can find the article at Freemake Video Downloader. I recommend that you improve the article, particularly by fixing the three things I tagged the top of the article with. If you need any help with improving the article, feel free to ask either me or in the English Wikipedia IRC help channel. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Yes, it needs several changes. I'll fix it over the weekend. Thank you!--Ane wiki (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I already edited the article, please check it and tell me if you would make any changes. In the section that I now call "Criticism" I tried to leave previous concepts, but only based on the most reliable pages, it is ok?. Also, I would like to add the software details to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_download_managers, do you think it is correct? Thank you!--Ane wiki (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

to jerk you around on the indef/siteban thing. thanks for taking it with good humor. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: No worries; I didn't really care much either way, though the way it is now is what my original intent was. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the AN discussion. Jennepicfoundation is now site-banned per community consensus, so I have removed her talk page access too. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely 2 week block"

You added IPBE to this account under the justification that it might be hit by an autoblock. (And I would guess other accounts as well.) Is there still a need for IPBE? --Izno (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: I don't see any reason you still need it, though I can't completely rule it out in the future. I've removed it for now; if you get caught in a rangeblock in the future ping me and I'll take a look again. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 13:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Auth0RiTy Contact me 20:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editor name

Hi there. I'm glad you took prompt action against User:Hsingh1488 for a series of purely vandalistic edits, but I would suggest an indef would not be out of place, purely due to the quite blatant neo-nazi username, and the targets this editor chooses, i.e The Holocaust, and Black Lives Matter, Adolf Hitler. Please see Nazi symbolism#Continued use by neo-Nazi groups. I would strongly suspect the user is not WP:HERE. Regards, Irondome (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also draw your attention to WP:Username policy, of which you are no doubt aware. After the 60 hr block expires, what action do you propose to take? Regards, Irondome (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poetlister SPI

Just saw your message on the SPI page. Is there anything I need to do? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skamecrazy123: Not that I'm aware of, but then I'm not horribly familiar with how to handle globally banned users' socks. I'm fairly certain that such suspected socks should at the very least be reported to the Community Advocacy team via ca@wikimedia.org, though. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed ping. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited Freemake Video Downloader, please check it :D

Hello! I already edited the article, please check it and tell me if you would make any changes. In the section that I now call "Criticism" I tried to leave previous concepts, but only based on the most reliable pages, it is ok?. Also, I would like to add the software details to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_download_managers, do you think it is correct? Thank you!--Ane wiki (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exemption

Hi Ks0stm. I get an alert saying "Hardblocking range used by this user". What does it mean? Does it change something to me? Pamputt (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procseebot removal

Thanks for your prompt action on my request for blockage removal. I suggest that the Procseebot is too narrowly programmed with false positives and needs tweaking.

I did indeed edit from a hotel in Indonesia while traveling last week. However, I travel several times a year in this country and have never been procseebot-ted before.

Of more relevance is the need for white listing: 1. As you noted, I am now back at home using the same IP address as usual. I don't know if the blockage occurred after I logged out while editing from the hotel, but I first saw it when logging in from home after my trip. This suggests that the bot is incapable of reversing itself when the normal linkage of user/IP is re-established. Perhaps a second bot is needed to clean up procseebot false positives or transient blockages? 2. A subtler form of white listing would be to program the procseebot to ignore flagging when an edit is clearly (say 99.99% probability) being made by the authentic user despite the variance in IP address. AFAIK, the only edit I made while traveling last week was an UNDO of a revert. Isn't it highly likely that the authentic user is the one who would make an UNDO?

Thanks again for your attention to this matter and I hope procseebot can be refined for the benefit of all. Martindo (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martindo: You'll want to direct this to User:Slakr, since he operates User:ProcseeBot. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2013 El Reno tornado

The article 2013 El Reno tornado you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2013 El Reno tornado for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: ^ Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fleets

Hi, can you shed some light on this (I'm putting the case on hold)? If you prefer, you can e-mail me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: If I haven't gotten back to this by three days from now ping me again; I've been rather busy and need to get it all together again. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 12:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Replied via email. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

restrictions/sanctions/POV/edit war regarding Supreme Court demographics

Thanks for the clarification without automatic banning. I have ceased editing and requested Mediation officially. I don't see how consensus can be reached via Talk if people insist on declaring Hispanic to be a race on the basis of everyone-knows-it-is-true without providing any sources or debate other than their own POV. Martindo (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martindo: No problem, though I probably would have just started an RfC versus skipping straight to mediation. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 12:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm unfamiliar with dispute resolution and disappointed that the Arb response essentially ignored my request. In fact, the people who denied my edit are taking a stance contrary to Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States which clearly explains that Hispanic is an ethnic category not a racial one. Shouldn't WP be consistent across pages wherever possible? Martindo (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Martindo: Well, to start off with, the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee are two different bodies; MedCom handles content disputes, while ArbCom handles user conduct issues. However, both are intended to be last-resort processes for dispute/conduct issues: With both, you are expected to have exhausted all previous measures of dispute resolution before resorting to those methods. With the Arbitration Committee, an issue is not usually accepted for arbitration until the community has tried and failed to resolve user conduct issues through multiple means. For the Mediation Committee (which is the one you'd want in this situation), users are expected to have attempted (and failed) to settle the content dispute via WP:3O, WP:RFC, and/or WP:DRN before bringing the issue to the Mediation Committee. If I were you, I would recommend filing an RfC or DRN over the matter, the instructions for doing so can be found at WP:RFC or WP:DRN. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
  • Japan 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
  • South Australia Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
  • Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Username discussion for your alternate account

Hello, Ks0stm. The result of this discussion was to allow your username. The discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can find a link to the discussion in the archive. You do not need to change your username. Thank you. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly puzzled

Slightly puzzled by this edit. Our practice has long been that we don't have empty categories... AusLondonder (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: Maybe I'm different, but I don't see the point of deleting it now only to recreate it by the end of the year at the latest. To me it's like if we deleted Category:Tornadoes of 2017 on December 27th, 2016...there's no point, cause you know it will be populated at some time in the near to medium term future. As it is I'm pretty sure I can come up with an article to create and/or put in that category anyway, if needed. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 12:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note...

Thanks for erring on the side of sanity this evening. I feel bad for all the troubled caused. I hope you and Bbb23 don't think that I filed that SPI in bad faith. The edit timings were uncanny, along with the general tendency towards aggressively removing material and challenging sources. I am pretty meticulous and don't make accusations lightly.

In fact I've bitten my lip about some pretty outrageous stuff whilst lurking over the last few months. The one thing that made me return was the recent dumping of plainly libellous material into a Jewish politician's BLP. If it hadn't been for that, I probably would have let the SPI slide too.

I feel there has been a general decline in the quality of editing and the level of debate on Wikipedia in even just the last year or so. I'm also rattled by the idea that I could so easily have been connected to my wife's account, which I don't wish to disclose (it was never abusively used). It's actually made me much less inclined to edit Wikipedia, and I feel I have made the right decision to retire now, although I may occasionally log in to monitor my watchlist, and reserve the right make a WP:Clean start at a later date.

Thanks, (1)AnotherNewAccount (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1)AnotherNewAccount (talk · contribs) I'm more than a little miffed that you'd accuse me of, through a sockpuppet, "dumping plainly libellous material into a Jewish politician's BLP." I have been involved in my share of contentious editing issues but that's not something I would ever do, and I hope the clear result on the SPI will make that clear to you as well. I appreciate your apology on the SPI and I won't hold any hard feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Since I evidently didn't make it clear enough, I am happy to clarify that the BLP incident to which I referred was an entirely seperate incident which you had nothing to do with. Also, while I do express disappointment with Wikipedia's editing environment, I am happy to clarify that it is not your "contentious editing" specifically that has made me feel this way. In fact, I did notice and very much appreciate in particular your quality work on articles related to Alaska, which has vastly improved that aspect of the project. I also appreciate the absence of hard feelings. Good luck! (1)AnotherNewAccount (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wildlife SOS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Encroachment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhealopez168: This was meant for you, I think, but got delivered to me because the edit adding the link was RevDel'd and I was the first editor after that edit. JaGa, can you confirm? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 62 (U.S. series)

Could you now restore this page now that the actual album is now out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiYoshiU (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been released but has not received any coverage in reliable sources (not even a review in AllMusic). It will sell enough to make the Billboard albums chart in next week's issue. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi Ks. Check your email. Need a response very quickly (24 hours). ~ Rob13Talk 03:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Hi Ks0stm, thanks for renaming my user account about a couple weeks ago. I'm contacting you because I noticed that I couldn't access AWB since my new username is not on the check page (my previous one was). I'm aware that this is automatically resolved every once in a while by a bot, but looking at the history of the page, it seems that the bot has clerked the page twice (2 + 9 May 2017) since my rename including renaming another user, but my old username has not been changed. Could you do this manually, since the page is fully protected? Thanks —72 talk / contribs 15:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —72 talk / contribs 09:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration remedies

can you remove the sanctions placed on this article? United States presidential election, 2020

thankx Crewcamel (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crewcamel: I can have a look later this evening, but in the meantime: why do you feel that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary on the article? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ks0stm: the sanctions were on due to incidents of vandalism but i believe that issue is behind us. As of late only a select few editors are even making changes to the article so i think the sanctions are discouraging new editors from joining. In my opinion our page desperately needs some uninvolved opinions. Crewcamel (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Crewcamel: The discretionary sanctions were put into place in order to tamp down on edit warring and enforce the building of consensus for controversial additions, subtractions, or changes to he article. This worked well on United States presidential election, 2016, and since the 2020 article started to see some disruption, I added the 1RR/consensus required restriction to help keep a lid on it. I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to remove them. Any lull in activity at the present is likely to erode as we get closer to the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 election after that, and I'd rather have the restrictions in place to prevent disruption than have to hurriedly replace them after disruption resumes. If uninvolved opinions are lacking, I highly recommend soliciting a third opinion, filing requests for comment, or, if a dispute becomes entrenched, seeing outside opinions on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm open to persuasion, but I really think that that would be a better way to get outside input than removing restrictions that are likely preventing the article from being a hostile place to edit. Also, FYI, I have oversighted your IP address from your logged-out edit here. In the future, if you accidentally edit while logged out, you may privately request removal of the IP address. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2013 El Reno tornado

Mifter (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick and silly question

Hello Ks0stm! Warned editor here :P. Anyways, quick question if you wish or are willing to acknowledge for me. I'm trying to archive at least discussions (1–60) from my current talk page to User talk:Adog104/Archive 1, which includes an Arbcom discretionary sanction notice, since the total page exceeds 100,000 bytes. In trying to save the archive page with the 60 discussions still located on my talk page, I was met with this notice. Can I just remove the discussions from my talk page first and then save them on the archive page, do I have to leave the notice on my talk page, or am I just over-complicating this seemingly simple notice and there is just a simple work-around? Thanks. Adog104 Talk to me 00:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog104: Sorry I'm slow replying; been pretty busy lately. Don't worry about the abuse filter triggering; when it gives you the warning, just hit save page again and it should let the edit go through. No one should think twice about it since you're just creating a talk archive. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you, and its fine! :D Adog104 Talk to me 14:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrating 10 years of editing

Hey, Ks0stm. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VRV (Streaming Service)

You deleted my article on the VRV streaming service. I don't believe this is fair, because I see less notable streaming services having their own article. I know the article wasn't written perfectly - I'll admit it was vaguely advertise-like, but instead of deleting the article it could have been revised and improved upon. I believe it does fit the notability guidelines. There were multiple articles that bracket the streaming service with no article to be found. I was just trying to fill in the gaps as I see them. Please reconsider your deletion.

Email question

Hello, Ks0stm. 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.

Mr Ernie (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry: (Removed)edits of a banned long-term abuser [1][2] and edits of the user[3][4]. 185.197.72.214 (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on 185.197.72.214, are you serious? I've took that from here. I'm ready to discuss that here. Beshogur (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was already discussed by various users like user:Florian Blaschke many times. And i wonder why did you choose the Kurgan hypothesis but not Kurgan to add this content regarding "etymology", despite the Kurgan is more appropriate for it? Is it because you realised that these additions were from a banned sock? 185.197.72.214 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you ask this civilized? Why this agression. And stop calling me a sockpuppet. Beshogur (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declined CSD

At User:LillHas/SupaStarLT I weighed the 6 or 7 (depending on which you count) self serving links against the skeleton content that includes nothing independant of the artist. I considered it link spam. Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: After a second look, with a touch of IAR I've deleted it G13. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Halo friend, thank your for editing in Aman (album), please, I need upload cover file of the article, file link MyriamTzz (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MyriamTzz: Hi! Files for upload is where you can request that it be uploaded. If you need any help with that process feel free to ask. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP user

@Ks0stm: Could you please help? This user 112.198.73.9 (talk · contribs) continues to add messages to my talk page without any proof and insists that I'm the same user as 73.94.24.81 (talk · contribs), I don't know how I can be that user when they geolocate to the United States. I've begun ignoring their messages on Materialscientist (talk · contribs)'s and Xdeluna (talk · contribs)'s page but it's becoming annoying continuously seeing their "sockpuppet" templates popping up as messages whenever I click on a Wikipedia page. (121.219.136.184 (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I believe 121.219.136.184 is the real disruptive user here as the IP has 3 sockpuppets (96.48.254.221, 46.237.104.190, 191.205.214.6) that were recently blocked for disruptive editing for posting harsh accusations and same messages on admin users. -112.198.73.9 (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More IP sockpuppets by 121.219.136.184 (like 121.214.41.156, 211.227.124.93, 73.94.24.81, etc.) are playing around and ruining my talk page as the same person is still trying to block me. -112.198.73.9 (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
121.219.136.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is in Austraila and not on a proxy so far as I can tell, which makes it unlikely they are Bertrand101. 112.198.73.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is in the Philippines, but is unlikely for behavioral reasons. I've blocked 96.48.254.221, 46.237.104.190, and 191.205.214.6 six months each as likely open/anonymizing proxies, but that's as much as I can say. Now, all y'all need to lay off of each other, or I may hand out DISRUPT blocks all around. 112.198.73.9, if you have any other IPs you are concerned may be proxies, I'll take a look, but 121.219.136.184 does not appear to be one of them. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court of the United States

On May 1 you posted this notice on the Talk page. I assume you also created the editnotice on the article page at the same time. I have shied away from enforcement of arbitration sanctions because I find them increasingly more complex unless you are an administrator who does it frequently. However, in this case I'm speaking as an ordinary editor. I don't see anything in the American politics sanctions that impose a general 1RR rule or consensus - just the latest standard discretionary sanctions. What am I missing? This concerns me because that article gets a lot of disruptive edits, and if I have to worry about such rules in undoing that disruption, I'll take it off my watchlist. Even worse, I'll have to worry about the rules, whether posted or not, on any article related to American politics post-1932, which, even though I don't edit very many, covers a lot of articles. Anyway, lucky you, you're an arbitrator. I'm confident you can explain this to me. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: With the post-1932 American Politics, there are no topic wide restrictions, so far as I am aware, but under the discretionary sanctions admins have the ability to place restrictions on editors or pages. What I placed on the Supreme Court page were page restrictions. As a general rule, admins have a fair amount of leeway as to what page restrictions they can place. I tend to use the {{2016 US Election AE}} template, which places the page under 1RR/consensus required. Basically, it limits users to one revert per 24 hours on the page (with the exception of reverting clear vandalism), and restricts editors from re-adding material that has been challenged by reversion (basically, if someone makes an edit, and someone else reverts it, the original editor can't revert the revert without consensus). If either of these restrictions (but especially the 1RR over the same material) are breached by an editor who has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions with the template {{Alert|ap}}, they may be blocked by any uninvolved admin as an arbitration enforcement action or have a request for enforcement filed on them. If they're blocked, then the blocking admin needs to log the block at WP:DSLOG/2017. Hopefully that clears some things up. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And having just had a look at the page, I've blocked 2601:401:C503:63C6:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) one week for violation of the consensus required part of the restrictions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I even get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your move proposal for the AP sanctions template

Hello Ks0stm. Regarding your proposal for renaming. Though you could have a kind of argument for renaming, the new title does not come trippingly off the tongue: "Template:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions/1RR consensus required ". How about (instead) a change in what the sanction says? Recall that you and your Arbcom colleagues got rid of the consensus requirement for ARBPIA editing on 19 May. In my opinion their change is an improvement and will make AEs easier to close. It is much easier to know whether someone reverted again within 24 hours than to decide if the person managed to obtain consensus before reverting again. What would you think of doing the same for the AP sanctions? Make the reverter wait 24 hours rather than wait for consensus? It would take another AE but some people might support it. My impression is that the current AP sanction wording is mostly the creation of User:Coffee so AE ought to be able to change it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: My thought was that it works something like this: User A makes an edit. User B reverts it. "Consensus required" prevents User A from reverting User B's revert. Basically, the consensus required restriction gives the advantage to the status quo, because it prevents User A from coming along and unilaterally getting their way just because their one revert will be after User B's one revert. It forces consensus to be developed for the article to change, rather than for the article to stay the same, at least when it comes to any controversial change. It also prevents User C from coming along and reverting User B's revert. This can be quite helpful in preventing "revert wars" with several editors making one revert each. The 1RR, on the other hand, I've found is more useful for when an editor reverts multiple different edits on the same page within 24 hours. I've also found that in practice oftentimes editors blocked have violated both 1RR and consensus required, usually by being User A or User C and reverting more than once.
As for the proposed template name, I totally agree with you that it's a bit of a mouthful. I'm not really sure how to improve that and still have a fully descriptive name, however. My thought was that there could be redirects like {{AP 1RR-CR page restrictions}} that are less of a mouthful, but with my suggestion for the actual template name since it's more descriptive and easier to search for in the event you don't know where to find it. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"personal information suppressed", but it isn't?

Seems you've only taken my ability to edit further? Or is this a multi-step process, please? Thank you.

"personal information suppressed", but it isn't?

Seems you've only taken my ability to edit further? Or is this a multi-step process, please? Thank you. User:Ks0stm

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ks0stm&oldid=783993606"