User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:KrakatoaKatie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Billy the Kid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Fe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for leading me into a death trap. Now, because I didn't think everything through at ANI, they think I should get a WP:BOOMERANG. What am I to do? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't 'lead' you anywhere. I sympathize, because everybody's done that at one time or another, but I think at this point you should drop the stick. Let whatever happens happen. Stay away from ANI unless you're asked a direct question. If it makes you feel better, somebody called me 'an affront to common decency' today, so there's that. Katietalk 00:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Time issues
I see that you warned 173.184.253.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) before I had blocked them. On my end it looks like they vandalized DirecTV at 9:33am my time [1], while you warned them at 9:28am my time [2], so at first glance the vandalism came after the final warning, but then I noticed the article you warned them for vandalizing was the one I see them having vandalized five minutes after your warning. Apparently either I have some sort of time issue on my end or you should be buying a lottery ticket and betting on the next World Series. Since the former is much more likely the case, sorry for blocking them when you chose to warn them first. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ks0stm: I almost blocked them myself but I'm just AGFing all over the place these days. OTOH, go Royals! Katietalk 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Billy the Kid
Hi. I notice you've been doing some useful clean up work on Billy the Kid. It has been nominated for GA, but the nominator is not available, and is not an experienced editor. It looks to me that the nomination was a mistake as, even with your clean up, there is a lot of work that needs doing just on formatting the article, let alone on verifying the research. My feeling is that this article contains random information on the topic rather than an organised and trustworthy summary of the important verifiable details, and should be treated as a start article rather than one ready for nomination to GA. However, I am always willing to keep a GAN open if there are people willing and able to do the work required in a reasonable time frame. Would you be willing to take on the work? Or, if you are interested in improving the article, would you rather work on it at your leisure and nominate it yourself at a later date? My instinct is to simply quick fail this, but I do like to give articles a chance. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: I agree it should be a start article at present. I was pretty shocked when I noticed the GA nom (I have that gadget that puts the article class on the page). The guy who put much of that OR in is a researcher/author in the field, and I got into it because someone brought his behavior to ANI about a week ago (it's in the latest archive). I'm cleaning it up and setting it up for Harvard referencing, but it has no business being a GAN right now. I'm also worried that a lot of the smaller refs in the article, such as to city directories and Census reports, are taken/inferred from books that cite those directories and Census reports instead of the actual documents themselves. I found two of those yesterday. In short, it's a train wreck out yonder on the AT&SF, and it'll be a spell afore I reckon I can get 'er done, so go ahead and quick fail it. ;-) I think I'll take it on as a long-term project, and before I nominate it for GA I'll come help you guys review GANs. I've been meaning to get into that for a while and it's a good reason to do it. My GA priority, though, is USS Oklahoma (BB-37) and I'm still compiling research for that. Thanks for letting me know about this. :-) Katietalk 16:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: One more thing - is there a problem with using shortened footnotes in GAs? There are a bunch of sources by the same authors in this article, and they're all RS, so I thought shortened footnotes would be the way to go. We're using {{sfn}}s in the Oklahoma article and I'd kinda like to know if it's not the way to go, so I can take both articles one way or the other. Katietalk 17:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The shortened footnote method is the secondary method on Wikipedia (the full citation method is the most popular), but is liked by a significant number of Featured and Good article contributors to give it an appearance of authority on quality articles, so a number of editors feel they must change long cites to short ones. Neither GA or FA require short cites, but nor do they penalise their use. GA criteria is simply that the article is cited and uses an appropriate footnotes section to collect the cites in an organised manner. For GA you may use a mix of short and long, but for FA you must select one or the other. The cite system should not be changed from one system to the other without good reason. This is against guidelines, as it can lead to an edit war with people changing from one method to another on a personal whim. The full citation method is the easiest for readers and reviewers to read. The short method is easiest for editors as it takes up less space on the editing page, and requires the least amount of input when placing a new cite. If you wish to prioritise editing over reading, then go for the short method. If you wish to prioritise reading over editing, then go for the long method, even though it's a little more awkward for editors. Before changing from one system to the other you should get consensus first, though if you are the primary contributor to an article, then you don't need to do that! It's a tricky call; personally I tend to side with readability and prefer the long cite method (where possible linking to a GoogleBooks page to assist with fact checking). I'd prefer we did without the short citation method completely, but I doubt we'd ever get agreement on that as some of our best contributors like using it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: I don't really care which is used, but I agree it should go one way or the other with consensus. I think MILHIST uses shortened footnotes primarily and that's where my confusion came from. There isn't really a system right now at that article – the references section is nearly unreadable with the entire freaking cite in there every freaking time and it's a nightmare to edit too. Fortunately, I can find Google Books URLs for most of the books (and WorldCat for all of them so far); haven't started on the periodicals. Drmies took a machete to the thing overnight and that may have solved a lot of the problem, but I'll have to get into it today to see. Thanks so much for your help! :-) Katietalk 14:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- MILHIST are a well organised, smartly run project (kinda like a military organisation ;-) ). They like to do things their own way (for example, they only accepted the use of C class grading in article assessments in 2011, three years after other projects), and prefer editors to follow their guidelines. As a project, they probably work together better than most, and are probably responsible for more FA and GA articles than any other project, so if they are suggesting the use of short citations in articles under their umbrella, then it would be collegiate to follow that guideline.
- I've closed the Billy the Kid GAN, and so taken the article and your talkpage off my watchlist. I turned off the ping notice years ago (as an ex-member of ArbCom my name was often pinged simply to drag me into debates where I didn't truly belong), so please don't think me rude if I don't respond further here, even with a ping. If you want to get in touch, please leave a note on my talkpage. I'd be happy to talk further with you any time. (I probably should turn the ping back on, as I doubt if people are still pinging me as frequently as they once did!) SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: I don't really care which is used, but I agree it should go one way or the other with consensus. I think MILHIST uses shortened footnotes primarily and that's where my confusion came from. There isn't really a system right now at that article – the references section is nearly unreadable with the entire freaking cite in there every freaking time and it's a nightmare to edit too. Fortunately, I can find Google Books URLs for most of the books (and WorldCat for all of them so far); haven't started on the periodicals. Drmies took a machete to the thing overnight and that may have solved a lot of the problem, but I'll have to get into it today to see. Thanks so much for your help! :-) Katietalk 14:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- The shortened footnote method is the secondary method on Wikipedia (the full citation method is the most popular), but is liked by a significant number of Featured and Good article contributors to give it an appearance of authority on quality articles, so a number of editors feel they must change long cites to short ones. Neither GA or FA require short cites, but nor do they penalise their use. GA criteria is simply that the article is cited and uses an appropriate footnotes section to collect the cites in an organised manner. For GA you may use a mix of short and long, but for FA you must select one or the other. The cite system should not be changed from one system to the other without good reason. This is against guidelines, as it can lead to an edit war with people changing from one method to another on a personal whim. The full citation method is the easiest for readers and reviewers to read. The short method is easiest for editors as it takes up less space on the editing page, and requires the least amount of input when placing a new cite. If you wish to prioritise editing over reading, then go for the short method. If you wish to prioritise reading over editing, then go for the long method, even though it's a little more awkward for editors. Before changing from one system to the other you should get consensus first, though if you are the primary contributor to an article, then you don't need to do that! It's a tricky call; personally I tend to side with readability and prefer the long cite method (where possible linking to a GoogleBooks page to assist with fact checking). I'd prefer we did without the short citation method completely, but I doubt we'd ever get agreement on that as some of our best contributors like using it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
|
|
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! |
Merry stuff.
.jpg)
Poepkop (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Poepkop (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sicily
Why you have protected the page Sicily ? censorship?--151.44.201.158 (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Starting an SPI on C_1_J_1_7_L_9_4
Given his immediate attention paid to and similarity of style of editing articles that Amerijuanican was sockpuppet-banned for, how much water must be allowed to pass under the bridge before an SPI can be launched?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/C_1_J_1_7_L_9_4
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Amerijuanican
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/UnbiasedVictory
I'm sure HLGallon would be a valuable resource ITR, too TIA Natty10000 | Natter 18:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Natty10000: Blocked indef based on behavioral evidence. You can add him to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory. Katietalk 19:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wilco and muchas gracias Natty10000 | Natter 21:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Same guy same articles same editing pattern, same IP address, same quick delete on anything put on his talk page. It is the same guy. I've rolled back his change. However this fellow is still editing and edit warring.Tirronan (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wilco and muchas gracias Natty10000 | Natter 21:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Natty10000: Blocked indef based on behavioral evidence. You can add him to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory. Katietalk 19:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello KrakatoaKatie: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tito Dutta (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
2016
|
|
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. |
Happy New Year KrakatoaKatie!
.jpg)
KrakatoaKatie,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
.
Happy New Year, KrakatoaKatie!
KrakatoaKatie,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 10:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Happy New Year, KrakatoaKatie!
KrakatoaKatie,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.
After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.
We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Christmas!
|
Happy Christmas! | |
| Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Yo Ho Ho
_(14586469407).jpg)
MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.
- Saw your edit summary here and just had to stop by and wish your a Merry Christmas as well KK. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
AN3 complaint about Royce Gracie
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Two users reported by User:172.56.34.223 (Result: ). Since you've just semiprotected per RFPP, do you want to close the AN3 report? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
..for the "autopatrolled" approval. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867
Hi Katie,
thanks for the protection, but you should have done by not letting the reverted content to be conserved, but that one was left by me, did you read on Ritchie333's talk page (Austrian Empire section) my inquiry? Please modify it as I asked, thus the Administrators who are not experts in the topic can easily see the root of them problem, since they are able to compare it to the two other corresponding articles debated on the same grounds (that was left as the opposing party edited jsut because of our good faith...(KIENGIR (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC))
- @KIENGIR: Please see my user page. I do not care which version is protected. I care that this edit war on that page stops, and now it has. If you move to another page in this topic area, you've been warned about the sanctions authorized under ARBEURO, and that single warning is all that's required (though now you've had two). Stop blindly reverting and propose some changes other editors can get behind. Katietalk 01:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Katie,
- since the topic has not any real connection to Eastern-Europe, only Central-Europe. Your last accusation is not valid, since I never do blind reverts and I was the only one who gave professional details and argumentation and proof against that type of vandalism the correspondent pages are suffered. Just analyze any of the talk pages. Blind reverts was made by Hebel, not me! An administrator has to be very much careful before making accusations, since in a way you are the judges of Wikipedia!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC))
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- @George Ho: I'm going to let the Khan article expire. On the fence about Venkat (BLP), but I think I'll allow it to expire also. Let's see what happens over the next few days. Katietalk 01:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Report against KIENGIR for breaking 1RR at Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867
Hello. KIENGIR broke the 1RR imposed by you at Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. I reported him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:KIENGIR_reported_by_User:123Steller_.28Result:_.29. I thought to notfy you about this. 123Steller (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Final warning
Your final warning of Jrwilson1997 (talk · contribs) didn't have much impact. That user deleted your warning, then made two more edits where they cited a source called "The Los Angeles and Neighborhoods Real Estate Blog". I've been trying to clean up this editor's lengthy mess. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Magnolia677: Don't care that he deleted the warning 'cause that means he saw it. Looked at the source, which is a Vox Media site. I don't know what is and isn't an RS for real estate and stuff about where people once lived, but it's a source, he's making an effort, and that's where I came from at AIV. Keep trying to engage the guy. If he continues to refuse to discuss, that's something for ANI. I know your patience must be tested. You're doing a great job. :-) Katietalk 13:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
|
Methinks you should have a sweet something after your burger, so here it is :-) Poepkop (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
Disney's Animal Kingdom and List of Disney's Animal Kingdom attractions
Hi there Katie. Thanks for blocking the ip address that kept vandalizing Disney's Animal Kingdom. Unfortunately, that hasn't seemed to stop whomever is vandalizing the page, and they have also moved onto List of Disney's Animal Kingdom attractions. Though it seems that all of the vandalism is coming from ip addresses registered to Comcast Communications in Mount Laurel, NJ, they seem to be using different ones to vandalism the page. I was hoping you could semi-protect those pages. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Elisfkc: Don't need to semi-protect them. Today is lesson one - well, maybe 0.5 - in IPv6 addressing for non-admins.
- This is all the work of one guy. His range block expired, so he's back. That's all this is. Look at one of your page histories (and give me diffs next time, would ya? thanks!) and examine the IPv6 addresses that have been doing this for weeks. See how the first four groups of numbers and letters, up through CF54, match? That's the biggest clue for the non-technically minded that this is one person. It's like the duck test only with mathematical proof. When we put the list of IPv6 addresses into our handy dandy rangeblock calculators, it comes out that it's one end user. IPv6 addresses look intimidating and scary because OMG MATH THINK OF THE CHILDREN but they're really not. In some ways, it's much simpler, once the headache goes away and your eyes lose their glassy feeling.
- Since he knows better, and he began disruption immediately after his one-week block expired, he wins a brand-spankin' new one-month block for disruption. I can do this all year long, so if he decides he has nothing better to do on February 3, let me know. :-) Katietalk 13:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for both the block and the explanation Katie. I figured it was something similar to that, though I was presuming that the same person was using separate computers instead. Elisfkc (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Sandbox Usertalkpage
Hi Katie, it just ocurred to me that the existence of a Sandbox Usertalkpage [3] is probably superfluous, so can I just (after today's vandal creation) nominate it for deletion (MfD), or does it need to be maintained now (for whatever purpose, e.g. its history)? I am asking you since you put effort in it by semiprotecting the page. Actually, at first I did not know what to do since rollback was of course impossible, and then I figured I can just blank the page, but then he/she will start trolling again, and so he/she did.
And about thanking people for edits (in the History view): after one thanks, it says "thanked" in black letters, so one cannot double thank someone mistakenly for one and the same edit. However, the next day this is not visible anymore, and all edits are blue clickeable again. How do I make sure I do not double thank people for one and the same edit, if I cannot remember I did already (unless the software simply does not let it through)? Thanks, Poepkop (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC).
- @Poepkop: I'll delete the page for you if you want, or you can tag it as {{db-u1}} and it'll go into the CSD queue. As for the Wikilove thing, I'm not sure. Maybe it's a bug. Or maybe it's a feature. :-) Katietalk 22:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Katie, mm well yes if and when you have a minute please do remove it, I guess you will put some lava onto it and its gone? ;-) Poepkop (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
- Thanks! Poepkop (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
- Katie, mm well yes if and when you have a minute please do remove it, I guess you will put some lava onto it and its gone? ;-) Poepkop (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
A cup of tea for you!
|
Good luck at your WikiCup campaign! Belated Happy New Year! :D Babymissfortune 11:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
Royce Gracie
Hi, you wisely protected the Royce Gracie page a few days ago to stop the edit warring going on. Well the IP user(s) and an account created precisely for more reverting, reinserted the unreferenced content. I suspect that these accounts are controlled by CrazyAces, the only other editor who had kept reverting SubSeven and others when he removed the content. CrazyAces stopped editing from his main account awhile back to, again, avoid scrutiny and potential blocks. Do what you will (or not) with this user, but what I'm more concerned about is the integrity of the article. Is it possible for you to reinforce the protection to the page and revert the disputed content? Thank you for your time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- @TheGracefulSlick: Can you give me a few diffs here? Just a few, to refresh my memory. It's not the only iron I have in the fire. ;-) Katietalk 12:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What about this one? --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- No to both. Please stop worrying so much about pages with expiring protection. We're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and we take that seriously. We can always add it back later. Katietalk 16:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I can't do that, especially when pages are at stake. I know which ones to ask. If you refuse anything from me, I guess I can take things to RFPP next time. --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
AIV reports
Hi.
I just saw that some reports I made at WP:AIV was removed in this edit you made, and I am trying to figure out why so that I can be even better in reporting (and choose when to report).
First of all I am wondering about 208.95.241.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 208.58.72.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which actually is the same editor, has not been blocked? The nomination was supported by an other editor. One of the IP adresses was blocked until 6 January, and when that expired both IP's started vandalizing immediately. The case has been discussed at article talkpage Talk:FC Bayern Munich but the two IP's still continue.
Secondly I wonder why Ilirsejdiu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not blocked after posting this personal attack after final warning?
As I said, I am trying to learn why, so please dont take this as criticism. Qed237 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: No problem, and thanks for asking. You can criticize me all you want. :-)
- I remember the registered account better, so I'll take him first. The PA was from two days ago, and I have a hard time blocking someone for something done that long ago, particularly since no one acted on it in the meantime. His edit today goes back to something I said at AN yesterday about American admins, me included, being clueless about football and footballers. I don't know if the edit he made today is good or not - I know there's a timestamp you guys use and it looks like he updated that, so it's not clear vandalism to me. (More on that in a sec.)
- To your IPs: the first IP hasn't edited today at all, and the second has made one edit today. That may be long term disruption, but it's not current vandalism. The reports sat for several hours with no action, and it's become our practice at AIV to clear the old and/or stale reports after, say, five or six hours. If they're sitting there that long with that many people watching and no one has acted yet, they're not going to, and any vandalism or disruption from those accounts has stopped (or never started in the first place - you'd be surprised).
- I know Ymblanter is familiar with football, so if you're having some trouble with current, ongoing vandalism to a football/footballer article and haven't found a solution, you might see if he's active then and ping him to take a look. We're trying to get these early American am problems resolved; it's been an ongoing issue for many months now. I've been a little under the weather and one of our main AIV/RFPP admins is on a break right now, but hopefully we'll do better. If you have more questions, lemme have 'em. :-) Katietalk 21:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you very much for the explanation. I have been very busy myself IRL so I may have reported a bit late, which seem to have had an affect on these cases. And the edit from the registered account that was made after the personal attack was actually good. However, I do believe that I will come across both the IP's and the account in the future as well, so I may re-report them in the future. The IP's maybe to ANI instead.
- There are som admins I know are involved in football related editing and I talk with them a lot about different things but sometimes I feel AIV/RFPP/ANI is a better choice, especially if I can not find an active admin. I was not aware of the fact that there is a American am problem, but now that I think about it I may have noticed it.
- On a side note, I have myself considered to become an admin. Two times other editors have opened a RFA for me, but I have declined both times feeling I was not ready, and editors have said they would support me in RFA. I have since read through a lot of guidelines one by one (making sure I understand before moving to the next one, no rush) including guidelines for admins and perhaps soon I will make a request or at least WP:ORCP. Being heavily involved in football, I think I could specially help with RPP as many BLP's needs protection during transfer seasons (a lot of unsourced edits based on rumours) but also at AIV. I have a very high "success rate" at both places and being a European it could help the American am" problem. Also in the notability part I think I can be a good help, all of my created articles have been accepted without any problems and only one AfD I have nominated has led to "keep" (have probably nominated at least 50 articles). The major issue is that I am not an English native, but I think my English is good enough, and although I have never been blocked I have been close two or three times (edit warring). Qed237 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, when you get ready and need a co-nominator, I'd be happy to do it. Your English is terrific - I couldn't tell you're a non-native speaker. Keep up the good work. :-) Katietalk 01:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Ban evading sock at AN/I
80.44.162.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) could we get a block please? -- samtar whisper 14:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)