User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 17

2014:

entire article that is accurate is the general time line and general story line. The article is full of events that plainly did not happen, and other events that are explained by severe enemies of both the Church and of Joseph Smith, many of which could be easily dismissed if a person takes the time to LOOK at the personal account of Joseph's life written by his OWN hand? Hum, how much better a source can you get than that? The article doesn't just give the "neutral" facts as you have stated it does, but is EXTREMELY one sided, making, yes, blatant lies about things that never even happened. But I guess that is just my being a research assistant for some time speaking now, huh! Ya, I guess when you have actually READ THE REAL FIRST HAND DOCUMENTS OUT OF A SPECIAL COLLECTIONS LIBRARY THAT IS JUST MEANINGLESS, ISN'T IT....! Your site stinks! I will not donated to Knowledge in the future.

1924:. However I don't feel that V7-Sport (who is pretty much one side of a conflict with everyone else, you should note) will accept any edits at this point. So I don't really think this will work out in this case. What do you mean about "other cooks in the kitchen with the RFC knife", by the way? Also do you mean consensus on the Definitions section, or consensus on the article in general? Because if you mean the latter, I don't think that is going to happen for a very very long time, if ever, which means that the article will essentially be stagnant from now on. If this is what you mean, then I don't see why if, after the Definitions issue is resolved, that the article shouldn't be unblocked until the point (if this ever occurs) where it seems like edit warring is going on. Anyhow, thanks for the response. I'm going to sleep now :) -- 1854:

way, and the section is still up, I doubt he'll be doing anything either. So I don't think the block is doing any good. It's simply preventing me from improving the article right now. I've got many things that I've been working on in between trying to deal with V7-sport's disruptive behavior, and I'd like to continue adding information to the article. Now that we've gone into third-party mediation, is there any way that you can unblock the article so I can do more work on the other sections? While we're sticking over this issue, I'd at least like to see the rest of the article progress. You have my word that I will not delete the Definitions section until the RFC has completed Thanks. --

2880: 2532: 1707: 1273: 1129: 424: 31: 367:

overview for what the English program at UD is all about, and yes, I thought it would be a good way for the English majors to collaborate on a comprehensive study resource. I'm thinking of switching over to google docs for this project, but I had hoped we could leave our work behind for people who go through the same English major over the years. Does wikipedia have a platform where we could create an acceptable study resource that links to other wikipedia pages? Thanks!

1213:

still doesn't address the fact that there is a problem here. This particular IP hopper is ransacking the encyclopedia with a particularly insidious type of vandalism. He is removing well-written and well-referenced content and replacing it with frivolous non-sense. He changes IP addresses every few edits. He never signs his posts. He blanks the talk page when a Wikipedian or a bot attempts to give some guidance. Where do I turn for help with this problem.--

505:

number one selling flavored paper in the word and just had a link to ac neilsen website.. There is nothing on Neilsen website about this whatsoever. There are zero grounds for any changed by this user. reference?? How is this a FACT TM Office: Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas TradeMark Name: BAMBU Application Number: M0014860 Registration Office Code: ES Kind of IPR: Application Date: 1908-03-31 Registration Number: M0014860--

1410: 2367:

are also a good example of an independent group who have financed all their recordings through income earnt from performances across Belgium. Their facebook page has near 600 fans and they have loyal followers attending their concerts. I hope you might reconsider the deletion. If you still believe its not relevant then I will respect your view.

1601:

match the new rules. It would also be great to know where I could find your template, so I could use it in the future. I'm happy to follow any reasonable add-on procedures if this will keep me from being hassled like this again. This would also give me more time to spend writing and editing articles, which is after all why I'm here.

1571:

I consider these images to be important to the articles I authored, and they are in no way a copyright violation. Is there somewhere else in the word of Knowledge I should go to get this taken care of by someone who would care? Or perhaps you care, but are just too busy. One way or the other, please

1212:

Although I am a 5-year veteran of Knowledge, I posted for the first time on the AN/Edit warring board. I'm sure that I didn't explain myself very well since it was my first time. Your verdict was a no violation, because there was not more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. While technically true, it

504:

I found zero proof of this trademark registration that Nahome is claiming.. seems like a fabricated est. date to me.. Mearly citing a line of text are not grounds for a reference , is it? Wheres the proof..? I seem Nahome's previous edits on pages like the Juicy Jay page where he/she places it as the

366:

I'm Nico, the guy who tried to make the page about comprehensive english exams at the University of Dallas. I completely understand you deleting the article, and I didn't mean to be a nuisance about it. It's the first time I've ever tried to edit anything on wikipedia. I thought it would be a good

2690:

Oh, good grief. Check all the articles mentioned in the lead paragraph and their cousins/nephews/in-laws. I already found some more problems by what looks like a different bunch of IPs, though I'm about to sign off for the night and don't really want to stay up to look them all up on WHOIS. Check my

1853:

Hi -- I recently filed an RFC regarding the "Definitions" section of United States and state terrorism, and have no plans of doing anything with it until the RFC has run its course. I was just in the middle of improving the section on Indonesia when the page was locked. Since V7-sport has gotten his

2859:

Hi Katie, I know this is rather hasty as it's only been approximately 3 days, however I'd like to request a reevaluation on rollbacker rights. I've been working to actively report to AIV and step up cleanup efforts where I'm able to, and I'm quite interested in using Huggle and working on creating

1610:

Just so you're aware, your original message to me, sent after I inquired about why you had already deleted the images through apparently inappropriate "speedy deletion" procedures without letting me know, was unclear about what I should do to remedy the situation. I assumed I was to send additional

1600:

I'm not sure, but I don't believe I've seen your template before, and did not see it when I used the standard approach to uploading the images (and all my others) in the first place. If the rules have changed, perhaps WP should consider changing the image upload page and procedures so that they to

112:

made the correction to the template that I thought I could use as an editor, I realized that something was wrong... I dug around, thinking there was a template or code for protecting the page and tried all sorts of things until I realized that it was not in my power. So after more digging around, I

107:

Thank you for your fast response in the matter. About the padlock thing... This was my first experience with vandalism and not two days before, I saw the padlock on another page and thought I could use it. I didnt know it was for administrative use only. I really thought it was a code available for

2366:

Hi Katie, I am writing as recently you have deleted the page for Lewis Cat. I had hoped you might reconsider the deletion as I believe the relevance to be significant. The group Lewis Cat are a hard working band in the Brussels regions and travel around Belgium performing semi-regularly. They

2119:

Nothing in the link you provided says "the individual act of exchanging funds is not regulated by free speech." That doesn't even make sense. Free speech doesn't "regulate" anything. That's really the part that sent it off the rails into OR land - when you said, "that is,..." and inserted your own

1567:

What gives? You "speedy deleted" two (coast defense mortar) images from two of the pages I authored. I asked you to re-post them so I could see what they were, and you did. I sent you more detail, as you requested, and asked you what's next. You didn't answer, but apparently removed my msg from

389:

Hi Katie. Just wanted to let you know I'm withdrawing from this situation. If BV wants to continue to pursue this, I believe formal action is the most appropriate venue. You're welcome to continue handling this as you see fit, but I just wanted to make sure you have the entire picture if you do

200:

Your edit summary when creating this indicated it was some sort of admin coaching exercise. A user has nommed it as an attack page. If you're not using it I think it might be best to go ahead and delete it. I don't have any sympathy for this man, and he's dead anyway, but I don't think that having

343:

How could wikipedia make a change to a page when use Nahome has provided zero reference from the Bambu trademark office in Madrid or est. date? This is absolutely ludicrous, and makes no sense whatsoever.. There have been multiple publications which list Bambu's est. date 1764 in Spain.. This has

2013:

First, yes Bushman is a member of the Church, but NOT a General Authority of the Church or authorized to declare what its doctrines should be. That really is not the issue though. The issue is that although the article has been written by both Mormons and Non Mormons alike, the only part of the

1885:

on the talk page. If it's not controversial, it probably will be added by the reviewing admin. I understand about the RFC, and it's a good idea, but you aren't the only cook in that kitchen with a sharp knife. The other chefs have meat cleavers too, and everybody now has a chance to let dispute

1869:

Thanks for the message. I feel your pain. I do. But that edit war was ridiculous and I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the participants. This has been simmering for several days and it finally boiled over tonight, so everybody needs to settle down and cool off. The block hammer is

201:

this page around is such a good idea, because it is an unsourced page related to a real person and it presents them in a wholly negative light. If I understand correctly what you were tryng to do here, it could be re-created in a more generic fashion using a fake name to avoid these concerns.

2165:

that says "the individual act of exchanging funds is not regulated by free speech" (I don't think there is one) and if you want to create an article about the LAX/Krishna case, go ahead. But don't stick it into this article, because it doesn't belong there. It's comparing apples to coconuts.

1085:

Funnily enough, we were sitting in the kitchen talking today, while my nephew, who is a chef, was cooking what turned out to be a great Christmas lunch. It was about 28 °C (82 °F) and we all agreed that Christmas should be in winter. Despite that, we had fun in the pool afterwards, while the

2266: 274:

Thank you yet again. I am slowly getting a bit of confidence and have put a few links in to other entries such as Emergency Procedure which needs some work so I may make a start there first. I'm about to look up all of the references you gave me as well for the guidance.

1154:

I know this is the last thing you want to see when you sign on, but I just wanted to give you fair warning. BV doesn't comprehend why you can remove his content and it's okay, but him removing a comment by Crusio isn't. Rather than trying to explain(I like that

1374:

Maybe I'm not making myself clear - I didn't do it intentionally. I probably had it open in a tab, saw 'empty category', and G6'd it by mistake. It was an accident. A faux pas. A boo-boo. Oopsy daisy. Doggone it. I hate it when that happens. Okay? :-)

1306:. It should probably be restored...I have been tagging some Commons dupes with Twinkle and they're being placed in this category. Might be a Twinkle problem but I'm not sure who to tell. Or is there a bot that later comes and cleans up the date? 2008: 1954:

has to agree, and I can pretty well promise that the article won't stay fully protected for as long as you think it will. I think you'll be surprised what happens when people can't just revert/rollback/undo something they don't like. Read

1650:

article as some sort of coatrack. I'm not sure what to do at this point, if they're not going to bother following (or even reading?) any guidelines or policies -- let alone actually engage collaboratively on the article talk page...

2482:

isn't complete but many countries have different governing bodies for different leagues. I'm sure i'd be equally confused if I tried to figure out American sports but you can ask me if you ever need to know anything about football.

1886:

resolution go ahead without the slicing and dicing back and forth to get around the RFC. It may take more than this RFC, and it might not. Regardless, the article stays locked until there's some consensus or some community action.

1303: 2860:

new tools to further streamline and improve the accuracy of RCP and NPP for other editors (#cvn-wp-en + Twinkle, while effective, can get rather messy.) Any consideration is very much appreciated, Thanks!

108:

an editor. I wasn't trying to "act" like an administrator. I know that probably fusterated the heck out of you and maybe others and I'm sorry about that. I really thought it was something I could do. When

2451:

You deleted the page Daniele Giordano for no reason and without opening an afd, this is the second time you have tried to delete a scottish football related article without proper reason please read this

2160:

You drew your own conclusion based on the newspaper article and inserted that conclusion ("That is,...") into an article about which it has nothing to do other than being in California. If you can find a

194: 172: 304:, and the references work on it... even if there aren't enough articles inside. Well, the fact is that now it works. Thank you then, you gently volcano which help people instead of killing them :))) 1684:.) I haven't had a chance to thoroughly review the edits they're making yet, I think there may be some content there worth keeping, but I guess the fact remains that they're evading their block. 2032: 1785:

Hokeman seems to have ownership issues with Marty Lyons. If you look at the edits he's reverted, and the conversation that he and I have been having on his talk page, I think you would agree.

1831:

I was wondering why I was seeing your sig around so much lately when I couldn't remember seeing it before -- then I checked the edit counter and figured out why. :-) Nice comeback. :-)--

2579:

Hi Katie if a user bluntly states they are going to edit war on a talk page should they be allowed to remove that comment a few months after or should the comment be kept on the page.

1630:

getting the message (although that particular nonsense has since reverted by another editor, thankfully). I started a section over two days ago on the article talk page so that

1959:, get a grasp of what is and isn't consensus, make your edit request(s), and let the RFC go ahead. There are steps after this, and patience is really a virtue here. 'Night! :-) 1492: 261: 1537:

Hey. I'd love to help you get this to FA. Haven't been through the A-class process, but I've been through FA a few times so I know what to make sure is fixed up beforehand.

233: 175:). The IP has reverted my removal and I do not want to edit war with them. However, if other editors agree with the removal I would also revert the IP because I think that 1845: 1337:

Undelete if you don't mind...it's populated again. :) Plus it should be there in case people use the delete template manually/incorrectly and don't put in a date. Thanks!

1634:

could express whatever their concerns are. They still haven't responded and instead are continuing to revert to include those blatantly inappropriate links. From the

1863: 2094: 1508: 2231:

about making the message more user-friendly. Do you mean the AIV message or the filter itself? I can't do anything about the AIV bot, but I can edit the filter.

2228: 578:

Thanks for your efforts related to the IP hopping vandal that I reported at ANI. As expected, he's continuing the vandalism, with two more IPs since you semi-ed

2200:

Hello, I noticed you dealt with the one of the 3RR issues, would you please deal with the latest one I have reported. I am tired of dealing with this editor.

113:

finally got to the request page. That ate up about an hour of my time... all because I saw that padlock code and didnt know it was for admin use only. Thanks,

1681: 1677: 1673: 1631: 1623: 1398: 996: 210: 2189: 2725: 2714: 2382: 2066: 1474:

Awesome! Hopefully they fix the Twinkle bug. I think that's why the undated category is so huge on the "different name" undated Commons deletion category.

923: 754: 588: 2861: 2853: 2353: 1074: 916: 832: 493: 2893: 2846: 2601: 2549: 2505: 1996: 1982: 1933: 1909: 1724: 1290: 1142: 838: 657: 437: 2321: 193: 2419: 2144: 2082: 1437: 567: 371: 1482: 1469: 1105:

Hey Katie! I saw that you are one of the active admin coaches, and that you currently don't have a student. Would you be willing to admin coach me?

471:

following a report I filed but didn't leave a message on his talk. Not sure if this was intentional for some reason but I thought I'd point it out.

165:

and see whether you agree with my attempt to archive the long "High IQ of Han Chinese due to separate evolution from the rest of humanity" section (

109: 1222: 468: 412: 2378: 747: 506: 345: 2147:

says Congress shall not restrict freedom of speech. California has the right to speak freely positively guaranteed in their state constitution.

1353:

Pardon me for interfering, but that's a frequently populated category, so it really shouldn't be deleted as G6. I've restored it. If you have a

1237: 1180: 332: 2803: 2682: 2298: 1201: 2569: 1813: 1190: 1162: 527: 446: 401: 2098: 1526: 1345: 1332: 2545: 2441: 384: 188: 1207: 1013: 731: 122: 1699: 1423: 1366: 2742: 940: 771: 605: 227: 2873: 2618: 2453: 2203: 1775: 855: 674: 544:

Ack! I was adding dates last night and changed a setting I shouldn't change until January. That'll teach me! All fixed now - thanks!

286: 1583: 2390: 297: 222:

I've removed the attack template, because I took the 5 seconds to type his name in and check. No comment on Beeblebrox's advice.

2538: 2531: 2524: 2124:(well, religious-ish, anyway) group raising money in a publicly-owned building, instead of individuals collecting signatures in a 1806:

Hi need your assistance. The user ArnaudMS is back at it and keeps re-posting that promo image and their promo text. Please see

1554: 1249: 1122: 2492: 2472: 2104:

Oh, I remember this. Sorry, but I didn't take the other guy's word for it. I have a brain and I like to use it, and your edit is

1800: 2432:

Thanks for reverting and blocking. I had already done what I could without getting into a 3RR (even though it's vandalism.) --

1173: 317: 2517: 1314: 379: 2457: 2081:. Please enlighten me regarding how my edits, in any way, are "original research." Most likely, the my edits were flagged by 1840: 1744: 1446:

Oh, no! You guys!?! You didn't make me mad! Now I feel bad. :-( I must hug the ogre and the Kelly. {{{{hugs}}}} {{{{hugs}}}}

735: 479: 2794:

While I'm sympathetic to those in the address pool who are contributing constructively, this really is getting ridiculous. --

1591:

I have made entries for both the images, using the (useful) template you provided. Are the two images now acceptable to you?

538: 223: 1568:

your talk page. Now someone else has come by and deleted the images again. To me, this is really getting to be a nuisance.

1286: 1095: 1031: 1007: 573: 2760: 1821: 1261: 958: 789: 623: 2817: 2736: 2667: 2636: 2425: 2120:

conclusion about free speech not regulating something. It has nothing to do with individual rights, either. It's about a

2090: 2078: 1792: 934: 873: 765: 692: 599: 2251: 514: 395: 300:? I finally obtained the references in our RPG wiki, and as I promessed to you, I'm here to tell you. This is our wiki: 2612: 2593: 2588: 2256: 2024: 849: 668: 127: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 353: 167: 1847: 1720: 1666: 1548: 2217: 2204:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Amraamny_reported_by_User:Zabanio

457: 2522: 2386: 2072: 1559: 102: 1055: 2784: 982: 813: 647: 391: 2660: 1159:

link), I just restored what you removed (with notice of your removal and my restoration). Hope that's okay.

1080: 1019: 897: 716: 2748: 2461: 1196: 1168: 1049: 946: 777: 611: 533: 452: 407: 159: 2624: 2039:

I'm not promoting anything. I don't care about the guy. I don't know the first or last thing about him. I

1627: 861: 680: 2778: 2426: 976: 807: 641: 269: 2654: 2361: 2245: 1515: 891: 710: 147: 134: 38: 2852: 1749: 1297: 1149: 904: 820: 155: 1228:

Thanks so much for re-evaluating the problem and agreeing to protect Marty Lyons. Merry Christmas!--

238:

That's okay, you're both right. I can always recreate it or create a new version. Thanks, guys. :-)

139: 2497: 2446: 1532: 1419: 1362: 1001: 291: 1713: 1706: 1646:

talk page, it's pretty clear they're not particularly interested in anything other than using the

2835: 2730: 2703: 2342: 2178: 2055: 1971: 1898: 1836: 1796: 1458: 1414:. Actually, that wasn't clear, because I hadn't realized you had responded on Kelly's talk page. 1387: 1062: 989: 928: 759: 593: 556: 430: 423: 250: 47: 17: 2009:

You are promoting absolutely erroneous information and are very much uninformed in your comments

1025: 2799: 2754: 2678: 2606: 2563: 2028: 1950:

for everybody whacking away at the article with their own agendas. Consensus doesn't mean that

1918: 1879: 1738: 1100: 1091: 1070: 952: 912: 843: 828: 783: 743: 662: 617: 524:

Is slightly fraked at the moment. I have a feeling it has to do with your user box of the day.

519: 2630: 1635: 867: 686: 2886: 2879: 2869: 2415: 2316: 2293: 1987:

Sorry for the late response -- I forgot about this until just now. Thanks for explaining. --

1771: 1497: 1357:

good reason I suppose feel free to reverse me, but I'm 99.9% sure we didn't want to do that.

1321: 1257: 1135: 1128: 1118: 143: 2823:

Got it. Going over now to read up on recent developments, then I think I'll have an answer.

2504:

Katie, please have a look at the proposal I made, and at the latest version in my sandbox,

2374: 2020: 1992: 1929: 1859: 1788: 1279: 1272: 1248:

For the page protect and revision removal (although if it's not any trouble, there's still

375: 358: 206: 118: 1617: 151: 8: 2222: 1780: 1415: 1358: 282: 1037: 398:(although I will move it to the first link by tomorrow. Thanks as always for your time. 2825: 2766: 2693: 2584: 2488: 2468: 2332: 2168: 2045: 1961: 1888: 1832: 1448: 1377: 964: 795: 629: 546: 510: 349: 240: 184: 132:

I see you are currently active, and I'm hoping you will have an opportunity to look at

2642: 879: 698: 2795: 2674: 2558: 2437: 2213: 2077:

KrakatoaKatie, you have given me a warning for original research edit in the article

1733: 1233: 1218: 1087: 1066: 908: 824: 739: 579: 462: 328: 313: 1187:. :-). I should know how to use preview by now, right? Merry Christmas to you too! 2865: 2513: 2498: 2403: 2308: 2285: 1826: 1817: 1759: 1304:

Category:Knowledge files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of unknown date

1266: 1253: 1106: 1692: 1659: 344:

been citation on the cite as well.. There is no reason for this to be changed .--

2814: 2691:

contributions and you'll see what I mean. Let me know what you find. Thanks! :-)

2089:

and is tagging the edits falsely as "vandalism" and "original research", et. al.

1988: 1925: 1855: 1579: 499: 202: 114: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2808: 2574: 2399: 2238: 1538: 1243: 1184: 1156: 278: 176: 2580: 2484: 2479: 2464: 2131:

Your link is to a newspaper article on a court case involving an airport - a

2113: 2109: 2086: 2043:

care that you were removing content over and over again. And now you aren't.

1956: 338: 180: 2433: 2209: 2162: 2105: 1755: 1229: 1214: 324: 309: 734:. As the ANI discussion is now archived, I'm adding new IPs to my list at 2509: 2195: 1680:. (They previously edited, presumably accidentally, while logged out as 1687: 1654: 1875:

Nobody is 'getting his way'. If you have an edit to make, you can use

1647: 1575: 1519: 1501: 1475: 1430: 1338: 1325: 1307: 417: 1429:

Me sorry, Katie. I thought you had gone off the air for the night. :(

323:

Same thing to you! I wish you a merry Christmas and a wonderful 2011!

2233: 1947: 2265: 2281: 218: 1807: 2116:. Off the top of my head, I remember the two big red lights: 2896: