User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 50

I see User:Ânes-pur-sàng/articles-created
and wonder why the heck they're not autopatrolled?! I've just patrolled their latest article, which was so good it drew my attention. Of course they might not want to be, I suppose. Have a good (remaining) weekend. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They're autopatrolled now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Enjoy your Sunday. :-) Katietalk 13:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Great stuff! Many thanks, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you agin- just found another- I've randomly checked about 10% of these and they're solid articles? &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem – done. Katietalk 14:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

mail...
You've got mail; Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See if that helps. :-) Katietalk 22:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're a star. Thanks a million; I have been around so long, but some things just evade me. Lectonar (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you work your magic again please? Ip ranges in 82.136.64.19 and 82.136.73.244....what an obnoxious little fellow. Lectonar (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 82.136.64.0/20 blocked one week. :-) Katietalk 14:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

unpublished material from my book (please help me!)
Hello Katie,

I have authored a book and shared a pre-publication version with a student of mine (user: Khushvaktam). Unaware that it would be a problem to use that material on Wikipedia.org, that student edited the following page using passages and concepts from my forthcoming book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_to_Malik_al-Ashtar

I have deleted those passages (user: Cyruszargar), but I want them removed from the revision history, at least until the book is published. Otherwise, this might create serious issues for me and my publisher. (For example, after I deleted it, another editor added the passage again.) My student made a mistake, and she does not want that material there. In fact, I had originally encouraged her to improve the page using academic sources (not meaning my unpublished book)--she did not know that using my unpublished book would be a problem. I, as the author of this information, definitely do not want unpublished passages from that book online. But I also want those passages removed from the revision history. Can you please help me? I would appreciate it greatly.

I would be glad to provide you with a book contract or anything else that would help. I can also have my student ("Khushvaktam") verify that she does not want those passages there either.

Thank you,

Cyruszargar (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Cyrus.

Cyrus Ali Zargar Associate Professor Augustana College zargar@augustana.edu

pinged an online admin from CAT:REVDEL on Cyruszargar's talk page. Meters (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

unpublished material from my professors book (please help me!)
Hi Katie,

My professor just left a message requesting that the content that I had edited be removed as soon as possible! This was his message:

''Hello Katie,

I have authored a book and shared a pre-publication version with a student of mine (user: Khushvaktam). Unaware that it would be a problem to use that material on Wikipedia.org, that student edited the following page using passages and concepts from my forthcoming book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_to_Malik_al-Ashtar

I have deleted those passages (user: Cyruszargar), but I want them removed from the revision history, at least until the book is published. Otherwise, this might create serious issues for me and my publisher. (For example, after I deleted it, another editor added the passage again.) My student made a mistake, and she does not want that material there. In fact, I had originally encouraged her to improve the page using academic sources (not meaning my unpublished book)--she did not know that using my unpublished book would be a problem. I, as the author of this information, definitely do not want unpublished passages from that book online. But I also want those passages removed from the revision history. Can you please help me? I would appreciate it greatly.

I would be glad to provide you with a book contract or anything else that would help. I can also have my student ("Khushvaktam") verify that she does not want those passages there either.

Thank you,

Cyruszargar (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Cyrus.

Cyrus Ali Zargar Associate Professor Augustana College zargar@augustana.edu''

It was a grave mistake that I had done and would really appreciate it if the passage could be removed from the revision history! I honestly didn't think it would hinder anything and so I desperately request that it be removed!

Thank you,

Khushvaktam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khushvaktam (talk • contribs) 22:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, ladies and gentlemen, the article has been deleted; if you click on the article link, sir, you'll see it's gone beyond the wit of any man, including publishers. Kushvaktam, good luck with your studies, and CZ, good luck with the book. Cheers!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Katie,

I am very grateful for your help!

With thanks,

Cyrus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyruszargar (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPI
Would you mind taking a look at this? I can't go through the SPI wizard for whatever reason. User:Jcopiotro and User:Nyxenne re-created ITrust in an incredibly short space of time. Thanks for your time! Nicnote •  ask me a question  •  contributions  18:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the new account indefinitely and blocked the master temporarily. They're not evading an existing block, so hopefully this little timeout will be all that's necessary. Katietalk 00:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Greatly appreciated. Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  00:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

SPI related to Transmisogyny
Hi Katie,

Thanks for you comments at Sockpuppet_investigations/Savmkim-10; they make sense, and totally would explain the commonality of dates, article choice, and even possibly the edit summary style, since students in a class would presumably be listening to the same instructor. As a consequence, I feel a little guilty about possibly having wasted your time.

It occurs to me, that had the WP:SPI page said something about considering the possibility of WikiEd class activity, I would certainly have investigated further, and likely would not have initiated the sock investigation request in the first place, thus saving you and everyone time. I don't mind editing the SPI page myself, but as I have no experience with it or with SPIs before this and you obviously do, it would make more sense coming from you (or from someone else with similar experience with SPI). Do you think you could throw in a sentence or two at WP:SPI? If not, I can take a shot at it. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. Class activity isn't always benign like this one seems to be. There's a case right now at WP:AN about an instructor who's here to right great wrongs using 180 meatpuppets to do it. If you suspect something, report it. We'll evaluate it as best we can. CUs and clerks are experienced; It's our job to look at stuff like this. It's possible a clerk would have discovered it during their behavioral investigation, but I doubt it. They still would have asked for CheckUser, which is why I ran it. Rest easy – you did the right thing. :-) Katietalk 12:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:


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

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

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

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

I opened a sock investigation but it might not have been registered
If you look through my contribution you will see I opened a sock puppet investigation earlier today. I did it on mobile and it hasn't been added automatically to the table of investigations. It may not have programmed correctly, it started with a blank page, not a template. This was my first time so I might have screwed it up. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It was at Sockpuppet investigations/Hilsea. I just deleted it. You're going to have to do it properly at WP:SPI and follow the instructions. If you can't do it from your mobile, then you'll have to wait until you're in a position to do it correctly. If you need the text of what was deleted, let me know, and I'll provide it to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User JAH0200
I see you take part in sockpuppet investigations and I wondered if you would like to take a look at User JAH0200, an account set up on 28 April. This account is party to a sockpuppet investigation I have initiated into User 10W40, however sockpuppetry is part of Wikipedia that is unfamiliar to me. I am suspicious of User JAH0200's activities, partly because they seem to have intricate knowledge of how Wikipedia works although apparently being new.

This all started off when it seemed to me that 10W40 was behaving improperly at the WikiCup where I am a judge. Although I initially thought they were sockpuppets, User JAH0200 seems to be a different person, involved in different activities and with different interests, and I suspect was asked by 10W40 to reverse certain edits in which I had rejected 10W40's submission of a GA on the WikiCup log page. This page is of no interest to anyone except the judges, existing as it does to enable the judges to check submissions for legitimacy. On 29th April, JAH0200 was patrolling page changes immediately after they occurred from 7.50 to 9.29, but broke off this activity at 8.42 to make the three edits I am suspicious of (which undid three edits I had made the previous day), then returned to patrolling recent changes at 8.54. Looking at other activities of this newly established account, I see a lot of additions to the article International Association of Black Actuaries which are both completely unreferenced and are a copyright infringement of the society's website. I am hoping you will look into the activities of this editor and see whether any action is needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I reviewed Sockpuppet investigations/10W40. I agree that the behavior is compelling, but completed CheckUser on April 30 and found the three accounts to be unrelated. There's no reason for me to run CheckUser again; Bbb23 is really good at sorting out the technical details CU gives and I would have nothing to add, not to mention it's against the WMF and enwp privacy policies for me to use it in that manner. It's entirely possible that there's some off-wiki coordination going on, but there's no way to discover that using the tools we have here. I wish I had better news, but I think we've done all we can do. Katietalk 12:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I find the behaviours very suspicious, but its no great deal really. The check user check makes it likely that more than one person was involved, perhaps three acting in concert. I had better forget it. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
 * Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news
 * You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
 * There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
 * Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous
 * Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Ethanjaffee
Hi, I'd just declined that AIV posting when you blocked this account. I can't see any vandalism, as far as I can see their edits are good faith. Their previous edits look OK. Also, the reporting editor templated them for "adding unsourced content", for this edit which was actually removing it ... and let's face it, what's the point in "backing vocals; additional backing vocals"? Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we crossed the streams, because when I came back to AIV after the block I saw you declined. At any rate, I thought about it and felt he needed a short time out to start collaborating instead of just adding and removing stuff without discussion. That unsourced content warning was, I think, for the addition of the acoustic guitar, not the removal of the backing vocals credits. I don't know if the backing vocals are worthwhile or pointless, but he's being disruptive, and that's why I blocked.
 * On another note, would you take a look at the RFPP for the Conviction TV series article? I'm on the fence about blocking both of them for edit warring, and I'm not sure protection will help either instead of or in addition to blocking. Katietalk 17:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd block both of them. They're both clearly aware of 3RR, one is inserting information based on a semi-reliable source, and the other is removing it. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

can you ban a user for me???
can you ban Robberey1705 because I think that user will do an edit war again and i think that if you do two edit war within a year then your account should be banCoasterdude1 (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Robberey1705
Thank you for taking him in hand. Robberey has been a long-term problem; I'm sure you've seen the extended warning Cyphoidbomb left on his talk page, which hasn't made a dent in his aggressive edit summaries and accompanying behavior. Good point about AN3 for when this resumes (and I think it will). I dropped an edit warring notice on each page to set that up. I'll take them both there if it starts again. --Drmargi (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. As I said, each left a warning for the other, and that's considered awareness of edit warring – Robberey removed the one on his talk page and even cited it in his RFPP request as proof he was being targeted. Good luck, and thanks for your input. :-) Katietalk 18:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that you should ban him off of Wikipedia. --Coasterdude1 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Coasterdude, we understand you're frustrated with Robberey, but he's a long way from being indefinitely blocked. Katie, as an admin, and a good one, will elaborate, I'm sure.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No,, it doesn't work that way. Sometimes editors get too involved and do things they wouldn't otherwise do. Hopefully this will calm down and discussion will develop after the blocks expire. As Drmargi said, both are a long way from any type of ban discussion. I am curious, though, why you would show up here and on Drmargi's talk page when you've never edited the articles in question. In fact, prior to today, you hadn't edited at all for several weeks. If you have a legitimate interest here, that's fine. Otherwise, please refrain from criticizing the behavior of editors with whom you've never interacted. Katietalk 04:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You ban me I was changing conviction date and he changed it back. I know why you ban me because you thought that I was fighting with him but no I was doing the right thing.  why did you say that "he's a long way from being indefinitely blocked"?? both of you are too nice. if I was you I ban him because of his aggressive edit summaries and accompanying behavior. Robberey1705 said "There is a message for you on the Talkpage of this article. Read it. Get it. " to me that says BAN.  yes, my ip is  24.216.183.251 and I forgot to sign in all of these times. can you please not ban me. I went to the List of policies and it says that "Harassment: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information." and "Civility: Rudeness or insensitivity, whether intentional or not, can distract from and interfere with our work. Dispute resolution forums are available when civil, reasoned discussion breaks down." to me he breaking the policy of Wikipedia and somebody is not do their job. Coasterdude1 (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know you're evading your block. That's fixed now. Katietalk 12:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was afraid of that when I began to notice similarities in the two editors' postings. Coasterdude, while you have this time off, you might want to read WP:BLOCK and understand how blocks work, as well as the consequences for block evasion.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

blocking
Hello KrakatoaKatie. Your blocking of User:Shahadusadik and User:Joy Agyepong leaves me puzzled. I know both and have met them at the WikiIndaba conference in Ghana this year and so have all other participants, who will be able to confirm that, see m:WikiIndaba conference 2017/Participants. They are clearly not the same person. Regards, --Gereon K. (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr SPI is a huge undisclosed paid editing farm consisting of many people. This abuse has been going on for almost a year and shows no sign of slowing, and indeed they're branching out and using proxies and webhosts to evade detection. That said, let's ask to take a look at these two accounts to be sure. If he agrees with you, I have no objection to unblocking. I'll be busy the rest of the day and won't be back until Friday. Katietalk 12:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Katie, I realize you may not be able to address my questions until tomorrow, but I'm not sure what you want me to do. First, I'm not familiar with this case, which makes it much harder for me to evaluate behavioral evidence. Second, in your comments at the SPI, you said that behavioral evidence had to be evaluated, at which point there was a brief dialog between you and that I didn't fully understand. If all you want me to do is to confirm the technical evidence, I can do that. Anything more doesn't make sense to me. I won't do anything until I hear from you. I don't see any urgency to this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * my interpretation of Katie's technical results at the case is that and  are confirmed to each other, and both confirmed to an account which is likely to other  socks. I suppose Katie may want you to review that analysis? As far as behaviour, it was pretty uncertain; the block is from the technical evidence as far as I'm concerned. Neither user has requested an unblock except Shahadusadik apparently did to UTRS more than a month before they were blocked, and as for the WikiIndaba meetup, neither account is on the list of participants, so I'm not sure what to do with this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is Joy: c:File:Joy Agyepong Wiki Indaba 2017.jpg and this is Shahadusadik: c:File:3rd Training Session and Edit-a-thon.jpg. --Gereon K. (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I second Gereon. I understand there's been long term sockpuppeting, but these two accounts belong to real users we've met in person, so this is a false positive. Please unblock.  I understand you're not around for a couple of days, so I'll drop a note at ANI. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that these are CU blocks and can only be lifted by a CheckUser or with the permission of a CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked both accounts solely in the interim until Katie is able to reassess. This is based on my own CheckUser analysis and the discussion here. No disrespect to Katie :) I don't think the rest of us are familiar enough with the case to make a final judgement call, but it seems the risk of abuse from these two accounts is low, so hopefully I'm not out of line here &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  00:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Katie, has observed that another of these accounts,, appears to be a false positive, and has requested a CheckUser review. I see that all three of these are the accounts confirmed to  but you reviewed as "likely" (not "confirmed") to the rest of the sockfarm. Apparently we got this one wrong. Can you review your ... review ... and note somewhere in the logs or however you CheckUser folk deal with this sort of situation that these were false positives?
 * do you have any information about that we should be aware of? That is the other account that was connected to these three. Thanks for your patience.
 * courtesy ping. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked, and from now on someone else can work the DKRJ sockfarm. I'm out. Katietalk 17:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Katie. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And, I don't know personally, but am checking with trusted volunteers in Ghana to see if we can find out more about that account. I'll keep you posted if I hear something back. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Both names are unfamiliar to me. The problem with range blocks in sub-saharan Africa is that there is a very limited amount of providers, especially in the cell phone sector. As happened now with this range block of a Lagos mobile provider that ended today, new editors from the m:Wikimedia User Group Nigeria/ Wikimedia Hub, Nigerian Institute of Journalsim (NIJ) got caught up in this innocently, because they had the same provider as the vandal, simply because there are not many providers in Lagos. This case here is about Ghana. I know how important the right to edit anonymously is, but in this case I would ask the most active users of Ghana: Flixtey and Rberchie. --Gereon K. (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Gereon K. has a point here, range blocking has always not been a good thing for us especially when carriers are limited and people edit in common spaces like cafes,etc. This also infringes on the right of users who wish to be anonymous or at least contribute anonymously, unless we don't want to promote the crowd contributions that we stand for. I think we must find a proper way to deal with this problem other than the current solution --Flixtey (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: these were CheckUser blocks of registered accounts, not anonymous IP range blocks. As far as I can tell from what's been said, the person who is behind the Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr abuse must have edited from the same place as these other users at some time, such that their accounts' technical data indicated a connection at the time that Katie checked. This sort of false-positive can happen with technical data, which is why we also rely on behavioural evidence to back up technical findings, and the behavioural investigation is the responsibility of the clerk (me in this case), not the CheckUser. But I want to point out that anonymous editing (that is, editing without logging into an account, which publicly logs the user's IP address) was never restricted in this case; only these few misidentified accounts were blocked, and they've now been unblocked.
 * If there are any more questions about this, I suggest posting them onto my talk page and I'll do my best to respond. Katie is probably getting tired of seeing our emails :) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2017
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 19:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2017
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 19:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

SPI Bablu Baghel‎
Katie, I just notice you closed the SPI without taking any action so can I know the problem with the outer wiki evidence? Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 14:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

George Gently and Personal Insults
Katie, would you have a look at the sequence of edits on Inspector George Gently, please? The Chinese IP is back, and has been leaving highly inflammatory, and insulting, edit summaries (disability not being a suitable topic for insults). Would you go take a look and see what can be done to stop him? (NB: I just got pending changes rights, and probably didn't do my first application correctly. Please forgive any errors there!) --Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked for edit warring before I saw this. If they start to sock, I'll upgrade to semi. --Neil N  talk to me 17:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * only saw this after coming here to notify KK about removing PC - I've elected to upgrade to semi now, as the disruption seemed to warrant it -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 17:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad it's done. I think he will sock; I just left a word of thanks on your (NeilN's) talk page.  Sorry to all both for the continuing bother with this guy!  This situation particularly made my blood boil (figuratively) because it's never acceptable to use disability to insult someone.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Prepon
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Prepon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Southeast Asian religion: disruptive forumshopping. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

N738139
If my content reaches consensus on the talk page, when will it be edited??? [Talk:Laura Prepon]N738139 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be 3 revert edits by a same person. It is unfair (people can have lots of account)!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by N738139 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Gray Cowan "gray.exe"
Thanks. Did I handle that correctly? I blanked it and asked for oversight without tagging it for speedy. Meters (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you did great – tons better than asking at ANI as some seem hellbent on doing. You can also find an active admin and ask for revdel, saying that you've emailed Oversight. Awesome job! :-) Katietalk 18:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

In response to your earlier message on my page: Totally understand. I was not familiar with policy but I will try to read up. thanks for the help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminLemley (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Just be careful in the future what you put out about yourself online, because there may be an occasion where I can't do what I did. Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) Katietalk 18:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Orion (band)
Been trying to add a page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(band) ) for one of the bands I grew up on - a (mostly) Belgium Celtic band called "Orion". http://www.folkworld.eu/11/e/orion.html It appears it was deleted (3 times!) by you most recently in 2008. Can you please restore it so I can update the info? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggr Down Under (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * KK here is a link to the AFD Articles for deletion/Indy & Wich so you don't have to search for it. It was a few (plus a few more) years ago so I wanted to save you some time. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

E-Mail Followup
Hi Katie! Thanks for your help. To answer your question - everything in that space and the main space would resolve it all... Thank you so much Loki Talk • 00:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, first - change your signature. I'll delete this section after we're done so you don't have to worry about it here. Second, the mainspace stuff will be handled by the rename. The talk and Wikipedia spaces are different animals, and I doubt we can do anything about that, particularly pages that have many edits since you last changed them. It would require us to revdel everything since your last edit to a particular page, and that's going to require massive effort and a lot of disruption. Also, you should read about the Streisand effect when dealing with things like this. Since the rename is new and we can nuke your user talk space without too much trouble (it'll melt like butter), I'll do that shortly. Katietalk 00:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I should specify I meant my userspace subpages and user talk space, not any other main aspects. Though I could easily be missing something, as I have been trying to be conscious of the Steisand effect. Thanks for all of your help1 Loki Talk • 00:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think I've got everything. If you find something else tonight, let me know here. If it's later than that, contact OTRS again, because I'll be out for the rest of the Memorial Day weekend (vroom vroom). :-) Katietalk 00:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Should I just put a user requested deletion request on the archives and user space pages then? Loki Talk • 01:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's anything with your signature in the history, yes. If not, it should stay intact. If you get pushback from the admin about WP:DELTALK, tell them it's an RD5 issue about personal information that we can't oversight. Katietalk 02:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. have an awesome holiday weekend!!! Loki Talk • 12:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this needs a rev-del
Take a look at this edit. Phone #s, emails, website URLs. I posted on Euralyus's talk but then noticed they're mostly away from internet for the next few days, would appreciate you taking a look and deleting etc. Thx, Shearonink (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Appears to be spam, revdel'd. — xaosflux  Talk 13:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you kind stalker. Shearonink (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Fsu Football wiki page
I thank you for the locking of the Fsu Football wiki page in the bowl game section, however, I ask you turn it to the original state for it until it is discussed on the Fsu talk page.

Thank you for your time. Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerFrosty (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See this page. Katietalk 08:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)