User talk:Lojbanist/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, KATMAKROFAN, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to East London Line. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm MrX. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Mr X 21:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for that edit. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

About tagging and edit summaries

Hello, I notice most of your edits to article space are tagging. Often the problems can be easily resolved and in that case it is better to do so than to just tag. Also, the purpose of tags is to help page creators and other editors to fix the articles. Having too many tags can scare them away. I always try to fix first and only tag issues that are serious and beyond my abilities. Another thing, using and edit summary can help others collaborate with you by giving them information about what you did and why. All the best and don't hesitate to drop by my talk page. Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

For example, in Stemettes, it took me just a few minutes to fix the issues you raised. You can do it too! Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

SPI

I deleted the SPI you created. It was obviously created out of spite because you and the two users don't agree about the article and the AfD. This is a warning. If you take any similar action, which I regard as a blatant personal attack, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Changed my !vote to "neutral" anyway. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Katmakrofan. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

121.207.75.43

121.207.75.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks for mass-reverting their edits. So it looks like they're deliberately placing the incorrect flags to various/different articles? I've started to revert some as well... *Sigh*, what a mess... —MeowMoon (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like they're blocked now. MeowMoon (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Freund

Hello, I got your message. I am confused. You seem to have removed the entire section on the Landsrabbiner - which I took to be both new information for wikipedia and fairly extensively researched - and also removed the part about the fate of the jewish community in Hannover. I do not know what general principle of contribution I violated. I guess I should have made the edits in the sandbox first and then moved it over at one time. But I seem to have just lost a fair amount of extensively edited and fairly well researched new and relevant material. Can you help me understand what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rf6307 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was anti-Semetic. My mistake.KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely not my intent. If you can recall, let me know what about the article sent up that red flag for you and I will try to remedy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rf6307 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD Tagging

Hey, thanks so much for helping out and nominating 10ngah for deletion. I wanted to let you know I reverted the edit simply because there wasn't a need to create the AfD. The page was already tagged with a CSD tag for multiple reasons, so it was already being looked at for deletion. If there's already a form of deletion going on, just it go in the meantime. AfD usually should be used when the page isn't an obvious candidate for speedy deletion (such as this one), or if a PROD is declined. Also, if the author removes the CSD tag with no other substantial edit, feel free to replace it and warn the author on their talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, can I helpfully suggest to NOT nominate pages already tagged for CSD? This is an unnecessary step and not needed with the current CSD tagging on the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, just extra work that's not needed :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello KATMAKROFAN. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 19:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not completely accurate. You don't have to wait any amount of time to tag an article A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

However she/he kept using A1 for short, i have no idea why she/he using wrong tagging? ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to help mentor them on how to tag properly. I noticed a few pages they deleted text and changed the CSD tag (such as Luke De Pinna‎), which of course is not something they should be doing and is a bit concerning. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN, you need to stop tagging articles completely. If you want to watch what other people do, be mentored by Rick, whatever, but most of your tags and edits associated with the tags are so bad they're disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You mean CSD tags? Taking the articles to AFD would probably be better anyway. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I mean CSD tags, and no, taking an article to AfD is not necessarily better. Depends on the state of the article. My same admonishment applies. You should be doing other things at Wikipedia, not these sorts of things, not until you have considerably more experience.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN:I don't understand, why you tagging CSD and AFD you wouldn't use both.

I did for a while, but then I realized AFD was counter-productive. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Mary Moore (sculptor). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I withdrew the AFD because of harassment.KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is harassment? Check out victim complex. Carptrash (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, used wrong term. WP:ILIKEIT is what I meant. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

" Like it" is harassment? Okay, I understand your desire to make wikipedia a better place by screening new articles. This is a valuable and valued function of an editor. Just don't be in such a hurry, you nominated Mary Moore (sculptor) within a minute of my publishing it and I am one of those editors who build an article in situ, and was just getting started. It will never grow into a Good Article, Moore is a minor player on the American art scene, but she earned her place on wikipedia. Let's try to put this behind us and go our sorted (sordid?) separate ways. Carptrash (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was that "harassment" was the wrong term to use, not that liking an article is harassment. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Graham (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I will stop attacking others. 18:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KATMAKROFAN (talk • contribs)

Why did you remove

my edit from Mary Moore? You felt compelled to nominate Mary Moore (sculptor) for deletion and that is your prerogative. However until that is resolved you have little or no reason to make this edit. That's (opinion) being a dick. Carptrash (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I withdrew the AFD because you and one of your ...um... meatpuppets were harassing me. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Harassing you? Not sure what meat puppet you are referring to? Please explain. Anyway you shouldn't remove AFDs until they are resolved. Carptrash (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are referring to. Someone did not agree with you. That makes it harassment. There is a woman involved (the subject of the article), that makes it gender harassment. You poor white guy, what a rough road you have to travel. Nonetheless, I assume that actually believe this and so are acting in good faith. Carptrash (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to make accusations like that, KATMAKROFAN, you had better be able to back them up. Graham (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I meant either "canvassing" or "WP:ILIKEIT". "Harrassment" was a poor choice of wording. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If "canvassing" is your concern, then to what part of the canvassing guideline are you referring? Graham (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be no canvassing, so it's probably just a case of WP:ILIKEIT. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have had no interaction, that I am awarer of, with the editors that showed up. IS it so hard to believe that maybe you acted rashly? And it is not as if this has not happened to you before? Carptrash (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You have just made a series of three baseless false accusations (viz. meatpuppetry, harassment, and canvassing). It's becoming progressively more difficult to assume good faith here.

On what basis are you arguing that it is "a case of WP:ILIKEIT"? Can you provide diffs? Graham (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There was no meatpuppetry, harassment, or canvassing; I used the wrong terminology. ILIKEIT was probably wrong terminology, too; both keep !votes basically said "this was made for such-and-such WikiProject", which is not ILIKEIT. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you throwing around these accusations if you don't mean them? Did you honestly not understand what any of those terms meant before you wrote them? Graham (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I misunderstood Wikipedia policies. Can we stop this argument before all 3 of us get blocked for flame-warring?KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of flame-warring now? On what basis? Graham (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm accusing all 3 of us of flame-warring (including myself) because this is slowly becoming pointless and distracting us from building the encyclopedia. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't pointed to an example of me (or Carptrash) flame-warring. "[P]ointless and distracting us from building the encyclopedia" ≠ flame-warring. And honestly, I hope that this discussion is productive for the encyclopedia because perhaps it can help you take a look at what appears to be your habit of making unsubstantiated personal attacks against other members of the community and at your tagging practices which multiple editors (Junior5a, Bbb23, RickinBaltimore) have told you are questionable.

And for future reference, when someone is telling you to stop making personal attacks towards other editors, redirecting those personal attacks against the person telling you to stop generally isn't a good idea. Graham (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop being the victim. We are not "flame-warring" we are, in our own ways trying to help you become a better editor by hopefully getting you to realize the words matter. That words have meanings. That sort of thing. For you to say you get it and then come out with "flame-warring" suggested that perhaps you do not get it. Carptrash (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's all move on if it helps. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain

what I am up to. I recently finished, or perhaps ”walked away from” this article. List of New Deal sculpture. In the course of generating that chart I put all the artists in brackets, generating some blue links but a lot more red ones. Then enter the Women in Red project, an attempt to reduce the number of red linked women, in my case, women artists, on wikipedia. If your reflex is to ask “What about men artists?” I think we need to have a man-to-man talk or you can just do the articles. In any case I will be producing as many of these stubs as I can over the next time period. I invite you to join in, that way we can cooperate rather then . . .. something else. The next one will be Enid Bell, so watch for this red link to turn blue. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Please immediately stop tagging pages utill any outstanding issues regarding your edting have been discussed and resolved. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
With only 260 edits to mainspace your do not have nearly enough experience for tagging new pages. Before you do this kind of work you must fully understand not only our notability and deletion policies, but you must also must first read the instructions. That said, with over 200 edits to mainspace, you now qualify to enroll at the WP:CVUA and learn how to patrol for vandalism. That is a much easier task, and Wikipedia needs a lot of help with it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Buenos Aires Zoo

Surprise - it turns out that the zoo really is going to close, if it hasn't already. I added sourced information to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MLG troll

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MLG troll, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MLG troll and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MLG troll during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop Hating Fun

Seriously, what do you get out of this? Wikipedia doesn't care about you. Let us have our innocent fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.72.10 (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not innocent fun, it's vandalism. If it was allowed, I'd replace that drawing with a JPEG version of File:Stop hand nuvola.svg. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lojbanist. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow (2nd nomination).
Message added 13:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StonefieldBreeze (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

30th September 2016

Thanks for reverting the ATB article for me - I should've done it in the 1st place

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Billericay School

Every time a Viner vandalizes the page about their school, an admin kills a server kitty. Please think of the server kitties

ahahahahahaha. Read my talk page, lol. Uamaol (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you withdraw your AfD nomination?

Hi Katmakrofan, just want to confirm with you if you have withdrawn your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to speedy keep the discussion, but because there are already delete votes on the discussion, the discussion will continue to the end of 7 days. Thank you, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I withdrew it so I could propose a merger with the artist's article. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:ChickenLittle listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:ChickenLittle. Since you had some involvement with the Template:ChickenLittle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 13:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

G2

Hey, Just to let you know, G2 only applies to pages in the Wikipedia name space, not the user name space. Hope this helps!

Please check your sources...you keep deleting my post on Dennis Byrd...This has been confirmed and I even posted my source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okiestormchaser (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Best, TJH2018 talk 15:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Byrd

http://www.fox23.com/news/officials-working-double-fatality-collision-in-rogers-county/457495402 Has indeed passed away --73.8.103.167 (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

http://www.newson6.com/story/33398153/dennis-byrd-dies-after-highway-88-crash thsi is not a satire site, it is the Tulsa CBS affiliate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okorpheus (talk • contribs) 01:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See this comic. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not think this series of reverts was appropriate. You assumed that the origin of this story was Wikipedia with no basis to assume that. Please look at the sources closer before you engage in repeated reverts like this. agtx 01:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Whitewash listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Whitewash. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Whitewash redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Movetowiktionary listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Movetowiktionary. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Movetowiktionary redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Crank listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Crank. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Crank redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Funnybut listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Funnybut. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Funnybut redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Unused and Nonsense redirect

Why you adding this pointless redirect? Just don't overdo it or else you risk blocked from editing for WP:nothere Like this and one and other one and blah blah blah. Thank you. Nus Naip (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Corrupt (organization) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Corrupt (organization). Since you had some involvement with the Template:Corrupt (organization) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Deletion request listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Deletion request. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Deletion request redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Corrupt (organization) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Corrupt (organization). Since you had some involvement with the Template:Corrupt (organization) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-nonsense-serious listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Cleanup-nonsense-serious. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Cleanup-nonsense-serious redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Myth box listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Myth box. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Myth box redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:PotentialVanity listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:PotentialVanity. Since you had some involvement with the Template:PotentialVanity redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 18:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy

Hi! It's strongly recommended not to nominate for speedy deletion within a few minutes of the creation of an article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC).

Speedy v2

Hi, Please don't CSD pages that have already been nominated at MFD and has currently been there for the past week - I'd already CSD'd some time ago and it went stale so IE it was declined hence why I sent it to MFD, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

MarioProtIV

Please reanalyze MarioProtIV's edits. If you actually look at his contributions, you see that he is still the same as ever; he was making up imaginary storms / storm seasons for fun in his userspace in a manner similar to what you would find at hypotheticalhurricanes.wikia.com. Is he right to have done that in his userspace rather than at an external wiki? No. He clearly is not a vandal, however. Dustin (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

To sum it up more clearly, I didn't actually realize making those kind of fictional things were not helpful. I was having trouble setting up an account on HH Wiki for a while but recently I got it to work, and as such I moved most of it to the wiki (The katrina one and snowstorm I'm not using, and I also want to just blank the userspaces to a plain redirect to my userpage, however I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do, so I am hesistant on that). I am not a vandal or spambot, like Dustin said, of course this is proven by the amount of helpful and decent contributions that I have done - not to mention most of them were made in the last 10 months or so. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Declined Drafts listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Declined Drafts. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Declined Drafts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 04:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Template merger proposals

Two of your latest template merger proposals have been closed per WP:SNOW, and editors are not happy with your nominations. Perhaps you take a break from nominating all those template to familiarize yourself with the community point of view on maintenance templates? Debresser (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal Statements

@KATMAKROFAN:: You should be aware there is specific mention of your credibility in the debate over at the otherkin deletion page. I have addressed it, but still would recommend addressing this yourself. Tianmang (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Universal Studios Moscow

A cursory web search suggests this isn't a hoax. On what are you basing your assertion that it is? —C.Fred (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It was unsourced and I was too lazy to Google it. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon Go Song

Except for copyright violations, articles that have been kept at AfD are not deletable by either speedy or prod, they need to go through AfD again. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a flaw in the CSD. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN: How is it a flaw? Speedying such articles would kind of defeat the purpose of AfD wouldn't it? Adam9007 (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Mannequin Challenge

I've denied your speedy request on this article. WP:CSD#A7 is not valid if there is a credible claim of significance. Given the presence of a reliable sources on the article, there is a credible claim. Also, there is an AfD running. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Get Over It (Eagles song), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

RAAFTAHC (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Hi, I'm trying not to destroy the HTML here, but I wanted to know what is going on with the page I created yesterday (RAAF Townsville Heritage Centre). It appeared to be flagged for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure if it is anymore. The RAAFTAHC is staffed by elderly volunteers who are looking to "get the place on the Internet". I figured a wikipedia page would be a great place to start, as they don't even have a facebook page. At the moment, their collected history is in a printed book form and I was simply copying the sections across to wikipedia (I was trying to figure out what referencing system to use when i left the article up). The page is not advertising and it is both a local attraction with local flavour and of international interest as Townsville was one of the largest airforce bases in WW2 outside of America. If you could advise as to the current status of the page, that would be great.

Unsupported allegations removed

I have had to remove your last two edits from Jimbo Wales' talkpage. In those edits you speculated on who might have made the unauthorized edits from Jimbo's account today. Please bear in mind that logging in and editing from someone else's account, especially where that account has advanced permissions, is a breach of the terms of use and potentially a serious federal crime. You cannot make this sort of allegation against anyone without very substantial evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:EEng, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:NOBAN. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported allegations removed, redux

I have no idea what would make you think that long established accounts that happened to have been hacked would be considered sockpuppets, so I have deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robdurbar. Please leave the investigation of this event to other more experienced people. Also, please consider this to be a warning in the same vein as the two above - if you make further disruptive edits with respect to this event, you may be blocked. —DoRD (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, KATMAKROFAN. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Enlarge

What was the purpose of this edit? At the small size used, the previous icon is much more recognizable. Useddenim (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Why...

...did you place this tag on this user's talk page?- Mr X 23:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunnell Elementary School

Hi. Thank you for patolling new pages. Please take a moment to thoroughly read and fully understand the instructions that are meant for approved New Page Reviewers, paying particular attention to exceptions to deletion guidelines. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Olympics

Before you deleted info about the cost of hosting the Olympics, did you consider whether this info is useful to readers?

I considered your obvious WP:COI that YOU BOASTED ABOUT IN THE EDIT SUMMARY. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

KATMAKROFAN, I'm going to revert you on this. COI aside, do you have other concerns against those additions? Why do you think COI is a problem in this particular case? Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello KATMAKROFAN, The wp guidelines ask editors to clearly state possible COI. I did that for each edit by including the following text: "I added data on cost from the Oxford Olympics Study. Please note I am co-author of the cited publication. I therefore kindly suggest that a wp-editor take a look at my edit to check and verify that it’s okay, many thanks." If this is not enough, please let me know what more I can do? Best regards, Scholarxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarxx (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Semi-orphan

Template:Semi-orphan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑ Iridescent 21:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary comments

Could you please avoid making direct comments such as this and this? They serve no purpose whatsoever and only feed the troll's desire for attention. It's counterproductive on every level.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've also protected this page for a short duration. Please let me know if you need it removed or extended.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Stalkingblock

Template:Stalkingblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Tagging without reason

Is there a reason that you went and tagged all those sub-templates besides the fact that you like deleting stuff? Is there a reason that there can't be more specific single-use templates? Usually you would go to the user's talk page and discuss it with them before going crazy and TfDing every template a user has made like that...TJH2018 talk 02:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Jim Delligatti

Why do you insist on tagging Jim Delligatti for cleanup? It's a page that has met the standards of DYK, and as such it has already been copyedited to meet Wikipedia's standards. The article is clearly about Delligatti's career as a whole, which of course needs to have some focus on the Big Mac, as this was his greatest contribution. Please stop tagging this article needlessly. Your obvious drive for deletionism is unwelcome, as there's only a few lines about the Big Mac, and it's all directly relevant and related to Delligatti and his career. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevada Department of Veterans Services

Hi. I notice that you reverted a page blanking by Beesmill, and left an edit summary of 'wtf?'. Beesmill was the author of the article, and is entitled to either request deletion by applying the appropriate G7 template or by blanking the page. If someone blanls an article they created, and they are the only contributor, or the only adder of content, they should not be reverted. If they blank the page, a G7 template should be put on the page. Of course, if anyone else blanks the page, reversion is correct procedure. If an IP does it, post a message on the author's page after reverting the IP. Peridon (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverting the Steve Hoffman page without reason

I made edits to the Steve Hoffman page that were needlessly edited. Please, stop deleting information just because you don't agree with it. I didn't post anything that violated Wikipedia standards, and I cited the fact that Mr. Hoffman was fired from MCA. I'm not a Stereo central nut, nor am I a Steve Hoffman devotee. Wikipedia exists to present a neutral viewpoint. I've asked an administrator to lock the Steve Hoffman page until his fans and the people at Stereo Central begin to act like adults. Grow up already... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetamlakid (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Changing templates without discuss

Hello, Why are you changing pictures as you did that one for example (1,2,3) Some editors are not happy this templates I suggest you stop changing useless pictures or i'll take you with WP:ANI, but you're allowed charge spell errors and grammars, Thank you. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 08:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

"Block" templates.

Dear KATMAKROFAN. If you place another block or sock template on a user page unasked, I will request administrative intervention. It is clearly not your job to do so; yet you do. Please explain? Many thanks. 22:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)

Also see Wp:deny, You don't need feed the troll. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 08:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

Hi, KATMAKROFAN. Thanks for your deletion noms at WP:TFD. However, if a template clearly does not belong (e.g. if it's in the wrong namespace), as was the case with these, it's more appropriate to tag it for speedy deletion instead, to save time. Could you do this in the future? Thanks. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 18:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Indef Template Redirect

Has there been any discussion whatsoever regarding your redirects on templates such as indefblock-global? TJH2018 talk 18:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not place indef block templates on editors pages when you can't block them

Per this edit. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Veryshort

Template:Veryshort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. PamD 17:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Stub tags

Please don't add {{stub}} to an article like Sohoa which already has a specific stub tag - it just wastes other editors' time. And please remember that all stub tags go at the end of the article, not the top - see WP:ORDER. Thanks. PamD 15:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Templates again

Could explain the reasoning behind adding 'Imposter' tags to years-old accounts? This account was blocked eight years ago; this one two years ago; this one eight years ago; and this one seven years ago. And yet yesterday you tagged them all- and more- as 'imposters.' That may have been the case; but what makes you think this is in any way different to your previous (and equally unnecesary) templating of socks and blocked editors. In these cases, these tags are completely pointless and do not inspire confidence that you actually understand their purpose. Please desist. Many thanks. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 08:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN, you seem to have a really bad case of ignoring multiple warnings from many editors. I'll make it easier for you. If I see one more instance in which you put a template on another editor's userpage, I'll block you for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help.

I'm new to this Wiki thing and obviously need your help to comply as you keep deleting and flagging my updates for deletion.

I want to updated the biography of someone I know to include his current philanthropy/humanitarian work. How can I present it without sounding like a spam. I've already removed links to the foundation. What am I doing wrong? PDeditorial (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You are obviously a GURU on Wiki. I'm new and would greatly welcome your re-edits to make my contributions relevant and compliant... I apologize for not knowing as much as you do and did not mean to be "warring". However YOU DELETED ALL of my contributions instead of helping to fix it.

What can I do to fix the information?PDeditorial (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive box

Hello, I'm adding an {{Archive box}} to your talk page so that people can easily locate the archives to your talk page curated by the bot. I hope you like it! Deryck C. 22:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aby James

@KATMAKROFAN:, You seem to have erroneously launched a sockpuppetry investigation against me, I have provided links to prove my Identity, pls check and let me know what else if any, is needed to close this case. I have been editing wikipedia on and off for a long time now, this is my first time dealing with a sockpuppetry allegation, not sure about the correct procedure here. DhananSekhar (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

St Rose de Viterbo Catholic Church

Why did you delete my sourcing and infobox? Your discussion page nominating this article is not necessary, you simply viewed it before I was finished sourcing it. Michael Glenwood (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @KATMAKROFAN: @Michael Glenwood: This was disruptive tagging. You must not tag an article as "unsourced" within 2 minutes of creation, and it also seems ridiculous to take it to AfD within half an hour. PamD 12:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN: Please acknowledge the points made by myself and PamD, [1] & [2], and the consensus forming here. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Poor calls at AfD

I have received a complaint that you are making hasty and overzealous AfDs eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Barbie's friends and family, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Rose de Viterbo Catholic Church and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filthy Frank (2nd nomination). Remember that you should only nominate an article for deletion if you are sure it is not possible to improve it a suitable encyclopaedic standard, and you should always search for sources and try and improve the article yourself first.

Also, proudly proclaiming you like deleting stuff on your userpage is a bit of a dick move, if I'm honest. I've personally deleted over 3,000 pages, but I don't make a big song and dance over it.

I see you have had numerous complaints on poor decisions on maintenance tasks before, so this is a final warning - if I see you make another poor call at AfD you will be blocked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of this edit at Afd, please?

Can you please explain this edit?. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The DB template was being transcluded onto the log. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

sock, but who?

Is this Special:Contributions/BornIn1922 User:VHSVideos2006? Meters (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a duck to me KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/VHS vandal

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/VHS vandal, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/VHS vandal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/VHS vandal during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Joe kolodziej

Why did you change my post about this man Upset Player (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (editable)

Why did you revert my changes? I didn't think any harm was done. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

wikt:editable KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

But the edit summary just says 'No'. Please explain. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It looked like a Geocities site. The editable alternative Main Page has the same rules as the sandbox, if I understand correctly. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell, there is nothing wrong with changing the text color. I was bored, and it was something to edit. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:KATMAKROFAN

User:KATMAKROFAN, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KATMAKROFAN and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:KATMAKROFAN during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Neutral point of view during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. J 947 01:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Lighten up, Francis

You're being the most disruptive out of anyone this evening, it seems. Take a break – the fun (or torture, depending on your view) will be over in a few hours. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree here. TPH nominated his user page for deletion. He has a right to be angry today. ansh 666 02:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

- CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Just relax, it's April Fools Day. It's a tradition for us Wikipedians to be a little mischevious today (as long as we don't actually cause visible disruption that could cause confusion towards non-editors). We will return to our scheduled programming tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:KATMAKROFAN

User:KATMAKROFAN, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KATMAKROFAN and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:KATMAKROFAN during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2017

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2017, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2017 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2017 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mr. Guye (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

About the MKBHD article change

MKBHD mentioned that his father's name is also Marlan in Casey Neistat Video. Watch it if you will Ref on Casey Neistat Channel Video : HE'S FINALLY HERE! at 6:53 103.25.155.186 (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Raven's Home

I'm a little confused. You tagged the article for a speedy deletion as a hoax, but there are news articles about the show [3].

Did you, by chance, choose the wrong reason? Based upon the number of hits, I would not recommend a speedy delete. Please see WP:Deletion policy. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Beth aala

Hi. I removed the PROD you applied to Beth aala because she is a two-time winner of an Emmy award, and she also won a Peabody award. It's a good idea to try some WP:BEFORE before applying PROD tags. 104.163.140.228 (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me. KMF (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, and I am not indiscriminately canvassing. Indeed, the edit summary to my above edit states "Neutral notice to every registered editor of "X-Men (film series)" and its talk page within the last year." So it has something to do with you in that you fall within that transparently stated, objective criteria. The notice is also written neutrally. I am adhering completely to the rules at WP:APPNOTE, which state that neutral notice can be made appropriately at such examples of

Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
Editors known for expertise in the field
Editors who have asked to be kept informed
The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief...."

Indeed, my criteria is so neutral and objective that the very first notice I posted was to an editor who I know vehemently disagrees with my position. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This looks like an unauthorized bot, which is just as bad. KMF (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not a bot. I tried to show good faith, but you're continuing to make unfounded accusations and false claims. I am being absolutely proper and aboveboard and following the rules at WP:APPNOTE. If you continue, this constitutes harassment.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Tenebrae: Quick point of order; you can hardly claim such criticisms to constitute harassment. — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 08:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summaries

While the project greatly values users who combat vandalism and unconstructive edits, I feel your edit summaries here and here were a bit inappropriate. If you find yourself getting frustrated because of troublemakers, I find it helps to do something else for a while, go out for a walk, grab a soda, and then return with calmer nerves. Penskins (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Last warning

You have been warned many times now to stop edit warring on template. If you do it once more, I will report you, and have you banned form templates altogether, if only I can.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

---

Not sure how to answer this. I'm a Wikipedia neophyte. There was no intent to start a war on the polymedia page. It was an in-class journalism assignment for a Professional Communication & Technology class using the book "Beyond New Media", whereby students were asked to summarize each chapter of the text and upload their summaries onto the page. There were five or six of them on the page at once. Ironically, I had just told the students about various wars on Wikipedia over content, never expecting them to actually be involved in a Wiki war. 68.57.97.147 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Andrew

UAA report

I'm left scratching my head in bewilderment as to where you got the idea that a username being in all caps is something that in and of itself warrants a UAA report, considering that your username is in all caps. What follows is my standard appeal not to report usernames with no edits .

Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI :"Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. So we add the {{wait}} tag to the report, it goes to WP:UAA/HP for a week or more, and must then be reviewed again to see if the account has since become active before removing it. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports.

Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary Elijah Craig revert

No summary reversions! If you have any issues with any individual edits, take it to Talk.

No edit warring.

Yours, 24.61.220.85 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Hello, I'm KATMAKROFAN. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia:Sandbox seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Testing, 1 2 3... KMF (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Declined BLPPROD: Grant Knoche

Please be aware that the presence of even an unreliable source, such as an Instragram external link, precludes the use of the BLPPROD tag. You may wish to consider AfD or PROD. --joe decker ^talk 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Knoche

Congratulations on unwittingly scarring me via an otherwise-innocent AfD nomination. I could have gladly lived out my days without knowing that there exists such a thing as Kidz Bop fanfic and even slashfic. I guess my Google search for sources on Grant Knoche should have been done with SafeSearch on. You wouldn't happen to have any brain bleach handy, would you? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Report the websites hosting the inappropriate fanfics to the FBI; they are clearly illegal. KMF (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Extremis (Doctor Who)

Sorry I'm an IP!! - clearly you don't like IPs editing and think that they they are all vandals trying to ruin wikipedia. Perhaps you should read guidelines correctly and realize that IP edits as as legitimate as other edits. Or are you just angry that I got there first, and wanted to write it yourself? 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:64B2:25E4:E231:419A (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Shared IP mil

Template:Shared IP mil has been nominated for merging with Template:Shared IP gov. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SharedIPcolocation

Template:SharedIPcolocation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cleanup-notnews

Template:Cleanup-notnews has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cleanup-editorializing

Template:Cleanup-editorializing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cleanup-USGov

Template:Cleanup-USGov has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Embedded lists to prose

Template:Embedded lists to prose has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Motivational

Template:Motivational has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dated at TfD

Hello. The Template:Dated is relisted for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 7#Template:Dated at least one week ago. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Lee480 (talk · contribs)

Thanks for your report on AIV, I agree that the edit is problematic. Since it seems the user has moved the discussion to the talk page, I'd be inclined to wait and see, I don't think a block is necessary yet. -- Luk ^talk 10:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Ken Maiuri

The page HAD lots and lots of sources for each of the 'facts' (factual statements) in the article, but an editor named User:Stereo45 has been truncating the article (and removing citations). MaynardClark (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Batavia

Please note, I have reverted your unexplained edits to the article Andrew Batavia. I see nothing of a controversial nature in thes edits. If you do, please comment on the talk page of the article before reverting them again. Thanks and my best to you. reddogsix (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Tagging of Liang Jianfeng

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Liang Jianfeng. I do not think that Liang Jianfeng fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because "former Olympic National football Team player for China" is a claim of Significence. I request that you consider not re-tagging Liang Jianfeng for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy tagging of a userpage

I removed your speedy tag at User:Andielynn26. This page is okay per WP:UPYES. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Human-centric

Please see the discussion at Template:Human-centric § Unexplained reversion. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Painter

I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Painter as speedy keep, by criteria #6, that articles linked from the main page should not be nominated for deletion while they are. This is not based on the reasons in the discussion which I did not even consider: feel free to nominate it again once it is no longer listed on the main page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Solution-Soft:Articles for deletion

Hello, I want to address the notice for deletion on my draft. I'm unclear about what parts of my draft are spammy. I am not a SPA, I am attempting to contribute to the site and follow its guidelines. Additionally, I have 3 advocates to keep currently posting on my page. I hope I can continue working on my draft and submit it for approval without it being deleted. Thank you. Bayareaeditor (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Imposter-suspected

Template:Imposter-suspected has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Templates... Again.

Hi KATMAKROFAN. You may remember that in January this year you received advice and then multiple warnings (culminating in a final warning from Bbb23) not to place various administrative templates on user pages (blocks, socks and impersonators etc). So: can you please explain this 'Blocked' template on a user which your own edit summary acknowledges has been blocked ten years? Or here? Here? These [4][5][6]? All since January? Cheers — fortunavelut luna 08:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_14

Calling me a "radical unusednazi" is a personal attack. Please don't result to name calling if you don't like what I'm doing. Oh, and don't drive-by tag articles either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Cross County Mall (Illinois)

Is there a reason you drive-by tagged Cross County Mall (Illinois) as lacking in notability without explaining your tag? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN: So are you going to answer this, or are you going to keep invoking Godwin's Law on me? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning

Please take this warning seriously. Your account is by no means in a good standing (relating to the template discussions back in January), and your recent contributions to template discussions have been grossly inappropriate (blatant violation of WP:NPA, and among others). Lastly, if you leave another ill-advised and inappropriate warning templates like this one, you will be blocked. Thank you for your understanding. Alex Shih ^Talk 05:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to second this. You may disagree with "unused" rationales being used at TFD, but voting "keep" with no rationale other than essentially "I don't like this nomination" is disruptive in and of itself. If there is a content or policy reason for keeping a template, you're welcome to voice that opinion. Otherwise, it will be ignored and you will have just wasted your time. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverting closures at TfD

Reverting closes, such as you did here, are simply uncalled for, especially when it's to place a vote that goes against the unanimous consensus formed in the required 7 day discussion period. This is not the first time you have disrupted a TfD process, so I will like to remind you of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and WP:DRV: Deletion Review should not be used... because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe). Thanks. Nihlus 03:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at American Indian Wars. If you use inappropriate edit summaries that contain pejoratives against groups of people again, even when reverting vandalism, you may be blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Very few non-editors bother to click "view history". KMF (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You should still use accurate edit summaries, which you are not. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 04:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me be very clear: any edit summary where an administrator can reasonably hide it under WP:RD3 is disruptive. The term you used is simply not acceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You should have used a level-2 warning. Jumping to "(insert shiny stop sign with hand here)... blocked... without former warning" for something that only a few people actually read is a completely bad idea. KMF (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih had already given you a warning for no personal attacks and told you that you will be blocked if it continued. I consider use of a homophobic slur in multiple edit summaries to be along the same vein. This was intended as a final warning, and it was justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Given the multitude of warnings for other previous behavior, this warning was completely appropriate. Nihlus 04:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Notifying users

Per WP:DRV: Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion. Was there a reason you didn't notify me of this? Thanks. Nihlus 05:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Inappropriate usage of edit summaries, as you did at Template:Undisclosed paid. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lojbanist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for the inappropriate edit summary. KMF (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't think the block was just about the edit summary. You have been persistent with incivility and inappropriate edit summaries/templating. 31 hours is very lenient in my opinion, and I see no reason to unblock at this time. Preferably, you would need to explain why you thought it was acceptable to "customize" a widely used template for yourself based on your own common.css (which only applies to yourself; the class is otherwise non-existent for others), and then make baseless accusations against another editor after they have explained to you what you did wrong? Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just saying, but CSS classes are not intended to be used for private use just because you customised it. Again, I'm fine with it because you were well-intentioned but there's no need to be paranoid about it. The UPE template is mostly hardcoded unlike the other ambox templates which have the CSS parameters built into the meta-template (through message box module). While you say I do not know anything about it, the point is you need consensus if you're going to personalize templates (especially amboxes) with no class of itself assigned. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 07:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You were blocked because this has been a repeated issue with you for which you have been warned in the past by myself and at least one other admin. This on its own might not be blockworthy, but given your past civility issues and not knowing what is and isn't appropriate for an edit summary (which in the past included you using homophobic slurs for reverts), I felt an all caps edit summary questioning the competence of another user fit within a trend of behavior that was not collaborative and was uncivil and warranted a short block to prevent further disruption to the project in this manner. You are free to appeal your block here on en.wiki again, and another admin will review it, but your recent behavior on meta makes me think you don't understand the reasons why your conduct is problematic. You are unlikely to convince another admin to unblock unless you can demonstrate that you understand the reasoning for your block and that you intend to address it in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, KATMAKROFAN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Interacting with other editors

Your post on SMcCandlish’s User talk was passive aggressive and not conducive to a collegial editing environment. Combined with what is essentially your freaking out on every possible page about a normal RM, your editing is becoming quite disruptive on this minor issue. To be blunt: you are very close to an indefinite block for your inability to interact with others in a collegial environment. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Commercial? Heh. Anyway, I wasn't offended, it just seemed silly to declare what's already happened to be impossible, after opening a WP:MR that can't possibly succeed, since the close wasn't faulty, nor was the process. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, blame autocorrect! Fixed (meant collegial). Yes, I know you would likely not be offended. This user has a history though of frankly bizarre displays whenever something goes against them, and attacking users they disagree with. I obviously would not be the one to block (I'm not a fan of double blocks), but should this pattern continue in the future, I will be bringing this to ANI with diffs and revdel'd slurs in edit summaries. This is a pattern that needs to be stopped, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: See also [7], and: [8], [9], and [10]. This is WP:POINT and WP:FAITACCOMPLI activity, and the third of these was after your warning above. This seems unrepentantly tendentious, and a harbinger of disruption to come. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Your recent editing history at Template:More citations needed shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Lojbanist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

209.126.96.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Block message:

Blocking administrator: Mike V (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: If the software is routing all traffic through an American webhost IP, it's using that webhost as an anonymizing proxy. Those are blocked on sight. Huon (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Netnanny software is routing all traffic through an American webhost IP and not bothering to use X-Forwarded-For. I don't really see {{colocationwebhost}} as a good hard-block reason anyway; it's pretty much the same situation as other shared IP addresses. KMF (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's netnanny software, not "hide your IP" software. KMF (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the problem with what I post?????

You guys are really aggravating me to no end. You want a reason I edit, I tell you. You want a reference I give you it. What else do you want???? Talk to me like a human being! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DY91 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)