User talk:Krett12/Archive 3

Archive 1 2

Vandalism on your talk page

Krett12, I'm looking into what we can do about the vandalism on your talk page. In the meantime, please leave only appropriate warnings as though each different IP is a different person, and do not let anger affect your actions. Someone will let you know if we're able to address these as a group. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

One thing you could do is remove the text that keeps getting vandalized. That kind of thing really belongs more on a user page anyway. Your user page can be semi-protected so that IP editors can't change it. If you'd like that done, ask any admin. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

1) It already is semi'd (by you) and 2) I put it on my talk page so I can edit it while blocked. Krett12 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Then I recommend you remove it. When you are blocked, you are not supposed to make any edits except conversations on your talk page. If you got blocked again and you were caught editing anything other than conversations, that would be evading a block even if what you edited was on your talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Anger wasn't affecting it--it's that it was a similar IP (and thus the same blockee) Krett12 (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless there has been a checkuser action, we do not assume that the IPs are the same person no matter how close the IP addresses are. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

But since it's unregistered, CUs don't know anything more than we do. Also, duck test. They do similar actions as well. But I will revert the user page transclusion. Krett12 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please change the editnotice on your talk page

It is very disruptive as half of it is not even visible in the text area of WikiEditor. See [1] for example. Please change it as other users are likely to be annoyed by this. Regards, --Glaisher (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Clever use of a floating text box, but when I open your talk page in edit mode, all I can see is "Hey--if you are here to..." followed by "talk page, you..." and "editi..." The rest is hidden by the WikiEditor, which apparently takes priority over the floating text box. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No--scroll down. Krett12 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to fix this. If you're going to be contributing here and other users (especially new users) are going to need to comment on your page, you need to fix it so it's not blocking their ability to leave a message. Many people will not know to "scroll down" to avoid the issue. I have commented it out until you fix it. Only (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to take the angle off....that's what's making it the issue. If it were horizontal, the size wouldn't be an issue. Only (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Krett12 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Krett12 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It still doesn't appear right when adding a new section. Please remove the fixed positioning. --Glaisher (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You might consider putting the following as your edit notice:

Feel free to use this if you like it, or change the image to something you like better. As for the wording, it's very similar to something that appears on Jimbo Wales' user page, so it shouldn't be an issue. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I will use Etamni's thank you for it Krett12 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's better, but please consider making it not blink. Things that blink like that can cause seizures in people who have epilepsy. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Your warning to Fylbecatulous

I can't see any personal attack on Fylbecatulous' talk page. Would you be specific about where it was? If you mean the edit summary "you are going away and shall be replaced with cats. that conversation is way over", that is not a personal attack. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Only says anything rude or disrespectful counts as a personal attack--and I agree with him. Maybe all the admins should discuss it. Krett12 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not the definition of a personal attack. You might want to read WP:ATTACK to see the definition and more info. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Then what should I do for comments like that? Krett12 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

deleting the {{wait}} template

Why did you revert the user if he was contesting the Quick Deletion? //nepaxt 17:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Because he gave no reason. Krett12 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The user writes the explanation on the subject's talk page as stated by the {{wait}} banner. Someone thinks this article should not be quickly deleted, and has asked for it to be left on Wikipedia. Please talk about it on this page's talk page. //nepaxt 17:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if there was no reason given, it is not up to you to remove the wait template. Don't do that again. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Krett12 (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Your email about the current request for admin rights

Krett12, it was unnecessary for you to send that email. It was also inappropriate because discussions should happen on-wiki whenever possible. Besides that, it is not up to you to coordinate what should be done -- the discussion will run its course and a decision will be made. You have given your input and that is all you need to do.

You need to think about what you want to do here. You have been very disruptive and it needs to stop. I was thinking the restrictions suggested on the admins' noticeboard were unnecessary, but I'm changing my mind. Please don't give us a reason to block you again. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I felt it necessary--there was an on-wiki discussion that was not going well and wanted to ask the editors a few questions in private, that wasn't turning the RfA into a private discussion. Krett12 (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. Just please don't email me to discuss other users behind their backs. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

Please don't delete reports from this page, even if they're for the wrong Wikipedia. The helpful thing to do would be to explain that the person is asking on the wrong wiki. Not everyone understands that English and Simple English are two separate Wikipedias. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The user you reported

You reported 72.25.24.183 (talk · contribs) at the VIP page. I know Auntof6 has alreaady addressed the quick trigger reporting. But my concern is that their edits weren't actually vandalism. Did the page need to be deleted? Yes. Was it intentionally meant to disrupt Wikipedia? No.

You included the warning "If you continue to vandalize pages by adding wrong information on purpose, as you did at Work Bitch, you may be blocked from changing pages on Wikipedia." What wrong information did they add to the article they created? The article was the name "Work Bitch" in bold and a category for Britney Spears songs. Zero information of this article was false. once again, you've used improper warnings with regard to conduct of other users. I really think the topic ban I proposed is needed since you clearly can't get the picture. Only (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Close enough. Not like they read them anyway. But since you seem to think strongly on this, I will try to always use vandalism level 2 unless I forget. Krett12 (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Patent nonsense

Please don't make this kind of unnecessary edit. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Accidental indications of vandalism

When you accidentally revert someone's change as vandalism, as you did here, in addition to undoing your own change you should let the person know. That way, they won't be surprised if someone later mentions that they vandalized something -- they'd be able to explain that the revert was changed back later. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, that should be easy to remember as vandalism rollback opens a talk page pop-up in my prefs. Thanks for lettin' me know. I'm not going to ping you just as an experiment to how fast you reply. Krett12 (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit at User:Upaltez2‎

I am not going to say this again. Do not revert administrative edits made by administrators/checkusers without a good reason. For the record, what you said in your edit summary was not a good reason. Bsadowski1 is someone who knows what he is doing, so I expect that you respect his judgement and expertise in this matter. Chenzw  Talk  05:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition, don't blank another user's page as you did at User:Upaltez, even if the user is a sockpuppet. Leave that for the admins. It may be standard procedure to blank a sockpuppet's page, but that doesn't mean you should do it yourself. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Final warning

If you can't find something to do on this project (like actually edit articles, for example) and continue to exhaust the community patience through persistent badgering of the admins and processes of the project, you are going to be blocked again for disruptive editing. We do not need to explain our actions to you 24/7. Your attempts to correct our actions and change what we do does nothing but waste our times and energies which could be focused elsewhere.

Since I posted a suggestion for a topic ban for you, you've made over 80 edits. Of those 80 edits, a total of NINE edits have been to article pages. Of those 9 edits, 3 were reverts of vandalism. Two of the edits were nominations for deletion. One of those two was immediately reverted by yourself. Another is a "misclick" revert followed by a self revert of that "misclick." The other edit of the nine is "a regular edit" (as you termed it) which was rightfully reverted by another user. If you can't dedicate yourself to the improvement of articles, you really don't have a purpose here.

Again, please consider your actions, or you'll find yourself blocked again for a longer duration. Only (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not making enough article edits is not a blockable offense. It is allso very accusatory to put the word "misclick" in quotes. Are you saying I did it on purpose? Krett12 (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition to what has been listed here edits like this of blocked users, so that you always have to have the last word, which begs if you have the maturity or Competency to edit here, and adding your own wording to the warning, even though the admin who blocked them did not see the need to give any warning, sometimes ignoring vandals is being the bigger person, when they have vandalized your page. Which that goes back to trying to correct admin actions, as listed earlier by Only. With all this being said, I am imposing a block for continued disruptive editing. -- Enfcer (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Krett12, no one was saying that not making enough article edits would be enough to get you blocked. They were saying that the number of good article edits you made was low compared to the number of disruptive edits, low enough that overall you are being seen as a disruptive user. Tell me: what kind of work do you want to do here? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Yes I am saying you did it on purpose. A couple of times as an accident is understandable. But the number of "oops!!!" type reverts you have to make of yourself is getting far too suspicious. And, I agree with Enfcer and Auntof6 on here. Your lack of quality article edits shows some WP:NOT concerns. As in, NOT here to improve the project. Blocking based on WP:NOT is totally valid. If you continue to just focus on badgering admins and baiting vandals as Enfcer pointed out, you will be indefinitely blocked for not being a productive member of this community. Only (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Krett12, I know you've had some trouble finding things to write about that interest you. I'd like to invite you to visit my user page (click here) and read the paragraph about "low-hanging fruit" then click the "featured articles" link in that paragraph and find a red-link article that might interest you. Go find the related article on EnWiki and make a version of it for Simple. The articles on that list are featured articles on EnWiki, which means they are well-written and include appropriate sources. Remember that we are looking for simple words and grammar, but people reading Simple are still looking for information about things; not just a paragraph or two. Also, remember to properly attribute the article to EnWiki on the talk page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You have been blocked from changing Wikipedia for Continued Disruptive Editing for 72 Hours.

Once the block has ended you can make helpful changes. Please read Wikipedia's blocking policy and remember that adding spam, making changes that do not have a neutral point of view, making personal attacks on others, not respecting other people's privacy, and vandalizing pages are not allowed. If you do any of these things, you will be blocked again.

If you think this block is unfair, you can ask to be unblocked by adding {{Unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to read our guide to unblock requests before asking to be unblocked. Enfcer (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Krett12/Archive_3 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

All I have done since the final warning is reply to a discussion and test out huggle (and a few minor other things). This is not disruptive in any way. Krett12 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You also left a warning message at User talk:188.29.164.132 that had an unnecessary comment added -- or is that one of the "minor other things"? (Not to mention that your edit summary, "twinkle sux", was inappropriate.) Besides that, your extra comment mentioned that that user was blocked, when that IP has never been blocked. That is not appropriate, and is an example of disruptive editing. Wikipedia is not your personal playground. It is an encyclopedia, and people who edit here need to contribute constructively. What kind of constructive contributions do you want to make? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You know, it's kind of strange that says I should do nothing about comments made about PEOPLE is made that I insulted twinkle. When I posted on that talk page, I saw a "this user is blocked" pink notice, IDK. I intend to continue what I was doing and also keep info in line by checking it with ENWiki. Also, could you add DJSasso's ENWiki popup thingy to my common.js file (as I can't do it) Krett12 (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, your grammar isn't so good there -- I don't know what you're trying to say.

• The comment about Twinkle might not be so bad, but the use of a rude word adds to the perception that you are disruptive.
• If you intend to continue what you were doing, that's probably not good: you don't seem to get that people have a problem with the fact that most of your edits aren't constructive.
• As for checking things with enwiki, that's not a good idea: you should check them with reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
• I don't know what "popup thingy" you're talking about, but I will not help you evade your block by making an edit for you; wait until the block ends.

You're not giving an impression that you will be constructive after your block ends. Do you care at all about that? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont consider that evadi g a block since it is in my ow ln space but wvlhateverm and of course i care if my edits are constructive Krett12 (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is evading. The only thing you get to do while blocked is discuss the block. You don't get to contribute in other ways to the encyclopedia, and you definitely don't get to ask other users to proxy for you. Can you give some concrete examples of what you believe constructive edits are and what kind you'll make when the block expires? Because, like Auntof6, I'm concerned that you're not learning that your behavior is not good here and needs to be changed. Only (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Meh, ok. According to the templated block message, I was "adding spam, making changes that do not have a neutral point of view, making personal attacks on others, not respecting other people's privacy, and vandalizing pages"---I didn't even do one of those! (And then you complain that I use the wrong templates). I believe that any edit except unconstructive ones and pointless ones (like adding an extra line w/o a reason) are constructive. Maybe I would've "learned" it if you'd been a bit nicer about it. Krett12 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That message does not say you were doing those things. It just gives examples of things that are not allowed. The fact that you misinterpreted it makes me concerned about your ability to do good work here. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that it was not intended to mean I did those. What I meant it that I have been reprimanded for using the wrong template---and here it is. While I am aware that I am calling the kettle black, I believe it's a fair point, and everyone is a little disruptive. Krett12 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The templates you used were wrong. Block templates are general and meant to cover a wide range of issues while letting the user know they have been blocked, and my block reason was given in the final warning section. Continuing to debate this issue while you are blocked is continuing your project dispruption. If you continue with this your block could be extended or made indefinite, and talk page access revoked, or could be taken to the community for a community ban. --Enfcer (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Maybe I would've 'learned' it if you'd been a bit nicer about it." - from this statement, it seems that you are aware of whether your previous edits were constructive or unconstructive, but you are refusing to "learn" because we apparently are not "nicer about it". From that, I have half a mind to extend your block. You can expect a community ban proposal if you continue with this attitude. Chenzw  Talk  02:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. You do things like threaten to extend the block whn you're talking to me, but completely ignore it when someone else does it. This is the one thing that makes it hard for me to edit here. Krett12 (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

IP Addresses 3, Super Template Boy 1

Did you enjoy your 3 days wikibreak? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.138.155 (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)‎

Yes, I did. It gave me a chance to enjoy the beautiful vista on my front porch. Krett12 (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your holiday card

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg is too big on the user talk pages and affecting readability. Please go back and correct this by manually specifying an image size. Chenzw  Talk  02:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You can look at my userpage for an example of how to do this, if you are uncertain. I've already resized it there. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that wonderful gift of an edit conflict. I GTG could one of you set them all to 30px for me please? Krett12 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
And another note about your holiday card: it's not good that those greetings are a large percentage of your total work here. Wikipedia is not a social website. If you're going to do social things like that, they should be balanced with at least as much constructive work. It's also disruptive in several ways: the recipients get extra online and email notifications that they have messages, people watching those talk pages get extra messages in their watchlists, you used a heading that's reserved for warnings and the like, and now you want someone else to clean them up for you. Not good. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Bah Humbug! It looks like he sent this to all of eight editors. On EnWiki, those sending cards have sent them to, in some cases, hundreds of other editors. I received this same one from an editor (on EnWiki) I don't think I've ever interacted with. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Krett12: To fix the graphic on the six copies of the card that haven't been changed by their own users, you should change [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg]] to [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|43px]]. (I picked 43px because it's a common size for other purposes.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Krett12: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:User:Etamni/templates/Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Your change to Meow

With this change, you removed a link to Wikimedia Commons. In general, we need more links to Commons, not fewer. Was there a particular reason you thought this one wasn't needed? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It seemed unnecessary and weird to have sounds of cats meowing. Krett12 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is about the sound that cats make. For any article we have, if there is media for it, it's appropriate to include it in an appropriate way. The usual way is a link to the Commons category and even imbedding an individual file. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Meh, Ok. Krett12 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Your note to User:Proud User

You might not know about an option in preferences that could help you with the problem you described. Go to "my settings", choose the "New changes" tab, and click the checkbox for "Better new changes (JavaScript)". That will combine changes for each page into a single line. It does a few other things, too, though, so you might not decide to keep it, but give it a try. Also be aware that the issue isn't always that a user doesn't use the preview button. We had at least one user here who made their changes in small increments because he or she was vision impaired and it was difficult to look at a lot of changes all at once. You never know what someone's challenges might be. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the new change (I've seen it before on other wikis) but I'll try it anyway. Krett12 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think I'll switch back due to this (make sure to read the comments at the bottom) Krett12 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)