User talk:Kingsmasher678

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello, and welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to ask me anything, and refrain from removing or editing the questions or statements of others, unless they violate wiki policy. ___________________________________________________________________

This YuiBalle fella

It's quite remarkable. I don't think I've ever seen anyone make as many poor edits in such a short amount of time! I am not convinced they're doing it maliciously, but they certainly seem... incompetent?

Thanks for your work, too, in cleaning up their mess. — tooki (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to be the first to say that, but I would tend to agree. It's taken up a solid 45 minutes of my life reverting their various edits, and they don't seemed to have learned from communication. What would you say the next step is?

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just 45 mins? I've spent a few hours (admittedly, with some excursions when I found the article in question interesting!).

I don't know what the right step is. Without evidence of it being vandalism (and I honestly don't see any), a block/ban seems excessive, but this user is also unwittingly doing lots of damage. I'd love to for them to just switch to only making properly-cited edits to facts, but not try and change style, tone, wording, or punctuation of existing text. — tooki (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ping @Joyous! and @Hey man im josh, also @YuiBalle as per WP:TALKDD. I've had positive interactions with both, and they may be able to help us with some perspective. Pending a reply from either of them, I think we should continue to keep and eye out and revert where necessary, while continuing to WP: Assume Good Faith. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. I do believe this editor is acting in good faith (and indeed a few of their edits areactual improvements), but just lacks the "eye" for it. Let me know if you need me to do anything. — tooki (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames

Most accounts never edit. There's no point in reporting an account until they've edited. Secretlondon (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Kingsmasher678, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Kingsmasher678 for accumulating at least 50 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Anachronism

I am pretty sure articles first created in 2005 are not meant to be unreviewed; the language at the relevant section of the main NPP page makes it pretty clear that it is meant to be used for articles recently patrolled by a still-active patroller. Mach61 19:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ahh sorry, won't do that again. Though it did get the desired result of getting a second set of eyes on it! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Kingsmasher678! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing

Your recent move of the Caves of Western Australia is intriguing, I would like to ask if you are going to do that for the of Australia, then, the whole world? Or what is it about Western Australia that deserves such an interesting change with no notice? Your answer (with clear links) to such a change would be appreciated, thanks. JarrahTree 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

Sorry about the forgotten edit summary, that was an oversight. I made the move based on the name of the list being different than the inclusion criteria given in the lede.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my messages for good reason, unreverting has not helped. Edit summaries are not necessarily a way of doing a move, however uncontroversial. The notion of 'karst features' being applied to lists of caves are not coterminous, or necessarily of interest to the reader. There should have been a separation of the two notions of landscape features. Sorry in this case is not helpful, editing so as to determine the separation or distinction is far more useful. The karst features of australia are a more complex feature than caves and shouldnt have been bundled together, if there was a list of caves it could have been separated. JarrahTree 02:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was not one, and I made a change to the title to adequately describe what the list actually represented. I then went back and corrected the double redirects that I found. There is a list of all caves in Australia, found here, but that is separate from the list I moved. You can literally see in the first sentence of the list I moved what its parameters are. These encompass more features than the original name suggested, so I changed the name to reflect that.

Would you be willing to restate what your issue with the move is, precisely?

Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion potential at the project page before moving, for a start. Simple courtesy - some unnanounced page moves without room for discussion can lead to issues that are not worth considering here.

It is not a simple move as the context is changed by the lead paragraph - which is fine for the new title, but the assumption of the redirect is a fallacy - there is subsequently room for a new list of caves that can be created that is not confusing for the reader.

The problem is also the extent of such titles/lead paragraph explanation reaches to all other Australian state lists of caves/karst phenomenon - the issue of precedence/consistency also is one to be considered. If the national speleo body has it as their standard - there are all the other states and territories need to distinction between karst/cave lists and whatever.

Edit summaries and then action in this case might be considered a way to do things, in this case, a preliminary discussion and/or explanation - always helps and confirms what is happening and is less likely to bring on issues. All the best. JarrahTree 05:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that does make some sense! Overall, I think that you have point, but the redirect can always simply be overwritten by someone if they want to create that list. I also don't think that there is much of an argument for precedent here, as there is only one other list of the same scope, this one. All the best, and thanks for the note! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007 the list making was ferocious, as almost every possible geographic feature of the state of western australia was captured, and no prisoners taken, lakes, rivers, and much more. The main progenitor has moved on, and classically the project as it stands has no current maintainer/make of sense curator for the residual lists and categories - as a result items have/can carry contexts that are not necessarily updated/maintained or checked for validity in the following 17 years, and anomalies such as that which you have picked up are no doubt lingering in there somewhere down a rabbit/wombat hole waiting for the prince charming such as yourself to rescue them from oblivion. Keep up the good work, caves need a lot of work - and any on wikipedia material about karst features of the nullarbor is something that is totally inadequate. JarrahTree 05:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm gonna leave the page move for now but I'll take a look later and work out what revision things went south at. The cave and karst stuff is my project for now, and I would love to know if you have in put on this here.

Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buddhist cave temples in Ladakh has been nominated for merging

Category:Buddhist cave temples in Ladakh has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]