User talk:Krett12/Archive 1

Warning of anonymous contributors

Because IP addresses could potentially be used by more than one person, and that the person who is using a particular IP address could change in a matter of days or even hours, please do not use level 3, level 4 or level 4im (only warning) warnings unless there is severe vandalism and defamation. By severe vandalism we usually refer to very high rate/speed of vandalism or serious personal attacks. Otherwise, do start warning users from level 1 or level 2. Please remember to assume good faith. Thanks! Chenzw  Talk  14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I will comply, it's just I was giving them less slack as I do on the English one because it's not as monitored here. Krett12 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

This is user Special:Contributions/2602:306:CD0D:8FA0:951B:C09E:E92C:CBF3. I think it would be better if I logged in to address this. My last entry on this talk page was never meant to be a personal attack. I was just trying to point out your mistake. I admit to being annoyed at the accusation of vandalism and apologize for any uncivil rhetoric. We're on the same side in regards to fighting vandalism. In response to your last edit description "I don't think of sailor moon as "is clumsy, a crygbaby, and gets bad.." that is literally how the character is introduced and established in the source material. I wouldn't call such wording "encyclopedic", but I didn't write the article and my only concern was quickly reverting the deliberate introduction of false information.--GD 6041 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sorry. I guess I just thought that was vandalism-y. Krett12 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Lee Kyu-wan

How was this vandalism? It looks like that was just an editor with a weaker understanding of English trying to contribute. Please look closely before you revert and warn. Also, even if that was vandalism, I don't think that was deserving of a warning straight away to level 3. Chenzw  Talk  02:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It looked like link spamming to me. I'm sorry. Krett12 (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've undone your revert. If you have any issue with said revert please contact me on my talk page, or ping me here and leave the talkback template on my talk page. The only issue I see is slight incorrect grammar, which doesn't explain why a revert would be necessary (as it was minor). --  Kethrus |talk to me  04:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning users

Hey, Krett12. I know you mean well, but a warning wasn't necessarily needed for Lijjighbtrs, as the template had already been placed by me notifying them that it's been nominated for deletion - and none of their edits had been "undone" so the template doesn't really fit. Also, consider being a little less harsh with the warnings (going from level 1 to level 3 straight away). I know it may sound silly, but biting the newcomers isn't really what we want to do, because some people do make mistakes and misinterpret what Wikipedia is about, and make silly edits, and biting them will only make them less likely to come back to contribute legitimately in the future. Although what I have said is subject to opinion, and there's nothing wrong with warning users like this - I personally do not recommend it. --  Kethrus |talk to me  14:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

1) I think the warning was better, if the automated QD thing was written by me I would've deleted it. 2) I went from 2 to 3 you just can't tell because the icon is blue either way. Krett12 (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You can tell what warnings are what if you read them. Biting newcomers isn't helpful. I also really don't appreciate being told to use X template on users talk pages, if you need me - use my talk page, not an editor I'm trying to welcome (see here). --  Kethrus |talk to me  14:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning templates

User warning templates are highly visible to other visitors/editors, be it anonymous contributors or registered users. We have to be careful not to unintentionally send the wrong message to our editors. As such, proposed changes to the template which may affect the language or tone of the warning should be discussed first, preferably on Simple talk, before modifying the actual template. Chenzw  Talk  15:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

About your template

I moved this template to your userspace because it isn't an approved warning. The template is now at User:Krett12/Uw-vandalism4en. You can still refer to it if/when you make your proposal. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Krett12 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also note that isn't really how the one strike rule works. It is more about behaviour issues such as sock puppeting or civility issues, than vandal warnings. We inform the user about one strike and then if they continue with the socking or civility issues we block them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that might be the way it is used more often, but the page says either one of us could be right. Krett12 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

hello

What is Simple English Wikipedia? I think it is a version of Wikipedia in English that is not to complex. I do not think it is for people who don't want to know much detail. Therefore, it is ok if an article is slightly long. What do you think? Sandra Oot (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) @Sandra Oot: It doesn't mean that the article is simple, it means that it is written in Simple English. Pretend that Simple English is its own language, like Spanish & German, etc. "Simple English" is a language. It is for people who don't know very much English. Like, we don't say "hard work" because someone might think that means "dense work" or, "difficult to understand work". But because these people might want to edit, we programmed the software to also use Simple English. For example, instead of saying "Random page" we say "Show any page". We now say "User's changes" instead of "User contributions". We used to omit EVERY SINGLE instead of the word "edit" and say "change" instead, but we only do that in some parts now. If you have any further questions, let me know. Krett12 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

ChecKemzV talk page

I'm not sure what your interest is in this user's talk page, but he has been asked before not to simply delete content. It does a disservice to other users who have communicated there. In any case, please do not blank other users' talk pages. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad Tölz-Wolfratshausen

FYI, I turned the sentence fragment in this article into a complete sentence and declined the QD. I encourage you to make a similar fix the next time you see an article like that. Note that we don't have a minimum required article length, so articles would not be deleted for being too short. When it comes to articles about cities, towns, etc., it is enough just to say "X is a city in Y", or something like that. We don't like articles to be that short, but that's all that's required. You're welcome to tag those articles as stubs, but please don't make QD requests for them. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Woah! I disagree. Maybe we should get other opinions. Krett12 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free, but it would be a matter of policy or guideline, not opinion. I'd like to see the articles be longer, but since geographical places are considered inherently notable, just the fact that they exist establishes notability. What is the basis for your disagreement? Have you seen a policy or guideline that states a minimum length? It's quite possible I'm just not aware of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RfDs

I consider it vandalism to alter other users' edits the way you did, but I'll repeat it without the templated warning. Don't change other users' edits on RfD pages, even if you think those edits aren't valid. That includes striking them out. If you want to comment on the validity of any edits, you can do it in a separate note, such as under each problem edit, or in a message to an admin. However, note that there is already a note to the closing admin mentioning that some of the edits on that RfD look improper. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I did not know it had been closed. I won't do it again. Krett12 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of comments on user talk pages

As I have already mentioned some time ago, editors are allowed to remove comments from their user talk pages. This includes warnings. The only messages that should not be removed are: declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors. Chenzw  Talk  03:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

They are allowed to remove warnings? I'm not sure I agree with that. Krett12 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

They are. If you don't agree, feel free to propose a policy that disallows them from doing so. Chenzw  Talk  04:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I did. Thanks. Krett12 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Belated service award

You asked on Simple talk, were you a trusted user. Yes and in fact I noticed you are overdue for a service award:

This editor is a Novice Editor and has the right to show this First Book of Wikipedia.

User:Rus793 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Krett12 (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)