User talk:Kurtis/Archive 9

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

You know why -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I don't. What are you talking about? Kurtis ^(talk) 12:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

You're welcome. Honestly, the only reason I'd never envisioned you as an administrator before is because I thought you weren't interested in becoming one (similar to Carrite). But you're definitely qualified and I think we'll benefit greatly from your services in your new role. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw ^talk 05:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Kurtis, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh 666 22:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral and content dispute

Hi! Im contacting you because you are listed as an editor willing to provide behavioral and content assistance. I would like you to take a look at the content dispute and the behavior of the editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, the administrator that backs them .

The full content dispute of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pythagoras is found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811537461 since a fellow friend editor Dr. K who seems to be a meatpuppet of the editor I am having the dispute with erased my last entry. I would like you to look at the sources I have provided and my analysis on the source his has provided (which leaves out plenty of ancient biographers that state Pythagoras's father was from Tyre) and to bring an objective view into this discussion.

I would also like you to look into this editors behaviors as him and fellow editor friends (Dr K and Khirurg) seem to be meatpuppets as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. When editor Katolophyromai felt like he was losing the debate he resorted to accusing me of sockpuppeting to his fellow meatpuppet Dr. K which you can look at here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.K.#ViamarisBalbi_is_back_under_two_new_sockpuppet_accounts

This is the second (or perhaps third) time Katolophyromai and Khirurg has gotten help from his fellow friend editor Dr. K who does not participate in the discussions/talk page in a productive/objective way but is always ready to take their side and game the system as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system to support his friend editors with their edit reversals. The previous time they accused ViamarisBalbi of personal attacks against the editor he was having a content dispute and got him blocked when in reality if you look at his appeal on his talk page he really wasnt making personal attacks. Dr. K always resorts to administrator Kuru who always takes their side and does not seem to care that editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K are involved in the edit reversal of sourced contents which is obvious vandalism and POV pushing. You can see previous examples of their meatpuppetry in the following cases:

Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, all edit on similar articles related to Ancient Greece and Greek nationalism. It also happens that their usernames all sound Greek and start with letter K which makes their connection seem a bit too obvious and suspicious. I would highly appreciate your time and help on looking on this. ViamarisBalbi and I believe that legitimate sockpuppeting might be the only way to stop this harassment since filling ISP reports for meatpuppeting sometimes get lost in limbo or take too long to be reviewed and these editors wont stop Wikihouding as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and continue their witch hunt as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Witch_hunt to prevent ViamarisBalbi and CalinicoFire from making sourced contributions. Thanks CalinicoFire (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kurtis. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioned discussion on arbitration proposed decision talk pages

Hi Kurtis, I have been directed by the Arbitration Committee to section your comments on the Joefromrandb and others proposed decision talk page in accordance with the notice at the talk of the page ("with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section"). Please make future comments in your section only. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar

I believe that this is one of the most powerful messages that an editor can make. It's often hard for people to say that they've changed their minds, no matter what the subject is. I'm glad that you are part of our community, and I hope that more of us find the courage to follow your example in keeping an open mind and being willing to change our minds when we think it's warranted. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar and the vote of confidence. It's always good to know that your contributions are appreciated in some way. I do try my best to keep an open mind about things wherever possible; I will often find myself being convinced by the opposing points in a given argument if I take the time to listen to them. In this case, it never occurred to me that the 250 character limit was a hindrance for other editors, and so I think expanding it for them is a good idea. As for changing my mind publicly, I've never seen anything shameful about admitting when you're wrong or changing your beliefs when evidence contradicts them - it never influences my opinion of those who do come out in support or opposition to something for which they once felt differently - so I figure, why should I be ashamed? It has never felt like an act of courage to me, although I suppose I can understand why some may think of it as one. In any case, I very much appreciate the barnstar and hope to continue seeing you around for years to come. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years of editing

Hey, Kurtis. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated. :) Kurtis ^(talk) 13:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Kurtis/Archive 9,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well. Hard to believe that I first registered this account ten years ago - it doesn't feel like a very long time at all. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I owe you one of these! Many thanks for your advice and support. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad to see that you're able to edit your favorite topic again. :) Kurtis ^(talk) 19:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kurtis. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Brad v🍁 21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never too late. Hell, if you wished me a happy 2018, I'd probably still appreciate it - though it may not retroactively become a better year as a result. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 03:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chhota Shakeel

Kurtis,please help.This page has been semi protected for alleged vandalism but that in itself is vandalism.A number of edits with verifiable citational sources have been undone and the identity that semi-protected it in itself is suspicious. If possible can you add the following content to the page and remove the page to Biographies of Non living persons and remove the Semi Protected tag.

question

Please see my talk page. What do you think I should do at this point? Keep editing while the ANI is active or stop? Try to answer/comment in the ANI or not (I don't want to create an argument)? I am not experienced in this sort of thing. Thanks Hmains (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmains: Hey Hmains, thanks for the post - glad to offer my perspective. First, I think it's always a good idea for an editor to participate in an ANI discussion if it pertains to them directly, even if it's just one post acknowledging the concerns raised. It demonstrates a willingness to engage with contributors who disagree with some aspect of your editing, which would reflect well on you. I definitely empathize with wanting to avoid Wikipedia's bureaucracy; it can be an ugly place sometimes. As for your other question, you can certainly continue editing while the discussion is ongoing, though I think it's a good idea to avoid using AWB for the time being.

I can't make any guarantees one way or the other. In the end, you might wind up having to take a community-enforced break from AWB for a while. If it comes down to that, just remember: you are still a valued part of our community. We know you do a lot for Wikipedia. That holds true whether you have AWB or not. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

based on the ill informed comments on the ANI, maybe I will just quit. I did not come here to be abused and insulted.

Please participate to the talk pages consultation

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this. I would have liked to participate, but I was a bit preoccupied with other things at the time. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi.

In WP:ANI, you said:

Sam Sailor was transferring your original post from RM/TR to the article's talk page, which is where requested moves are usually discussed. Your comment, including your signature, was copied along with it. Apart from uncontroversial fixes (e.g. spelling and grammar, reverting vandalism), requested moves are generally discussed on article talk pages to determine whether or not there is a consensus in favor of renaming. RM/TR is intended more for situations where a page move is prevented by some sort of technical issue, such as the destination page being move-protected or already existing.

If that's indeed the cast, Sam Sailor was performing an act of kindness, not a forgery. But still, it does not justify his constant reinstatements of the transfer and forcing the community to go through the bells and whistles of bureaucracy in a gross violation of WP:BURO. Sometimes, it is WP:SNOW. He viewed me as a vandal, not a person who wants to make his life easier. Most of the times, it seems you Wikipedia regulars don't understand what you are doing and why you are doing it.

As far as my side of the problem is concerned, having a message with my signature on it has a modicum of responsibility that must not be forced upon me.

5.219.86.66 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 5.219.86.66, closing an RM for a contested page move is not permitted by policy, and repeatedly reverting its reinstatement would be seen as edit-warring, even if it was based on a misunderstanding. I should also take this opportunity to give you a heads-up that the discussion may not go the way you want it to – and that's okay. Part of being a Wikipedian is accepting that oftentimes, we don't get what we want. Happens to all of us at some point or another. It might suck, but in the grand scheme of things, it's usually not a big deal. Whether a surname is designated as a disambiguation page or a redirect is not something that I personally feel is worth losing any sleep over. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised to learn that I actually have a much better command of Wikipedia policies than you might have assumed. It is not okay to copy and paste a message from someone in another place and make it look like that person posted that exact same message again. 5.219.86.66 (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think Sam Sailor was acting in good faith by attempting to bring the discussion to the article's talk page, and never meant any offense by it. Should they have copied your comment and pasted it onto another page in the manner that they did? No, I would say they probably shouldn't have; however, they might have thought that you had mistakenly posted the RM in the wrong place, and took it upon themselves to transfer it at your behest. I think the best response would have been to leave a note below their new post indicating that it was moved there by another editor, and that you were not the one who initiated the talk page discussion. Then leave a polite note on Sam's talk page requesting that in the future, he takes care not to copy/paste fellow editors' comments under new subheaders in such a way that it looks like the original author reposted it there. That way a misunderstanding can be cleared up, Sam'll know better for next time, and nobody makes the mistake of thinking that you were the initiator of the talk page conversation. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... at least with most of what you said, if not with absolutely all of it. Hopefully, he won't try to be forcibly kind. 😉 5.75.26.248 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!!

Hey, Kurtis. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silly editing slip

In my recent email to yo I wrote "Since you are an administrator..." What I meant to write was "Since you are not an administrator..." It's not quite the same thing. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. It was clear in context what you meant. ;) (For the record, I haven't been too active lately, so if anyone's wondering if I've been planning on filing an RfA – probably not anytime in the near future.) Kurtis ^(talk) 22:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]