User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions with 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 35

←

Archive 40

Clarification

Hi Katie. With this edit, you declined an attempt by User:AdamDeanHall to get User:Howiebraunstein blocked for vandalism. You inserted a note asking the reporter to ensure the problematic edits were actually vandalism before making a report at AIV. A few things:

Hall reported Braunstein at AIV two minutes after warning him. In other words, Braunstein had no real opportunity to prove vandal intent by ignoring a warning.

Hall has been editing Wikipedia for just over ten years.

Braunstein's edits were not vandalism. They weren't great and it's good that he's been reverted, but while all vandal edits are bad, not all bad edits are vandalism.

I've been having a bit of a row with User:Drmargi. She believes that my judgment call, that Hall's report at AIV was itself vandalism, was me helping myself to an option, removing a report from an administrative noticeboard, that I don't have as a non-admin. I don't agree with this. There's nothing at WP:VANDAL that restricts me from removing what I perceive to be blatant vandalism from an administrative noticeboard. Also, I've removed at least one other terrible report from AIV with no issues. Even still, I can still see how I might be a little too far out of my lane on this. So at long last, here's my point:

Given Hall's ten-year tenure, was I right to consider his AIV report vandalism?

If it was vandalism, can I remove it from AIV?

And I apologize for this. I hope you don't waste too much time on this drama since your admin output is really good. Thanks, RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: Thanks for the compliment. :-) This is the logos in the TV schedule thing, right? Let's see if I can address your questions.

First, nothing here is vandalism – not the edits that were reported and not the report itself. We run into the warn-then-run-to-AIV-in-ten-seconds stuff all the time. It's not a real day unless I've dealt with that at least twice, and I have been known to get a bit testy about it. :-) It's annoying to admins because it wastes our time, but it's not vandalism. Vandalism is a malicious attempt to disrupt the project deliberately. Neither editor here was trying to do that. One editor wants logos there and others don't. AIV is not the place to deal with a content dispute.
Second, you do NOT want to get into an edit war over removing an AIV report. If you're in doubt that the report was pure disruption, just leave it there and one of us will deal with it eventually (or we'll watch it for a while and let it go stale, which was what was happening before I stuck my little nose into it). You're absolutely welcome to make a comment, but let us handle the resolution. It's better for everybody that way.

Editor tenure has nothing to do with nothing. If you have a problem with the behavior here, ANI is thataway, but I think this is a content issue. Hope that helps. Katie^talk 01:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying all this, Katie. Although I'd hardly call it a row, I've been trying to tell RunnyAmiga the same thing, but it seems to go in one ear and out the other. --Drmargi (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It was an overeagerness to jump the gun and start warning Braunstein and reporting him that had me truly shocked, literally open-mouthed, when I found his first edit was made in 2006. Had he not been here since George W. Bush was president, I would have been like, "eh, an admin will bounce that and tell him to figure it out." Am I wrong to think that, after ten years, his failure to know when to warn and report is a much bigger problem than if he'd registered last week?

But I did miss something, and the answer is possibly "yes, I was wrong." His edit summaries, which are often simultaneously perfectly literal and profoundly unhelpful, are probably enough evidence. Nobody in this discussion denies that, strictly speaking, Hall's edits were in compliance with most policy. My concern is that you can be following certain rules and in the process, breaking others. It's possible for Hall to know certain rules and follow them explicitly, deliberately ignore (and in the process, violate) other rules, and not be a bad-faith editor. And it wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss this any further, at least not in public. RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: Well, you can look at it a couple of ways. One way is to understand that putting fair use logos into lists like that can be contentious, and while it isn't vandalism, some editors think it's disruptive. We do block at AIV for disruption. Another way is is what you're alleging, that it's an attempt to 'win' a content dispute. I don't know which is the case, but it seems to have blown over now. Everybody messes up from time to time – it's the way of things. As I said earlier, if you feel there's a long-term behavioral issue, ANI is the place to go. Katie^talk 14:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about being disruptive until Braunstein (who, again, inserted undeniably bad edits that were correctly reverted) shows an insistence on not getting the point. He hasn't edited that article since Hall reverted him so right now, it's moot. But it's not just me who feels like this might not be the ultimate end of it with Hall. Because according to at least one other editor, the behavior I'm worried about has been an issue in the past. (I'm going to ask User:Mrschimpf about this since it's a lot easier to ask him to spotlight problematic edits than for me to, you know, actually put in effort rather than just sit back and complain about stuff.) There are eyes on him, and if I'm right about his tendency to adhere to some policies while violating others, this probably will end up at ANI eventually. RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Small quibble Katie, unimportant to the larger issue, but the logos are public domain, not fair use. If they were fair use Adam's removal would be backed up by policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ADH has had ownership issues with the US television schedule articles through many years; getting through any change to them requires trying to convince ADH that the change makes sense and helps the readability of the article, which is why I felt dropping the vandalism template on the user was out of line and required an answer. They've also been prone to a heavy case of WP:IDHT and often remove any warnings or sanctions off their talk page the first moment they can, and rarely do they respond beyond one or two sentences about an inquiry about an edit, often with a spare 'won't do it again' (in my experience the only way they do respond with more than that is through a trip to 3RR). I agree that the images in that grid couldn't work per WP:ACCESS for sure, but there was no need for ADH to drop a vandalism template on HB, who has had issues with the sourcing and quality of edits but at least is open to listening and adapts, which is why I followed up ADH's template drop on HB's talkpage with a more friendly message about ACCESS. I'm not more open to the dispute here than just ADH's side and their OWN issues with the schedules, so that's what I can say for my observation. Nate • (chatter) 05:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No argument from me regarding ADH's WP:OWN behavior, particularly his tendency to frame edit summaries as order to other editors, and his general lack of responsiveness to the concerns about his approach to editing raised by other editors both in articles and on talk pages, a problem exacerbated by his ability to teflon out of blocks. However... that does not justify anything RustyAmiga did; rather, we have a classic case of two wrongs not making a right. Moreover, I'm concerned, given RA's short tenure as an editor, about his recent self-appointed role as resident hall monitor, particularly where ADH's recent report is concerned. His edit summaries and interactions on his talk page were peppered with personal insults, and no amount of explanation could persuade him that he was misusing accusations of vandalism in precisely the same way as ADH. Worse, his application of policy (policy being synonymous with rules) were strident and overly rigid, and his attempts to establish right v. wrong sarcastic at times. I finally walked away from the discussion both because he clearly wasn't interested in hearing anything that would require he modify his attitudes and behavior, and because I didn't care to be called stupid or be taken to task because of the number of spaces I put after a period (seriously!) If he keeps up like this, he's going to be a real handful. As the boys in Vegas would say, this one's a push. --Drmargi (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

VarunFEB2003

Why have you protected VarunFEB2003's userpage? There's not a single vandal edit in its entire history, and pre-emptive protection of pages in userspace is explicitly forbidden. This is a longish-term problem user who's spent most of his time on Wikipedia goofing around on his userpage (2150 edits to his userpage, 286 edits to articles at the time of writing) and narrowly avoiding being indefblocked under WP:NOTHERE (this thread is fairly representative); I assume his request is due to his feeling that a protected userpage makes him look important, rather than any genuine concern about vandalism. ‑ Iridescent 15:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I hear you. He originally requested ECP as arb enforcement, which I declined (see RFPP, it's still there), and he argued with me about it. Based on that and his behavior at a thread at ANI, I agree that he's skating on the fringes of NOTHERE. That said, I generally grant semi-protection of user pages upon request. If you want to unprotect, however, I have no objection. Katie^talk 16:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say leave as-is unless an IP complains about being unable to edit it. Unless he radically changes his ways I doubt he'll be with us much longer, in which case the point will be moot. (I don't think there's any malice here, just a serious competence issue and a failure to appreciate that Wikipedia's structure isn't hierarchical and that commenting on as many noticeboards as possible doesn't earn you Wikipedia Points.) ‑ Iridescent 16:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I think he's a wannabe who can't read the road map. Katie^talk 16:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ajamu Baraka

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ajamu Baraka. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

I remember that in my request for unblock, you stated that you were telling me not to forumshop because I made a edit warring noticeboard report and a RfPP request simultaneously. However, if I start a thread at WP:EWN about a edit-war that I have not reverted in, could I also request page protection? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Sure, if you're not involved, but really it's best to choose one or the other. I send RFPP requests to AN3 all the time because I don't really investigate edit wars when I'm acting on those requests, and most of the other admins don't either. If I see an RFPP (or even something at AIV) where an edit war is really hot, I'll often go ahead and lock the page and/or hand out blocks mainly because the queue at AN3 takes longer (because it requires investigation and time that RFPP doesn't). Look at it this way: if there's an edit war going on with mere minutes or even seconds between reverts, RFPP is your place. If it's slower, AN3 is better. Hope that helps, and I'm glad you're back. :-) Katie^talk 17:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your decline to Speedy G12 Draft:Tichki

Hi KrakatoaKatie, I'm afraid your reason for declining to delete Draft:Tichki is incorrect. Copying within Wikipedia is subject to exactly the same terms and conditions (CC BY-SA 3.0) as is copying to anywhere else - the licence is not "unconditionally free". There is no record attribution for the copied content at Draft:Tichki, thus it is a copyvio - see WP:ATTREQ. Regards Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I am aware of the conditions of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. There's another CSD criteria, A10, that I think covers this, but I was using Twinkle at the time and it wasn't one of the options (because it isn't in the mainspace and Twinkle gets fussy about that stuff) and then I got busy and forgot. I'll ask at AN about this one because I want to make sure we get it right, and I think this may come up again (or maybe it has in the past and I missed it). Katie^talk 12:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

G3 is also applicable - the draft is an obvious hoax, as a copy of an existing article with only the subject's name changed. (A10 is of course not usable in Draft-space.) However it happens, we just need to get rid of the junk with as little fuss as possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Angle bracket

Hi, I see you've protected Template:Angle bracket citing the perfectly valid reason "Highly visible template". Paradoxically though, the version of the template that protected is the one that contains the TfD notice outside of <noinclude> tags, which was precisely what was causing disruption. Was that on purpose? Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a relevant discussion at WP:ANI#Request for snowball closure of a TfD to prevent large-scale disruption. Uanfala (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Uanfala, should be fixed now. KrakatoaKatie, FYI, regarding Special:Diff/735412828. It happens that most templates transclude a {{Documentation}}, which in turn can automatically pick up on pp-template, so there is generally no need to add pp-template. Cheers — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andy: Thanks. First, no, it wasn't intentional; that should have been template-protected in the first place and I'll let you TEs sort it out. Second, Twinkle adds the template unless we turn it off, and I never turn it off. (I have to be reminded to turn off the iconify tag when I use it to fully protect pages, which happens when I don't see the big banner at the top and I have to smack myself and go remove the small parameter. Fewer choices, the better.) And yes, I'm aware that the template documentation adds the tag for you, but it's faster to use Twinkle than to manually protect, and there are fewer chances of errors in setting type and length. The other one wasn't even eligible for semi-protection, plus that was more of an edit war situation. I hadn't seen the ANI post about it when I declined the request. Thanks again. :-) Katie^talk 20:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahh understood, makes sense :) (I suppose if Twinkle could determine a doc transclusion..? but might be out of scope for that tool.) Thanks, have a good rest of the weekend — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Confused by your response....

I'm sorry to ask but I'm confused by your response as I have reverted several instances of Vandalism on different articles that do show in my history, as a matter of fact I just did one a few moments ago.I found 6 instances in my history within the last month alone. So I'm a little confused here. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Chris: Yes, you're reverting, but you're not reporting to AIV. The criteria for reviewer isn't as strict as it is for rollback. We're looking at the revert/warn/report cycle, and you don't have any of that. It's not a hard thing to fix; there's nothing wrong with the rest of your edit history. Just revert the vandals, warn appropriately, then report or request protection if necessary. I can't judge how well you're reporting vandalism if you're not reporting vandalism. Ask me again here in a couple or three weeks, after you've done that, and I'll take another look. :-) Katie^talk 21:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, I was unaware I was doing tbem wrong Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not doing anything wrong. You're just not taking the last steps. Thanks for doing the work that you're doing. :-) Katie^talk 21:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

IP Ban

Hello Katie I will still have another edit-a-thon this coming Saturday. Apart from the accounts creation, the participants will be editing and I previously had an issue in an edit-a-thon where some of the participants couldn't edit because of thr IP ban.Is there anyway I could address thi issue?--Rberchie (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rberchie: If you create accounts for them, it shouldn't be a problem. 99.9% of IP blocks are anon only. If you know the IP address, look in the block log to make sure. Katie^talk 13:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Wishing KrakatoaKatie a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy birthday, Katie! Hope you've had a good day. :-) Zero^talk 15:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Countyjail

It appears the (banned) user had made a legal threat prior to block, and is abusing the talk page to continue with threats of legal action.--Cahk (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You're mixed up, there are clear legal threats after the block: [1] BethNaught (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I added the word 'not' by mistake. Oops.--Cahk (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for temporary semi-protection

Can a temporary semi-protection request be granted for the page "Björn Kuipers"? If not then can you please consider removing the unnecessary "condensed" tag at the beginning of the page? The IP has disrupted it but if I revert him, he keeps edit warring! So as an administrator I request to take action and delete it because if I do it he will again start edit warring! The page is being worked at to improve it each day but recent the IP is returning after a few days and starting to make disruptive edits! Please help by removing the useless condensed tag! Thanks! Any suggestions or advice on what steps are to be followed are most welcome! Cricket246 (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Cricket246 (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists

You are invited...
	Women in Nursing editathon & Women Labor Activists editathon Hosted by Women in Red - September 2016 - `#wikiwomeninred`

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Blocks

Hi, Katie. You blocked non-existent User:2a01:36d:106:9460::/64 instead of User:2A01:36D:106:9460:6D6E:351A:7D9C:AEF1 (see [2]). Yours, Quis separabit? 16:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@[email protected]: It's a rangeblock. It's one user, and that covers all the IPv6 addresses he's using. See mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6. Katie^talk 17:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. I just thought it might have been a typo or something; those IPs are L-O-N-G. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@[email protected]: It's not difficult. When you see a list of IPv6 addresses, all you need to see to tell if it's the same user is the first four blocks of hexadecimals. If you'll look at the article, you'll find that the first four blocks are identical, so that applies here. It's true that there are thousands of addresses for that user, but if the first four blocks are the same, the probability is extremely high that it's one end user, and that's how most of us treat it. If the first two blocks are identical, it's the same ISP; first three is usually an organization but not necessarily the same end user. It gets more complicated, but with enough experience it gets easier. :-) Katie^talk 17:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

:-)

Hi KK. This is wonderful! I happen to think that the ideas and sentiments expressed at User:KillerChihuahua rank up there with User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. So it makes me very happy to see you pass some of them on to new admins. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 18:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Fatus Fee

Hello I want to know since Fatus Fee page keep getting deleted Fatus Fee has everything but Wikipedia he is a Rapper/Actor/Comedian he is all over TV he has video on Bet Jams , he was star on Tv show Gone in a minute Season 1 ,he has IMDb account for proof he has knowledge panel when you Google him just like any other celebrities he is also older brother to celebrity Duo producer's Christian Rich they have a Wikipedia page I work at Rebel Music Entertainment we are trying to link his Wikipedia to his knowledge panel is it possible if you can do the article on Fatus Fee since it seems to keep getting erase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stop deletion (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

General sanctions notice

You recently left a general sanctions notice. But I have only reverted just once on the Jarabulus offensive (2016) which is allowed per rules. I don't remember making any multiple reverts and I have received the notice earlier as well. I think you've sent the notice in error. If so,can you remove it please. Thanks. Newsboy39 (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Newsboy39: I did not see that template notice in your edit history, and that exact template is required. You can remove it from your talk page at any time. Katie^talk 01:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Newsboy39 (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

James Rodriguez

Hello, James' current club is listed as Chelsea. He is currently a player on Real Madrid. I noticed a few people were changing it. I was going to change it back myself was unable to.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.154.161 (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring to push the Turkey government POV narrative in the Jarabulus offensive (2016) article

Hi, as you demonstrate some administrative responsibility attitude towards the issue, I would like to point your attention to the edit-warring to push the Turkey government POV narrative in the presentation of the Jarabulus offensive (2016) article. There is a small group of users which more or less openly on the talk page even admit their manipulating the article with the aforementioned agenda. It might make sense to take administrative measures to make/keep the article neutral for the purposes and standards of an encyclopedia, I am not sure to which degree normal editors there will have the perseverance to endure that edit-warring and personal attacks on the talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@2A1ZA: Administrators are not content arbiters. Dispute resolution is available for content disputes, and if you cannot resolve this on the talk page, I encourage you to use one of those methods. Be aware that the tolerance for edit warring and disruption on these articles is very low. Katie^talk 01:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought about that and initiated some minor stuff. However my time and willingsness to fight over detail after detail with a bunch of zealots who think they are waging a kind of holy war on Wikipedia has limits. Thanks for the answer. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA Don't make such comments. You shouldn't accuse others. Occasionaly article might contain some topics might be charged with emotion. And people might fall into bias over emotions of nationalism etc. and even might start getting into uncivil behavior. One thing I've learned is don't let their behavior frustrate you. It won't do you or this site any good. Newsboy39 (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Newsboy39 I neither let such stuff frustrate me, nor do I participate in the personalized fight such editors wish to make it. My point was/is that the Wikipedia community must pay attention to such stuff, otherwise there are articles on issues with much public attention that do not fit the quality encyclopedia Wikipedia should be. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Safe Schools Coalition Australia

Did you mean to leave the two contentious contents, that the IPs had been removing, deleted from Talk:Safe Schools Coalition Australia, or did you intend to restore them? —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Up to you guys. Certainly not a personal attack as claimed. I'm looking at a rangeblock but that's a pretty dynamic range. Katie^talk 20:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a personal attack and that the removal is far more problematic than the comment. Under the circumstances, I thought it better to ask than guess wrong and trigger yet one more revert on that page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Blocked 49.196.152.0/21 for 60 hours. I don't think longer than that will do much good but if he persists I can renew it. Hope it helps. :-) Katie^talk 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Wicked006

Hi there, you gave User talk:Wicked006 a short block on the 24th. Unfortunately his first edit since his block expired was exactly the same as all of his previous edits. Can you please consider some further action. Thanks Mattlore (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Mattlore (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for responding to my ANI report about IP vandalism and for your guidance about a better place to make the report next time I see a similar problem. David in DC (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! :-) Katie^talk 14:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Serbia basketball team

Why did you protect article of the Serbian national basketball team... and why did you removed all medals from 1992. THAT IS VANDALISM. Serbia is successor state of FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Motenegro national team [3].--Bozalegenda (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

?????????--Bozalegenda (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not going to respond to someone who accuses me of vandalism. Katie^talk 13:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well your edit is clearly VANDALISM. In infobox stand - joined FIBA in 1992, and you removed all medals from year 1992. You are removing all history of one basketball contry, and ignoring sources. And how could I call that? just VANDALISM.--Bozalegenda (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if you're talking about Serbia men's national basketball team, I have made no edits to the page other than to protect it fully due to an edit war. I haven't added anything, and I haven't removed anything. I couldn't care less about Serbian basketball.

I'll give you one last chance to retract your accusation of vandalism. Pro tip: don't come asking for admin help by making a personal attack. Katie^talk 14:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you locked article, its your fault because there is FALSE INFORMATION standing for days. Why didnt you locked just for anonymous, not for all users. Im one of main basketball editors for European basketball here, and for years i edit articles here and now i cant remove your mistake. This is not personal, I just cant believe that admin could make such a big mistake.--Bozalegenda (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you've been here "for years," you know how this works. This is a content dispute, and you're basically complaining that I protected The Wrong Version. You guys will either work it out on the talk page or you won't. If you do, great, though I'm not optimistic because there's no discussion there. If you don't, it's going to get locked again to stop the edit war which, BTW, was going on between registered users as well as IPs. This is the last comment I'll make on the subject. Don't accuse me of vandalism again. Katie^talk 14:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god are you even reading my posts on your talk page??? In infobox stand - joined FIBA in 1992, and there are no medals from 1992. SO WERE ARE MEDALS??? You locked wrong version, and now for days is standing a FALSE INFORMATION and makes wikipedia not reliable. JUST REMOVE YEAR 1992 or put back medals from that period.--Bozalegenda (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Request to remove my reviewer and auto patrolled rights

Hi Katie, in June this year, after my discussions with Iridescent on the rollback right noticeboard (and another page), you had rejected my rollback rights request, quoting trust issues with me; you had advised me to reapply in December (after 6 months). I only now realized that it was you who had granted me reviewer rights too. I realize that these rights too are absolutely equivocally associated with the trust the community may have with an editor. Because I respect your (and Iridescent's) judgement on rejecting my 2nd rollback request, I request you to please remove my reviewer and auto patrolled rights. I shall request them again from you in December, if you believe I have gained the required trust of the community by then. Thank you. Lourdes 02:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

Done Feel free to ask back of KrakatoaKatie or apply at WP:PERM in the future. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lourdes 03:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Protecting the Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War article against edit warring

Hello Katie, would you please protect the Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War again? Some user User:Beshogur has now for a second time reverted against talk page consensus that the promotional label "Free Syrian Army" must not be mis-presented as a fictional organizational structure in infobox, I would not know what to do, as I do not want to engage in edit warring. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@2A1ZA: I saw the little edit war that went on earlier today. I've posted a 1RR reminder to the article talk page, as my protection last time was only because I didn't want to block so many editors. I didn't have to do that – I could have blocked all of you for a long time without any prior warning. Now that everyone's been notified and the notifications have been logged, you're all on your last dime. If there are violations of 1RR, go to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. Katie^talk 20:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)