User talk:Crasstun/Archive 9
 | This page is an archive. Do not change this page. Make new comments on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 04 June 2014
change- Special report: IEG funding for women's stories—a new approach to the gender gap
- Op-ed: "Hospitality, jerks, and what I learned"—the amazing keynote at WikiConference USA
- News and notes: Two new affiliate-selected trustees
- In the media: Reliable or not, doctors use Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Autumn in summer
- Featured content: Ye stately homes of England
Again, don't create sockpuppet categories
changeAs you have been asked before (such as here), please don't create sockpuppet categories, as you did with Category:Suspected sockpuppets of Looneyboy6. That is a task for admins, if and when they feel they want the category. We don't create them for all sockpuppets, as has been explained to you before. Is there anything I can do to help you remember not to create these? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oops my mistake I forgot about that. But someone probably should create a category for User:Looneyboy6 as he's still adding nonsense about dogs,--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Inappropriate edit
changeThis edit that you made was not appropriate. When we get questions about things done on other Wikipedias, we do not ignore them, we answer and let the people know that this is a separate Wikipedia. Let the admins handle messages left on the Administrators' noticeboard. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: Ok sorry I shouldnt have removed the message but I did leave a message on the users talk page telling them that it was the wrong place to put it. By the way you should check your emails because I think the troll has sent you one of those threatening messages.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Unincorporated communities in Louisiana
changeYou need to wait more than a minute before tagging a category with WP:QD#C1. Technically, we're supposed to wait four days. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 June 2014
change- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
- Special report: Questions raised over secret voting for WMF trustees
- News and notes: PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
- Traffic report: The week the wired went weird
- Featured content: Politics, Ships, Art, and Cyclones
DFTT
changePlease do not pay attention to trolls. Replying to every thing they say just motivates them even more; en:WP:DENY. --Glaisher [talk] 11:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Again, don't feed the trolls / spammers as you did with the 172.56.32.0/23 range. Simply reporting to an admin should suffice. Additionally, do not try to act like an admin and tell users what will be protected or that they'll be blocked. Instead, use the warning templates. Thank you for understanding. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I was not trying to feed that troll i was just telling them to put the content on the actual article and not to put content on the talk page. I was not acting like an administrator I was mearly stating that the talk page would be protected to prevent more nonsense. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Talk pages are almost never protected, except for serious vandalism fyi and the edits were obvious spam. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I was not aware of that fact but it might have to happen if the user returns to it.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Talk pages are almost never protected, except for serious vandalism fyi and the edits were obvious spam. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I was not trying to feed that troll i was just telling them to put the content on the actual article and not to put content on the talk page. I was not acting like an administrator I was mearly stating that the talk page would be protected to prevent more nonsense. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 June 2014
change- News and notes: With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
- Special report: Wikimedia Bangladesh: a chapter's five-year journey
- Traffic report: You can't dethrone Thrones
- WikiProject report: Visiting the city
- Featured content: Worming our way to featured picture
June 2014
change
Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to "User talk:Chinese man 38202", without giving a good reason in the change summary. This is vandalism. If you want to practice changing Wikipedia, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The user may have been trolling, but it was inside an unblock request and you should not have removed it. Unblock requests are handled by admins, no matter what the user puts in them. This was a serious offense on your part because you interfered in communication between a user and the admins. If you continue making this kind of inappropriate edit, you may be blocked from editing. Auntof6 (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously? So now I'm not allowed to revert blatant trolling. Who cares if it was in an unblock template it was still time wasting and trolling. Apparently I'm not good enough to revert vandalism so I won't.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- There's a difference between making that kind of edit on a talk page and doing so somewhere else. This was not only on a talk page, it was on the user's own talk page. At some point we might want to find these edits to make a case for longer blocks or even bans, and it would be harder to do so if the changes have been reverted. If it's anywhere other than talk pages, then revert all you want. It's just not as necessary on talk pages, especially in this case where the user was following a standard procedure for making a request, and you removed it. Rest assured that the admin reviewing the unblock request would recognize the inappropriate statements in the request, and that we can tell the difference between legitimate reverting and cyberbullying. Be the bigger person, and trust that admins will evaluate things for themselves and not take an editor's word for things like that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- It was a blatant personal attack against an editor here! All that's going to happen is once the block expires in a week, the vandal will return and do it all over again. I still disagree with you interlay and by all means continue to threatening me with issuing blocks, I find most amusing that you want to block an active and constructive editor who's only intention is to help this wiki.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- There's a difference between making that kind of edit on a talk page and doing so somewhere else. This was not only on a talk page, it was on the user's own talk page. At some point we might want to find these edits to make a case for longer blocks or even bans, and it would be harder to do so if the changes have been reverted. If it's anywhere other than talk pages, then revert all you want. It's just not as necessary on talk pages, especially in this case where the user was following a standard procedure for making a request, and you removed it. Rest assured that the admin reviewing the unblock request would recognize the inappropriate statements in the request, and that we can tell the difference between legitimate reverting and cyberbullying. Be the bigger person, and trust that admins will evaluate things for themselves and not take an editor's word for things like that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 June 2014
change- Exclusive: Foundation's new executive director speaks to the Signpost
- News and notes: US National Archives enshrines Wikipedia in Open Government Plan, plans to upload all holdings to Commons
- Featured content: Showing our Wörth
- WikiProject report: The world where dreams come true
- Discussion report: Media Viewer, old HTML tags
- Traffic report: Fake war, or real sport?
- Recent research: Power users and diversity in WikiProjects, the "network of cultures" in multilingual Wikipedia biographies