User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 43

General sanctions notice
Hello. I received that notice on my talk page after I reverted four vandal edits from the IP "42.80.192.145". Does that mean I can only revert only one time per day, even if he/she continues vandalizing articles?--Andres arg (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverting clear vandalism is an explicit exemption to 3RR and 1RR. Katietalk 22:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Page
I think it is fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okfarmerjohn (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN
As you have deleted those pages that I listed on WP:AN, I am assuming you have read my post. I found them through recent changes clicking various options under new user contributions as show only page creations and selecting "Templates", "Wikipedia".

The problem is that I can't see beyond one month, as recent changes list only one month old pages. Every hour the oldest page vanishes from the list. That's why listed them on WP:AN.

And right now there is no way anyone can find any such templates and Wikipedia pages created before August 2016 and still unpatrolled.

I am not able to explain others properly, what exactly I am trying to say. -- Marvellous Spider-Man 14:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I understood it, though I had to read through it twice. That's on me, though. :-) This needs to go to WP:VPT, where the coders hang out. I'd file a Phabricator ticket myself but I'd probably futz it up. Just tell them what you told me: that the New Pages feed doesn't cover new pages outside the mainspace, there's a problem with new users creating wacky templates and so on that aren't templates, and that the new page patrollers need to be able to see all the new pages, particularly those older than one month. Katietalk 14:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw your post (and post here) - I'm currently working on a db query which may be able to present the information you need. It's not done yet, and I'll drop you a line when its done. I still reccomend Katie's suggestion to contact WP:VPT -- samtar talk or stalk 14:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I won't be able to explain it to them properly as I lack technical knowledge about Wikipedia. I have tagged other pages also which I didn't list at WP:AN as in September CSD log User:Marvellous Spider-Man/CSD log. I am still unaware of Wikipedia's internal process. It would be better, if any experienced editor/administrator do it. If you want, you can request some other administrator with technical knowledge to make such request.


 * If in one month space, I found so many templates/wikipedia:____ pages which are speedily deleted, then just think how many are actually surviving (created before one month). I am a new user, why nobody thought about this before?


 * When I first found out pages like this, I was surprised and made a WP:AN post without thinking much. And an administrator reverted my post, then Another administrator Fram reverted the other administrator:Stephen. I made mistake at WP:AN, and If I request at WP:VPT, I will make mistake again If no other experienced editor helps me. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You've done fine. As I said, it's my problem that I had to read it twice, not yours. Samtar is all over it now, and he's one of the good guys. AN was as a good place to start as any, because it is an admin issue. We've had some disruption at AN recently and some people are too quick to revert – again, that's their problem, not yours. There are eyes on it now and a solution in the works, which is what you wanted. It's all good. Give Samtar some time to work on it. If I can help further, let me know. :-) Katietalk 15:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Katie  I'm afraid to say this possible solution doesn't look all too promising. Myself and Musik have given the idea of a database query a go, but to no avail. I would again recommend a quick post to WP:VPT (or I'll do it later, I don't mind) --  samtar talk or stalk 14:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Handthrown and Mmyers and the RFC
Were you able to measure the Beaufort force of the wind inside the teapot before closing the discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for that, Robert. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little hazy on incivility, it seems that a lot more gets a pass than used to when I first joined Wikipedia, so I have to ask, are editors now allowed to continue making snide comments in ANI discussions even after an admin has closed them ? Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

In recent history, Mmyers has made a surprising number of personal attacks herself, including:


 * Accusing Handthrown—yes, that same one she subsequently took to ANI for incivility—of exhibiting "woeful[] ignorance" and being a "dishonest troll";
 * Calling Doc9871 "childish";
 * To Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: "what a tool";
 * About Kleuske and Doc9871: "Deleting hypocritical warning and personal attacks by a couple obnoxious trolls";
 * "I can definitely see why you get blocked a lot"; and
 * Pointing out a different editor's block log and accusing a third editor of whining.

The accusation of dishonesty against Handthrown is at least as offensive as the comments forming the basis of her complaint (which I still read as saying the article, not her, would be defrauding readers); the other barbs are more hostile and personal than the post-close remark she now objects to. Additionally, she attempted to remove adverse comments from the ANI thread (e.g., Kleuske's sarcastic but merits-based response). Since she has chosen to continue the fight, and in light of the evidence of incivility and hypocrisy above, I respectfully suggest that you consider applying the same standard to Mmyers that she wants applied to others. Rebb ing  17:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Point of fact, I am a man. And I am not choosing to continue the fight, EEng chose to continue it by posting an additional barb two hours after Katie had closed the discussion (I was merely aprising her of that) and you are choosing to continue the fight with all that. And with the exception of the things I said to Handthrown (which have a context behind them you are omitting), everything else you are diffing was in response to unprovoked sarcasm and self-described "mockery" of me by the cabal you are now advocating for. I filed the ANI while I was very frustrated, but many people come to ANI like that, with something that feels more personal to them than it would to an uninvolved person, and for Wikipedia to allow uninvolved non-admins to pile in and mock people who file ANI reports (this is apparently something at least EEng if not the others in my ANI have been doing habitually), it's appalling that it is allowed to go on without action by admins, it's guaranteed to escalate conflict, not resolve it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are choosing to continue the fight. EEng makes those kinds of comments at ANI. Everybody knows it, and now you do too. He's being snarky, not uncivil. Stop paying attention and it won't bother you.
 * When something comes to the level of a block or formal warning, an admin will act on it. Did you see any admin participation in that section? Nope. There's a reason for that – nothing rose to the level of admin action, and all that was happening was exactly what's happening here, which is a bunch of mudslinging back and forth that serves no purpose.
 * Here's my last warning: everybody go write the encyclopedia. I'm out for a while, but trust me when I say there are plenty of admin talk page watchers here who won't hesitate to step in to referee, and you won't like it when they do. Katietalk 18:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:AdamDeanHall jumping the gun with WP:AIV reports. Thank you. RunnyAmiga ※  talk 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I warned KyloRen123 not to add unsourced material to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page, but I shouldn't have reported him on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Jumping the gun with my WP:AIV report was a mistake. Next time, I'll just warn him. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Just asking
Hello there. I just want to ask you something. Is there a feature here in Wikipedia that can make me "patrol" categories? What I mean is if there is something that I can use so I can watch over categories. But the "watch" that I know only notifies me when someone edited a page that I "watched". What I am finding is something that "watching categories", but instead notifies me when an article page is added with a certain category. Example: I am focusing on Category:Abcd but of course, I do not know if an article page has been added with Cat:Abcd. What I am looking for is some kind of a tool that notifies me when an article page has been added with that cat.

I am looking for this tool (if there exists) because I am focusing in Category:Filipino basketball players and almost all of the pages inside that cat is also in my watchlist. I noticed that there are newly created articles that are added with that cat and I want to know which new pages are those so I can watch and edit it. I hope you do not mind answering this question from me. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you. Baby miss fortune 12:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't know. No inconvenience at all. Is there a way to do this? If there isn't, we should make one. Katietalk 12:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * : I believe the watchlist actually does that: when I watchlist a category page, I see entries for pages added or removed from that category (as well as changes to the category page itself). Is that what you're asking? Rebb  ing  12:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Gladly appreciate it. ^-^
 * Yeah that is what I am asking. Well I tried it but I have seen nothing on my watchlist. Maybe I should try it again. Thanks for the info. Baby miss fortune 13:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * : Has the category had any recent additions or removals? Try watching Category:1989 births or any other heavily-used category; this is what it looks like for me. Rebb  ing  13:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As of now, I think there isn't anything yet. I tried what you suggested moments ago and it worked. You are such a big help. Thank you very much. <font style="color:#552582;">Baby <font style="color:#061922;">miss <font style="color:#FDB927;">fortune 13:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome! I'm just glad I could help. The category-watching feature is a seriously underused and under-advertised part of the watchlist; I happened on it accidentally a few months ago.  Rebb  ing  13:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2016
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 17:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2016
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 17:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting deletion
Good day Ma'am. Could you please delete both Template:2016 PBA Governors' Cup Bracket and Template:2016 PBA Governor's Cup Playoffs bracket? Because the template to be used is really Template:2016 PBA Governors' Cup Playoffs Bracket. Maybe the user who created the template made a mistake in the first one and instead improving the template, he made another template. And because of that there were three templates created. Also, both templates' titles are wrong. Thank you. <font style="color:#552582;">Baby <font style="color:#061922;">miss <font style="color:#FDB927;">fortune 13:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I need you to nominate them for CSD or TFD just like you'd nominate anything else. The user in question hasn't had a talk page edit since November 2015, so rather than speculating on his motives, maybe you could ask him. :-) Katietalk 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent blocked IP has returned
Hello KK. I hope you are well as we head into autumn. I wanted to let you know that the IP that was vandalizing the has created  and is making the same edits. I don't know if a RFPP is in order or not. If you think that is a good idea just let me know and I will made the appropriated request. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the account and protected it for two weeks. Hopefully that gets it. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 22:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you as well for taking care of things. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Several of the citations under that Tom Woods article are incorrect. 7 cites James Lowen, pages 167 and 333 as referring to the LvMI and it's neoconfederate leanings. Page 167 of the book does not at all refer to this in any way, shape or form. I removed that citation first. Why was it put back?

Citation 9 is an unverifiable source. How can this be used as proof? How is that website a legitimate source?

Citation 12 and 13 are equally troublesome, especially when making accusations such as the ones the person who inserted this has done. alt.net is a legitimate source? As for 13, the link to the Abeville website does not prove someone is a member, and I'm not sure how this is acceptable.

Warswics (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please discuss content issues on the article talk page, and keep in mind the sanctions for the subject area. Sourcing questions should be addressed at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. Katietalk 16:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! :-) Katietalk 16:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And thanks to you also for your help with the redirects. -- The Anome (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: I Am... Sasha Fierce
Instead of issuing me a warning for edit warring, you could be more helpful by taking a look at the issue in question and seeing how absurd it is a verifiable statement was removed a year ago by the article's gatekeeper and is being removed now, and I received a warning for restoring the revision prior to the RfC (WP:BRD); I will restore it again, unless you'd like to do so in good faith so I don't risk getting jumped all over it by the gatekeeper, who has said once again at the RfC he gives no fucks about getting a consensus, based on his opinion of a word. Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, the user who reported me has been blocked at least three times for displaying ownership issues . Just letting you know because this whole thing has rubbed me the wrong way!! :-) Dan56 (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Administrators are not content arbiters. No one is going to close an RFC that's been open less than a day. I don't care how the RFC ends or which 'version' ends up being the consensus view. I care that the edit warring stops, and you edit warred to keep your version even after you opened the RFC. I could have blocked you for it but I didn't, so let's not talk about who shows good faith and who doesn't, hmm? Also, comparing block logs isn't a particularly good thing for you to do, as it definitely called my attention to your own.
 * You don't seem to get that the burden was on the other editor to open the RfC and get a consensus to remove the material in question. I don't understand where in my last comment I asked you to close the RfC. And hmm... nope, I don't see how you could've blocked me for restoring the original text. As an administrator, it'd behoove you to know a little more about the conflict you're involving yourself in, rather than just the picture the other guy painted for you, no? Dan56 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You started that RFC, so let it run its course and see what happens. One unrelated word of advice: you should remove those copyrighted lyrics from your user page. You might get away with one very short passage, but not that many. You've been around long enough to know images in user space have to be freely licensed (I haven't checked yours), but you could get into some hot water about the lyrics thing. Not from me, because I do other things, but there are those who care a great deal. Katietalk 20:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're just great, love. Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved and I'm not going to get involved. I gave you a warning, and I've said right here, in plain English, that I don't care about the content. I haven't read the article and I haven't looked at the references. I do care about edit warring, and four reverts in a little over 24 hours is not only edit warring but could be considered gaming 3RR. It doesn't matter for 3RR who has the burden of inserting or deleting or whatever. It's a bright-line rule.
 * Put it this way: BRD is an essay. WP:EW is a policy, and policy trumps essay every single time. I'm really trying to help you here. RFCs take time, so make your case and go from there. The world isn't going to stop turning if that phrase is or isn't in this article. Katietalk 21:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe you're a) talking to an admin the way you are when they are being nice to you and helping you with things not relating to the issue, and b) telling the admin who has warned you, and can still block you, that as soon as the 24 hour period has passed that you will restore the one word in dispute. If that's not one but two ways of getting an admin to follow your edit trail then I don't know what is! — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm touched by your concern. Thank you . Dan56 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ferdinand Marcos article
Hello Katie. I understand that there's been sort of an editing war on the article about Ferdinand Marcos. I'm just a new contributor here so I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing.

While almost all my contributions are sourced, admittedly there are a few sources that are indeed not the most reliable. However, I was a little disappointed to see my "entire" contributions getting taken away, when only parts of it were attributed to unreliable sources like "blogsites, hoppler, wordpress, youtube, wikipilipinas". I would have expected other editors just to raise an issue on these portions rather undo everything that I contributed.

I noticed that you have temporarily locked editing on the article. Now that I know the guidelines, would you please unlock the article? I'll be ensuring that only well-referenced sources are contributed. Thank you!

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not encouraged by your choice of username. Those who are seeking to right great wrongs are often disappointed. That said, it's best you discuss your changes on the article talk page and reach consensus on your edits. Some of your sources appear unreliable. Katietalk 13:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again. The unreliable sources are a minority. I looked at them again and removed them already. Without my contribution, the current article only shows one point of view and has hidden other facts that have been reported by reputable Philippine and international media. Here's the portion that I'd like to contribute, all with reputable sources that conforms with Wikipedia's policy. You can skim through these sources at the very bottom and let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

Thetruth16 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted and removed your proposed edits, because they do not belong here. Do not make them to this page again. I've told you to go to the article talk page to discuss this. I have no interest in the topic and I have acted purely in an administrative capacity here. Administrators are not content arbiters and I will not comment further. Thank you. Katietalk 15:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Katie. What happens next after I go to the article talk page and discuss my points? The article is locked . Will it be unlocked? Who will know and who decides if a consensus is reached and when the article can be edited again?

Thetruth16 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there hasn't been any discussion yet on the talk page, try waiting for that to happen. Reading WP:CONSBUILD might be helpful also. Protection will expire automatically; when it does, don't edit war to get your position into the article. Katietalk 20:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for locking the article. Things were getting out of hand. It might be best to let the lock stay there until it naturally expires as the article is prone to vandalism from unregistered users. -Object404 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

1RR violation by 2 users
Two users, Iwan123Iwan and Beshogur have recently violated 1RR after each reverted my edits twice in a day on Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map. After being informed, they refuse to self-revert because they claim my source isn't reliable. However, I asked them to revert because they violated 1RR, not because of the source. If they had any problem with the source, they could discuss it instead of violating 1RR. They clearly know about the 1RR limit which prohibits reverting a logged-in user more than once. Yet despite knoeing that and evrn being informed again about it, they refuse to self-revert their violation. I am not entirely sure but these users have probably engaged in edit-warring in the past as well. I request you to please take a look at this situation and inform them about their violation and to revert it. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As Katie is on vacation, I'll give you a bit of (hopefully fine) advice. I've put in a request for full protection. Please, unless you want everybody to be blocked, stop editing the page and either continue discussing it on the talk page, start a request for comment, or ask for a 3rd opinion. I learned that the hard way. Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was only here to report 1RR violation. I do not want everyone to br blocked, I'm just here to complain about violations. User Iwan123Iwan has also falsely accused me of "vandalism", not to mention falsely misrepresenting a source as biased "pro-Iraqi source" which is another violation of the sanctions. I stopped editing much before you told me to. I have no problem with differing opinions, only wilful violations and false accusations. Newsboy39 (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, though: if you report 1RR to an administrator, you're seeking action. Right? I agree with DatGuy that you should step away. Don't complain if others don't while you do – you can't control them. You can only control you. 1RR violations should be reported to WP:AN3, not to me individually, because I'm not going to be here to look at talk page messages on a regular basis for the next several days. I don't have time to dig into the issue, so AN3 is the best place. Katietalk 17:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither you or DatGuy have told the other editors not to edit war even though you know they violated 1RR. They have bluntly refused to follow the rules. It is they who should stop disrupting the article and disrespecting the rules. It is very difficult to get anything done on AN3, and I've got to dig through a lot of edits just to have a chance to have them blocked which I know I won't because admins just let them walk away or start blaming the complainant. I can't believe despite knowing what they are doing, you are allowing them to edit in a way that violates the rules. They need to be blocked immediately for the better of the Wiki and sorry to say but you aren't doing anything about it. Since you won't, then I'll quit. I'm tired of editors who think they can do absolutely what they want to. Newsboy39 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)