User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 48
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Merry Christmas!
.jpg)
Amaury (talk | contribs) 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.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey Katie
I am Kanishka Williamson
It's Christmas Jingle bells, jingle bells Jingle all the way Oh, what fun it is to ride In a one horse open sleigh Hey, jingle bells, jingle bells Jingle all the way Oh, what fun it is to ride In a one horse open sleigh Jingle bells, jingle bells Jingle all the way Oh, what fun it is to ride In a one horse open sleigh Hey, jingle bells, jingle bells Jingle all the way Oh, what fun it is to ride In a one horse open sleigh It's Christmas Hey, jingle bells, jingle bells Jingle all the way Oh, what fun it is to ride In a one horse open sleigh Hey, jingle bells, jingle bells Jingle all the way Oh, what fun it is to ride In a one horse open sleigh It's Christmas
Merry Christmas Katie and All Wikipedians.
I wish that upcoming year of Wikipedia will be good. Merry Christmas for all Wikipedians
Katie I want to ask a thing. Apprximately how long should be a user profile page.
Bye Katie
Kanishka Williamson (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)K.WilliamsonKanishka Williamson (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given.
Yo Ho Ho
Doug Weller 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/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Merry Christmas!
—MRD2014 (Merry Christmas!) 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 Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
19:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Personal attack + editing while logged out
Hi Katie,
First of all, a merry christmas to you! (even though a tad belated!).
I have a few concerns regarding user "570AD".
- On 24 October 2016, I reverted a WP:FORUM-loaded commentary of him. I was instantly reverted by an IP who has the very same editorial pattern, the very same proficiency in English, the same target articles, etc.
- On 6 November 2016, "570AD" called other users "idiots" on the talk page of the same article (Persian people) article. A pretty nasty personal attack.
- Now, roughly a month later, "570AD" is back on the talk page to spread the same content, and again, an IP of the very same range as mentioned above instantly hopped in to support him just a few hours later.
There's some clear socking/meat going on here I believe, and its very disruptive (not even taking the personal attack into account). "570AD" even literally admitted to be editing while logged out (quote: " I am on Wikipedia a lot and there are certainly times where I'm just making a minor edit to improve the quality of the articles here, I don't feel the need to click on "Login" every time I make a minor grammatical correction, etc., just to "get credit" and have it "logged" under my account name").[1] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Serendipitee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Time: Dec 28, 2016 02:45:27
Message: Hi, the block notice has now been submitted. Any further thoughts, please?
Notes:
- If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
- Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.
Belated Holiday Greetings! KK
|
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! |
| Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC) |
January 2017 at Women in Red
_Anna_lehrt_Maria_das_Lesen.jpg) 
| |
|---|---|
|
Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons  | |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging
dumb and out of order
Please see my recent - I know I am slow on the uptake and I am probably bad faith towards a very good CU - and even more so am in no position to question, but I am watching a blocked users edits being reinstated by an IP... please put me out of my misery telling me I am chasing shadows or something. I hope you understand the tangential nature of this enquiry. JarrahTree 00:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
208.110.210.81
Hi,
You gave a final warning to this user, but I'm not sure if this edit was vandalism or not? I find it hard to believe any, let alone all of those applied. Adam9007 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
  
|
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Checkuser thanks
|
The Checkuser's Barnstar | |
Thank you for working on the Hurulu SPI cases and bringing them to a close (until another one happens again, which is bound to happen from this particular user ) Jennica✿ / talk 01:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Please comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Contents of a Deleted Page
Hello Sir,
I want a Copy of a Deleted Page which was deleted today.
Please give me sometime to remove the Copyrighted links, which arent any copyright infrigment. But i will remove those links from the Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay8291 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Link to the Page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factom
Regards, Jayesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay8291 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
KrakatoaKatie,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year, KrakatoaKatie!
KrakatoaKatie,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 18:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Happy 2017!
Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year, KrakatoaKatie!
KrakatoaKatie,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 20:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Profile101
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Profile101. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year, KrakatoaKatie!
KrakatoaKatie,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Request For content of Deleted Article for a Draft
Hello, I am creating a Draft & would like to have Content from my Deleted Page.
Page Title - Factom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay8291 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey Happy New Years 2017 and support me edit
Hey, Happy New Years. some Iranian hard-line editing I have always reverted to check out this article to protect the article Balochistan Sultanselim baloch (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Madeleine close2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Madeleine close2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I did a GA Reassessment and have a question
I did a WP:GAR and de-listed Crazy Eddie from GA status. I followed all the instructions but am puzzled - I just noticed that there is still a GA icon on the Review/reassessment page. Is there a Bot that removes it, is it supposed to be there, did I forget some bit of code somewhere, etc.? Thanks in advance for any help you can render O Great One, Shearonink (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I was blocked because someone else was using the same IP as mine... please help me to solve this
Hello,
I was blocked for a day yesterday. The reason was stated that I share the same IP address with another account. I was however unblocked on today morning but I would want to find a long-lasting solution to this issue.
I happen to be in a building with a shared network and a lot of people use the common internet that is provided. Evidently many of them would be using Wiki from the same IP and I would be facing the same problem in regular intervals.
I would request you to help me and give me a permanent solution to this blockage.
Bella.black678 (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 14:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lt Timothy Robinson (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks....
...Ill try to get the 15 minutes back to you somehow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: If it involves a DeLorean, I'm all in. :-) Katietalk 14:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
Katie, thank you for stating, for the record, the Nyttend's comments at User talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing did not make him too involved to close the discussion 32 days later on exactly this topic of comma before Jr on non-bio articles. It seems that no other admin was willing to commit to such a statement (though as you know, I don't agree with it, at least that's that). Done. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Am I too involved?
Hey, I've got a couple questions for you if you don't mind. I raised the same issues at User talk:Cyphoidbomb#Questions, and he was a lot of help. However, I think I'd like a little more input on this. The first situation seems a bit more clear cut to me now, but I think I'd still feel better if someone told me that I'm right. I've made some minor content-related edits to Howie Schwab, mostly just adding citations and cleaning up vandalism left by socks. After I raised the issue of continued sock puppetry at WP:AN, you put the article under extended confirmed protection. That stopped the socking for a while, but Toiene0wwe90sd (talk · contribs) showed up today to continue the vandalism (both here and in another ECP BLP). I hesitated to block him because I'd filed an SPI case about him, made that earlier complaint at AN, and performed content edits to the article. As I waffled on my degree of involvement, another admin blocked the account. That would have been an OK block to make, though, right?
I've also come upon an editor who I'm convinced is a sock, Sonofkong. The day after the sockmaster, TroySchulz, was blocked at SPI, this new editor shows up. Sonofkong contests the speedy deletion of two obscure articles created by TroySchulz, restores several of Troy's edits, and generally continues the sockmaster's incompetent wikignome work. In the past, I left several messages on Troy's user talk and reverted a few of his edits for being unsourced. Another editor brought Troy to ANI in this thread, and I suggested administrative action against Troy. I subsequently found a different sock Troy used to evade scrutiny during the ANI discussion, and both Troy and his sock were indeffed. So, what do I do about Sonofkong? I'm convinced this is another TroySchulz sock, but I have a history with Troy and his socks. I've also lightly interacted with Sonofkong, advising him about the same poor sourcing that Troy was known for. Am I too involved to block this sock? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Can I play too?
Telling other people what to doGiving people advice is fun. First question: obvious vandalism, not even close to borderline, no problems at all if you had blocked. Second question: you're not really involved in an editing dispute with this person, so you blocking them as an obvious sock is quite likely fine. However, it's always best for new admins to avoid trips to AN/ANI (some consider it a rite of passage, but that's not a healthy way to look at it), so on anything remotely close to the border, err very widely on the side of caution for a while. You can get closer to the border once you've gained experience. Even if you're 95% sure. Try to be 99.99% sure for a while. If I were in your shoes, even if 3 admins said it was OK to block, I'd probably report to SPI instead just to be safe. But in the long run, when the consequences of a trip to AN/ANI are lower, I personally think blocking yourself in that situation is fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)- What Floq said. You're not involved simply because you've made edits to an article in the past. You're involved if you've been in a dispute with an editor, or if you've made extensive content contributions to an article that this troublesome account has been editing. Adding citations and cleaning up are not extensive contributions. And if you've filed an SPI and the problematic party subsequently starts to disrupt, you're absolutely justified in blocking. In these two particular cases, both were fine to block yourself. If you're at all uncomfortable with your degree of involvement, though, you can ask another admin or CU. We're generally a talkative and friendly bunch, and we'll be happy to
school you like a small childhelp you learn the ropes. If you're on IRC, the -en-admins channel is always lively and is a great place to get quick advice. Hijinks are sure to occur. :-) Katietalk 01:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)- Thanks to both of you! Life was a lot easier back when all I had to worry about was whether I used the correct kind of dash. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- What Floq said. You're not involved simply because you've made edits to an article in the past. You're involved if you've been in a dispute with an editor, or if you've made extensive content contributions to an article that this troublesome account has been editing. Adding citations and cleaning up are not extensive contributions. And if you've filed an SPI and the problematic party subsequently starts to disrupt, you're absolutely justified in blocking. In these two particular cases, both were fine to block yourself. If you're at all uncomfortable with your degree of involvement, though, you can ask another admin or CU. We're generally a talkative and friendly bunch, and we'll be happy to
Concerning the indefinite block of User:Sleyece
@Motsebboh, Pillsberrydoo7, Sunshineisles2, Kuru, EdJohnston: I've been watching User:Sleyece almost since the creation of his account, and the activity on his account has become extremely abnormal leading up to his indefinite ban. He
- Cleared his talk page about 2 weeks ago
- Added a list of "conduct friends" to his talk page (with me on it, as well as a sysop and another user. I don't know what "conduct friends" are)
- Edit warring about the 2-hour presidency of a certain vice-president. Once a 1-week block was lifted he went back to edit warring in the same page.
- A link to his LinkedIn page is on his account page.
- A lot of edit warring over people who weren't really president but he wants to add "president" to their infobox, and other president-related pages.
- Insulting IP's; IP's are humans too. [6]
For the last few days before the indefinite ban, he stopped being sensible. I just wanted to know, does anyone know what "conduct friends are" the testimonials part of his user page [7], or perhaps why he was doing this? Thanks, Adotchar| reply here 01:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I know someone wondered if Sleyece is some kind of sock puppet account, but I doubt it, since after doing a couple minutes' research with the links on his page, that's the handle he used for his LinkedIn profile, as well as his various social media accounts. My guess is that he simply doesn't understand the conduct of Wikipedia, or perhaps just doesn't care. I have some theories, but I don't want to play armchair psychologist. As for the "conduct friends" section, I wonder if it's some sort of sarcastic "hit list" of sorts. Everyone mentioned there has been in some kind of row with him. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's hard to be sure if his goal is to cause an upset. But so long as his account is indef blocked, there is not much reason for further discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
YGM
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
UTRS appeal #17290
Hi, I should welcome your comments on this appeal. I have placed some thoughts in the comment field. Just Chilling (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Just Chilling: Comment left. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 14:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2016
| ||||||
User:55378008a
Hi Katie, perhaps you might consider revoking their TPA. They're just screwing around with the templates now. Blackmane (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
YGM
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
LanguageXpert
Sorry about this late note. I didn't realize that you had already updated the findings to reflect my late suspicion as I was reading the old diff. Feel free to remove it if you think it just clutters up the case. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Block, 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0:/32
A person using a device having the above IP number (2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0:/32) has reported that it is impossible to edit using that device due to a block request from user KrakatoaKatie. The person reportedly made no disruptive editing to this site and believes the block to be unfair or meant for another user/device. Ergo, it is requested that the block be removed.
The person in question states that it is impossible to make this request on the devices user page, hence the request appearing here. Under no circumstances should any affiliation, relationship, or like sentiments be projected upon the user(s) of this IP address and whatever it is that the other device/user has been accused of.
Thank you, and please remove the block unjustly placed upon the IP address in question. 2602:306:3600:93A0:E58C:37C3:916B:4085 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Of possible interest
I see you blocked these accounts:
Special:Contributions/Alicante2020
Special:Contributions/Orangeballsops
Special:Contributions/Singaporelover
You might want to look at these new odd ducks:
Special:Contributions/Coireferenceswiki
Special:Contributions/YahooloverBOT
There might be others but I didn't do an exhaustive check. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Katie, would you prefer that I file a formal SPI? All of the accounts, including the two new ones, are targeting the same 3 to 4 articles, even though all of these editors have an edit count of no more than 10: [8]. You blocked the first three on January 4 as CU blocks. It looks like an LTA situation. I'm not familiar with the background, but the two new accounts are repeating the pattern (same target articles; cryptic, infantile, or misleading edit summaries; similar types of edits). In any case, let me know if you'd prefer that I file an SPI. Edited to add: Upon further investigation, this seems to be the same user (same odd edits, same article[s]) that Alexf blocked in December (for having "bot" in their usernames), under the usernames Elizbot99, Yuppibot3: [9]. [There's also an oddity in that Lemongirl942 seems to perhaps be targeted in a couple of these articles: [10]. Why? Does Lemongirl have a troll mini-stalking her?] Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
- LouisAragon (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Notthatone
Regarding your blocking this user, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen, thanks. However, the user is currently using their talk page improperly, and it may be good idea to revoke their talk page access. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I second MPFitz. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Third. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Their TPA access has been removed. Please disregard. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Third. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I was blocked for a day on wikipedia. The reason was stated that I share the same IP address with another account.I would want to find a long-lasting solution to this issue. I happen to be in a building with a shared network and a lot of people use the common internet that is provided. Evidently many of them would be using Wiki from the same IP and I would be facing the same problem in regular intervals. I would request you to help me and give me a permanent solution to this blockage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella.black678 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Cloverboy19
Hi Katie. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information), and encountered this recent addition by I Cloverboy19 (talk · contribs), who you are the the most recent admin to block for edits that are similar enough that I thought it best to let you know. His talk page doesn't have diffs for exactly which edits of his were problematic, so I may be mistaken as to how similar this really is. I'll look to see what I can find. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Warnings since last block refer to [11] [12] [13] [14]. There is some similarity here in that he's using an unreliable source, but it's for a different of information, and without the OR problems at the root of many of the past complaints. Given all the past warnings and blocks, I'd certainly hope he'd be far more careful with what sources he uses in a BLP. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
He was warned by Yamaguchi先生 for using the exact same source in the same manner [15] [16] the same month when you blocked him. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ronz: Leave him a final warning on his talk page for disruption, and tell him that site is not an RS; point to the RSN discussion. It's best if you don't template him for it. Use your own words. After that, if he persists, let me know. He's been mostly on good behavior since that last block, so I don't want to give a long-term block for one addition of an unreliable source. Katietalk 20:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello
Books and Bytes - Issue 20
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)
- Partner resource expansions
- New search tool for finding TWL resources
- #1lib1ref 2017
- Wikidata Visiting Scholar
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: January 2017
| ||||||
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — xaosflux Talk 22:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is really just an FYI for Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_unblock_wrongly_identified_socks. — xaosflux Talk 22:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:RFPP
Request for unprotection: Talk:Canada Park. --219.79.227.218 (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Already declined at RPP - you placed it per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 and this IP is asking for other similarly protected pages to be unprotected. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
IP rangeblock help
Hi Katie. I've been pointed in your direction to discuss some hassel from an IP user and was wondering if you can help. This list of IP addresses have been targeting cricket articles (some BLPs, mainly team squad templates) for a number of months now. As you can see from the block logs for each one, they are all either a) currently blocked or b) have been blocked in the past. I've reported most of them myself after the initial ones were picked up. I raised the possibility of a rangeblock at ANI, but didn't get a lot of response. Is this something you can help with? Esp. the ones that start 180.234. I've avoided requesting page protection on the articles/templates that are usually targeted, as I believe it would make it harder to spot the editor, as at least one of those articles pops up on my watchlist each day. I'd be grateful for any help in this area. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: At first I thought the range was too big (180.234.0.0/16) but the only edits from that range are Cricket Disruption Guy, so I've anonblocked it for one week. That may not be long enough, so let me know if he resumes next week. The other ranges are stale. He may switch back to those IPs but we'll cross that bridge if he goes there. :-) Katietalk 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's superb! I'll see what happens a week from now. Thanks for your help. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 20:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Afternoon Katie. Take a guess who popped-up pretty much one week after the block expired? This time as 180.234.160.106 (now blocked). I'd appreciate if further action could be taken again. Many thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Curious CSD reasoning
See here: [17]. I reverted the 2 edits that came after this (mainly because that's not a valid CSD reasoning), however the comment "the police have been called" struck me as odd. Would you consider that a legal threat? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- And combined with this: [18], that original author has been blocked for WP:NLT. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
February 2017 at Women in Red
 
| |
|---|---|
|
Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons | |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Please comment on Talk:Avram Grant
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avram Grant. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
A cider for
|
A cider for you! |
| I say a beer a day keeps the doctor away, other say it's apples, so here's a cider =P Hopefully it will help with the headaches. Seriously, get well soon! — MusikAnimal talk 06:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
- @MusikAnimal: Thanks! I can see again so I'm doing some reading, and I'll be back in a couple of days. :-) Katietalk 20:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Katie,
I'll be honest right away here and say though I've been editing Wikipedia now for about 2 years, I'm a bit of a newbie in anything to do with IP range blocks, but Cyphoidbomb referred me to you (because apparently you're awesome 
) to propose a rangeblock for an IP hopper that's been consistently disruptive since August 2014. For over two years now, an IP hopper who always uses the same IP range 2602:306:37eb:47e0 (with slightly different IP endings to avoid detection, I'm guessing it's some sort of open proxy maybe?) has been disruptive on various The Simpsons-related articles which I regularly watch, and as the disruption is only getting worse as of lately, I've compiled a list which includes over 110 instances of this vandal disrupting the articles by using this IP range. I'd like to potentially propose a rangeblock for the 2602:306:37eb:47e0... IP range, if you think that's the best route to go at this point (again, newbie with this stuff, sorry!). Thank you so much for whatever help you can provide, and sorry to see you're having health issues! Hope everything gets better for you soon! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @KatnissEverdeen: Would you give me a link to the contribs of one of the IPs? It will help a lot. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 20:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/2602:306:37EB:47E0:88AB:7040:CC11:2CEB is the most recent IP (Jan. 27) they've used so I linked to that one. Unfortunately they switch IP's (with slightly varying IP endings) every 2 or 3 edits to avoid detection so not sure if that's helpful or not. If you'd like when I get a chance, I can try to add a list of all the IPs they've used to my current list (though it may be a couple of days, I'm crazy busy with work at the moment). Thanks! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's not their fault they're switching IPs. It's the ISP that's doing it through their router. At any rate, 2602:306:37EB:47E0::/64 blocked two weeks for disruption. Katietalk 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense then. Thinking ahead, where should I report if they continue the disruption after their block elapses and/or they evade the block using other IPs? (I could easily see a scenario of that sort happening if the person is persistent enough to vandalize the same group of articles since July 2014) I can report back to you if you'd like, but I don't want to impose or inconvenience you at all. (especially as I'm sure you have enough work to do already as an admin!) Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 23:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's not their fault they're switching IPs. It's the ISP that's doing it through their router. At any rate, 2602:306:37EB:47E0::/64 blocked two weeks for disruption. Katietalk 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/2602:306:37EB:47E0:88AB:7040:CC11:2CEB is the most recent IP (Jan. 27) they've used so I linked to that one. Unfortunately they switch IP's (with slightly varying IP endings) every 2 or 3 edits to avoid detection so not sure if that's helpful or not. If you'd like when I get a chance, I can try to add a list of all the IPs they've used to my current list (though it may be a couple of days, I'm crazy busy with work at the moment). Thanks! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)