User talk:Krett12/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive redirect

I saw that you moved your talk page twice when you were archiving. If you would like the unnumbered redirect page User talk:Krett12/Archive deleted, just put {{QD|U1}} on it. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. Thank you, I forgot about that page. Krett12 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Doubling up

Don't worry too much if we both deliver the warning, it might do them good to realize that they have been seen.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcoming users

Hi, Krett12. I see that you welcomed the user -NightcoreM-. You might not have known, but we prefer to welcome users only after they have made a number of contributions here. That way we know what kind of welcome is best, and we can avoid welcoming vandals. It also prevents creating a lot of user talk pages for users who make only one or a few edits and never come back. -NightcoreM- has made only one change, and it was reverted because the change added information that was already in the article. Please wait until a user has more of a track record before you welcome them. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Huh, ok. My thought was to welcome them before they made an edit to show they've been recognized, but I am ok with doing it this way too. Krett12 (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Your revert on Rain gauge

How is that edit violating NPOV? It only looks vague to me. Doesn't help that you were welcoming the user and thanking him for his changes to the same article less than 10 minutes before the warning. It could lead to confusion. Chenzw  Talk  16:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The part about which kinds worked better seemed to be his own opinion. Krett12 (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What is Personal Attack?

I thanked you leaving message on my talk page, but what is the personal attack in your words, please?

---

a personal attack is when a user says something rude or threatening to another user. Krett12 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment

Regarding your edit summary when you deleted the welcome message: 1) Welcome messages fit best at the top of your talk page, regardless of when added. Often, they are not even archived like other messages, but left at the top. One of the reasons for this is that they contain helpful links that even experienced users sometimes use for navigation. 2) On EnWiki I was finally welcomed about 4 1/2 years after registering my account, so a delay in welcoming someone is not stupid; it just means that someone (finally) noticed it hadn't been done yet. On Simple I welcomed myself the same day I created my user page, just so I would have those links here. 3) So now I'm going to ask what are you interested in? What do you want to write about? How do you want to make this encyclopedia better? Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

1 and 2) Weird but OK. 3) I don't make that many regular edits--I am mostly on vandalism patrol. Krett12 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of RfD

If you are going to perform a non-admin closure, then do it properly and follow the whole procedure. Just removing the RfD tag is not enough. If you are not sure of RfD procedures, then please leave it to an administrator to handle it next time. Chenzw  Talk  01:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. Krett12 (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your new doppelganger accounts

FYI, since the purpose of these accounts was to prevent anyone from impersonating you, there would be no need to use them for editing and so I have blocked them. I did so specifying a reason that makes it clear that the blocks weren't due to any bad behavior. Even so, I don't think they were really needed and would ask that you not create any more. Thanks. Let me know if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't "editing" I just created the userpages while I was logged into them so I didn't give away my IP. I think creating the userpages from the accounts should be OK Krett12 (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense edits

This is your only warning. If you make purposeful nonsense edits like this one here you will be blocked. I've only returned to active editing for the last week and already I have seen plenty of evidence to suggest you are headed towards extended blocks. Please check yourself before that occurs. Only (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It was notnpurposeful. Please remember to assume good faith. Krett12 (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh cut the crap. You really expect us to believe that you "accidentally" confused funerals and weddings? Please don't waste our times. Only (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to "test" changes, and rverting etc., make a sandbox page for yourself, and then you can experiment as much as you like. --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but it wasn't a test edit. Krett12 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh. And this edit. Test or not? Only (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I am allowed to test things on myself. Krett12 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

reverted edit

Krett12, please email me to find out why I undid your talk page change. I can't email you, because the email function doesn't work for me. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

Over the last few days, your edits have been disruptive for the project. Admins have to waste their times to focus on your actions. Your "test" edits like the wedding dress one or warning yourself then immediately reverting are pointless edits especially when you vandalize an article. Your "hey sign my page!" page was a misuse of Wikipedia. Your constant questioning of valid admin actions waste admin resources to respond to you. Your edits to established templates and guidelines have also been disruptive. During these 24 hours, I suggest you read through policies and guidelines and think about how you can best serve the project. You can appeal the block with {{unblock|your reason here}}. Only (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The "hey sign my page" was just to see how many people are looking thru recent changes--something that is perfectly valid to want to find out. Krett12 (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I will warn myself whenever I want to. I was trying to test the different between edit war warning and vandalism warning. I have a very hard time believing that you think that was vandalism. Krett12 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Plus, I have been reverting vandalism before your account was created (on enwiki). So it's impossible to think that I was disrupting on purpose.

So, how many of those things you posted are valid? In some cases, one, in others, zero. I will be contacting a steward to remove the block. Krett12 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Before contacting a steward, you might want to request an unblock here. A steward might not want to intervene if you haven't tried the standard procedure yet. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

not to get into a pissing match, but I've been on Enwiki since 2005 and Simple since 2008. I've been an admin on En since 2007 (I believe off the top of my head) and here since 2009. So if you've been reverting since before I joined in 2005, I'm impressed that you began editing before most people even know how to write their names. Based on my many years of experience, I stand by my ability to label disruptive actions. If you want to test, make a sandbox. And like auntof6 said, stewards won't intervene if you just ignore the local process for block review which I shared in the block notice. Only (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

admins on here are aware (hopefully) that all my actions are open to review. If they disagree with my block, they are welcome to overturn with a justification. There's no need for a steward when such local processes exist. Only (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Some user comments have been removed and suppressed as they revealed personal information --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post them again from my username this time.

Well, I've said all I have to say, so if you're still not going to unblock me, not my fault. Keep in mind that I'm only doing the same thigs I always do and also that nobody except you has ever blocked me. Does that not strike you as a bit odd? It does for me. You obviously have different standards and what counts as disrupting--and there's nothing I can do to fix that. I already try to improve Wikipedia. If you consider trying to fix an error and seeing how many people look thru RC "disruptive editing", maybe we should move to different Wikipedias :/ Krett12 (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

and in the same vein, no one else has expressed objections to or questions about the block. Multiple admins/editors have expressed exasperation with your edits both here and on English Wikipedia in the last couple of days. it seems like the need for a block to prevent further disruption has been building up. Only (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Could you please stop doing this" isn't really "expressing exasperation", and also, we are not enwiki. You seem to think that I am being disruptive on purpose. If you had just said that you knew I wasn't doing it on purpose, I would've been 100% fine with it. But the block expired 1 minute ago, so whatever. Krett12 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My username

My username is Only. Please do not refer to me by previous names. Only (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot. Krett12 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh. Just like you confused a wedding and a funeral. It's impossible to assume good faith when evidence is pointing in the other direction. But, yeah, it makes a lot of sense that you would "forget" my user name and "accidentally" refer to me by a username I haven't used in 2+ years and a username which you and I never had any interactions under. Only (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, please calm down. What actually happened is that I didn't think you would take it this hard. I was just confused because I was trying to find your rfa at one point and couldn't find one under "Only", Only. (There, happy now?) Krett12 (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So you DID do it on purpose is what you're saying now. Man, you don't seem like you're going to be lasting too long around here. Only (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. I'm saying that I didn't think it would matter which one I called you by, but now I do. Krett12 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My two cents worth is Only is just stating facts and Krett12 we don't want a flame war! I have been on SEW for awhile now and I have seen things... --DonLandry2 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What's with the huge indent? Anyway, that's not worth two cents, more like a billion dollars. I completely agree, but I'm not sure Only will. I guess we should wait. Krett12 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Revdel action on your user talk

An edit on your user talk page which claims to be giving you a barnstar has been deleted due to its inappropriate content. Please feel free to contact me privately for more information. Chenzw  Talk  15:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your warning to User 94.1.50.148

This user added the comment "I agree, total bull crap". You reverted it, and gave them a warning about cyberbullying. This was not cyberbullying, because the comment was referring to the page, not to a person. Even if it had been referring to a person, it might not have been cyberbullying, depending on the context. I have removed that warning. Cyberbullying is a very serious charge, so please be sure that's what it is before you accuse someone of it. In fact, it might be best if you get a second opinion if you feel there is another case of it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, there weren't any better warnings for a disrespectful comment. What should I use instead? Krett12 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You could use the plain vandalism warning, or you could write your own customized one. Never use an inappropriate warning just because it's the closest existing one. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It was pretty close, close enough I felt it might be OK. But I won't next time. But vandalism warning isn't really a "generic" one. Maybe I could make one and you could add it into Twinkle. Krett12 (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

how are these templates you're making different from the uw-npa set? They seem to be the same, especially the third and fourth levels. Only (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, a personal attack is directed at an editor and these are directed the "total bull crap", they were talking about a page. Krett12 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
When I said you could write your own customized one, I meant you could leave a warning in your own words that fit the specific situation. I didn't mean to write more templates. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I know, but I think we should have a template for this. Krett12 (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Talking negatively about (the contents of) an article is not against policy, and should not deserve a new set of warnings. We also know it as "criticism". This should not be construed as a "personal attack". Chenzw  Talk  05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You're saying that this is different because it's not "directed at an editor" but your templates say "If you continue to make attack statements at other editors..." That sounds EXACTLY like a personal attack to me. I agree with the others; these templates are unnecessary. Next time, just write out a note to the user and explain why you reverted him/her. It's simple. Everything doesn't have to be done with automated tools. Only (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Be sure to read WP:Be kind. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you don't agree about the text, you can change it. But I think this is going to happen often enough we should have a template for it. Krett12 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in, but why not create a sub page on your profile and then add all your own written warnings there for easy access? --Giooo95 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I already did, but I wouldn't be able to use Twinkle. Krett12 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A weird revert.

Look at your revert. You've just contradicted yourself or you do not understand the words: fast, quick, lightweight. 85.193.232.158 (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Krett

You can block me from Wikipedia. I mean who the hell uses Wikipedia anyway, I just got an account to annoy oshwah. Spudude3807 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Spudude3807: I cannot actually block users, ask Only. Krett12 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Krett

I hear you like sock puppet investigations. You know who else likes sock puppet investigations? My two year old cousin. Spudude3807 (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Spudude2807: I am in serious doubt your two year old cousin can even say the word "sock". Krett12 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Warnings Plus

Please stop using this account immediately and do not create any more accounts here. You can keep your templates in your own userspace, if you keep them at all. I'm going to move all the pages back to the Krett12 userspace. Leave them there unless you get approval to put them elsewhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Related to this issue, I've started a discussion about the templates at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I was still typing it up when Aunto6 left this notice apparently. Only (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I am OK that you blocked it, but I am not OK that you used the "sock puppetry" reason. Why do you consider it that? I created it from my main account Krett12 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it was created. It was created for an invalid purpose. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

RfD nomination of User:Krett12/vandalismOxO

The page User:Krett12/vandalismOxO has been nominated for deletion. You may contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/User:Krett12/vandalismOxO. Objections/comments about this nomination should be brought up there, and the RfD tag (I have already noinclude'd it) is not to be removed until the discussion has been closed. Thank you. Chenzw  Talk  05:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Monobook use re Twinkle

Instead of asking the same question on many users' talk pages, how about asking it in a central place, like Simple talk? If you do that, I'll reply. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to Wikipedia. However, some of your changes, like those to "Template:Unblock", did not seem to be helpful and have been reverted or removed. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't use template warnings at me. Krett12 (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's funny, coming from someone who has been creating more warning templates. I'll use them when I see fit. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Should I template you? Krett12 (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That depends on two things. 1) Do you think I've done anything I should be templated for? 2) Why do you think I shouldn't template you? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And why do you sound so much like Only all of a sudden? Krett12 (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In what way do I sound like Only? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"That's funny, coming from someone who has been creating more warning templates" seems like something snarky Only would say--that doesn't really sound like you. Krett12 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Be careful about trying to get "tone of voice" online. Before you assume someone is being snarky, or sarcastic, or whatever, read their words again to see if maybe that isn't how they meant them. It might help to imagine that the person left a smiley after their words: does it read the same then? Remember to assume good faith. I just meant that it seemed inconsistent that someone who thinks we need more templated messages is telling someone else not to use templated messages. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What possible way could he have meant to say "Oh cut the crap" besides the way I thought he meant to say it? Krett12 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to your perception about what I said, not what Only said. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith when talking with other editors, which you did not do on LOL. Thank you. Yes, you are getting a template. please "think" before using your special tool. Thanks muchly. Fylbecatulous talk 13:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: I did assume good faith, read the edit summary closer. Krett12 (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I does know how to read really well, thanks. For this IP's first attempt, your summary says: I revert vandalism *a lot* here and... I would walk away with the impression that this too has been considered thusly. And what I really mean by "assuming good faith" would be doing what my edit summary says: slow down and please research if content could be true before just reverting. I refer as well to your back-and-forth discussion in reversions today in O Brother, Where Art Thou? (movie) But it's SET in the year 1000 (if it's not then revert). duh, read the historical versions in the article or look at a reference or see what the version on English Wikipedia says. Fylbecatulous talk 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Reverted good faith edits by Fybecatulous" was the beginning of the summary. Please look closer next time. Krett12 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You haven't reverted me anywhere. Reverted good faith edits by 74.66.16.113 was your edit summary. I can also say to you, please look and read closer next time. The issue is your hasty reversions of added content without assuming good faith in the plausibility of the edit. I did say in my edit summary to you on LOL: Actually, this does exist, please do research before deciding something is vandalism if it is not clearcut. Fylbecatulous talk 17:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The AGF revert on Twinkle is not a magical solution to reverting edits which you are unsure if they are vandalism or not. Not all edits by IPs are unhelpful. You need to get rid of that mindset. Anyone can revert any edit and simply claim "reverted good faith". Your edit summary may be saying "reverted good faith edits", but you are not assuming enough good faith. Everyone can edit Wikipedia; if you are doubtful of the factual accuracy of some information, go and do some research. A good place to start would be the same article on the EN Wikipedia. After all, we are all here to write encyclopedia articles, and we definitely have to do research to write articles. Chenzw  Talk  01:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, going on ENwiki is what I'll be doing from now on. Krett12 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Chenzw/My little brother did it

There are some issues with your edit which distorted the original meaning and intention of the essay:

• On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog is a well-known saying. When you simplified that sentence, you removed the link, and your new sentence is not suitable enough as a link to that article.
• "we make sure they assume good faith" - one does not compel administrators to do anything.
• "If you get blocked again, just scroll to the top!" - what is that even supposed to mean?

I will be reverting your changes after this message has been saved to your user talk page. Chenzw  Talk  00:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I am OK with your way, but I'd like to throw in my opinion.

1. But it was a redlink
2. Yeah, but we encourage them to.
3. It means that as soon as they get unblocked, they'd vandalize again, then be re-blocked, and they should just repeat. Krett12 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Redlinks are okay, and should not be removed. See en:WP:REDDEAL.
2. Doesn't mean we make sure they do. "Make sure" implies some force used by a third person.
3. I still don't understand what you mean by scrolling to the top.

--Chenzw  Talk  01:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

3. I meant starting over from step 1. Krett12 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Golkonda

For someone who complains about others not assuming good faith and being snarky, and for someone who's made templates about people "attacking" and being "rude" about the content of a page, your extra commentary with the quick deletion template ("J" just has so much content I can hardly read it all in one sitting! :O ) at Golkonda seems pretty hypocritical. Your comment wasn't necessary; just tag and move on. Only (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot everyone could see the QD reasons (I had access to nonpublic stuff on another wiki and all the admins loved sarcasm ;) Krett12 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't love sarcasm here. We prefer showing respect: pretty much everyone can see everything you do here. Sarcasm especially doesn't play well here because 1) it's not a simple use of language and 2) English isn't the native language of all of our readers and editors: understanding the humor in another language is one of the hardest parts of learning it. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well it's private now, so let's move on. Krett12 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)