User talk:Ks0stm/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ks0stm, for the period July 2016 to December 2016. 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.

Wishing Ks0stm/Archive 16 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ks0stm. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

I noticed you blocked 216.30.25.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I just wanted to let you know that 216.30.25.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also clearly the same person. Another block would be appreciated. Thanks! 73.96.112.213 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you are a clerk in the TRM Arbcom enquiry. I also see that I have been dragged into the matter by Fram in this proposal. Is this subsidiary proposal governed by the same deadline as the main matter? To properly defend myself against these allegations, I would hope to have time to mobilise my defence.

Fram now argues that I should not be allowed more time. Please could you tell me what are the rules on submissions to the Workshop page. Do they stop at midnight UTC? I do not like the way that if I state something there, Fram comes back and contradicts me. I would like the committee to adjudicate on the points I raise, and not Fram do it on their behalf. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: If you want, I can ping the arbitrators and let them know you would like more time to respond to Fram's proposals, or you may do so yourself by email to the clerks mailing list here. I am not aware of anywhere that there are guidelines for the workshop other than at the top of the workshop page, but either you or I could ask that, as well. Would you prefer I contact them, or would you like to do that yourself? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in view of Fram's comment that I shouldn't be allowed any more time, I can probably deal with the matter in the next hour or so. But Fram has proposed some quite serious sanctions against me and I am concerned that if he keeps contradicting the points I raise in my defence, I will not get a fair hearing and he will probably have the last word. I could ask him to shut up and desist, but I doubt he will. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, though I will say, if continue to have any concerns, don't hesitate to email the clerks mailing list; then, the clerks and/or the arbitrators can discuss any issues or concerns you raise and take any actions needed, sometimes in a more timely manner than by individually pinging me or another clerk. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to contest your deletion of my favourite game. Empiresmod has been around since 2007, but still has a vibrant community on the forums. We're struggling to get enough players to be able to play 24/7. It seems some people want our wikipedia page deleted, but I don't see why.

Why do you want to delete our wikipedia page?

The deletion discussion seems to have been opened and closed within a week, which seems to me to contradict the "wikipedia is not on a deadline" principle.

TamaMcGlinn (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamaMcGlinn (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I don't have an opinion on the deletion; I merely closed the discussion in line with the consensus reached during the standard week for Articles for Deletion discussions. The deletion consensus was that the game is not notable; that is, it is not significantly covered in reliable sources. If you would like, I can restore the article to your userspace where you may work on adding references to reliable sources, per WP:REFUND. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes please, that sounds like exactly what I want! Thank you; I'm not so familiar with wikipedia practice, and I was rather distressed by the extremely quick resolution of this issue. While developers on the team were still coming up with links to 3rd party sources to comply with the request for sources "asap", the page was deleted and so I could no longer add the sources.

TamaMcGlinn (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@TamaMcGlinn:  Done. You can find it at User:TamaMcGlinn/Empires (video game). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

hello, I had 2 3 edits of mine reverted on the grounds of wp:DENY. It's apparent someone suspects me of being a troll stalker. i need to know, should i change my username? Kelapshock (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm, you blocked the above user for edit warring, however, this user seems to be abusing their talk page access by personally attacking me and the editors he was edit warring with. Please take a look into it. Thanks! Class455 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Class455: done. I'll monitor and if he keeps it up I'll give him some extra time to cool off and take away his talk access. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Please help to make up my article "Shaze" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriLankanProductions (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe I owe you an apology. I've since reread your block of the user and you handled it in an objective manner. My apologies to you for being wrong. Caden ^cool 03:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Caden: No worries! 🙂 Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Sully (film) again. As seen here, you said Just hash it out on the talk page (which seems to already be underway). Ping me if y'all get it resolved sooner than the three days. It was not resolved. Depauldem just declared he was right and continues to ignore long standing principles of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, as well as WP:CONSENSUS, refusing to wait until others agree with his interpretation of sources and policy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please take a look. Gothicfiln violated the 3RR rule again today. Let me know if I need to make another edit warring notice. The policy is clear. The reliable sources are well documented. And the prior discussions all run counter to Softlavender's position. Depauldem (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I was going to remake the page but I noticed that you had deleted the page and it said I should check with you first. Is there a reason I shouldn't make a page for the movie? Scrampmeyer (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scrampmeyer: I assume you mean Innocence (2014 film). If that is the case, I deleted it under speedy deletion criteria A7, which, among other things, provides for deletion of articles about web content that do not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the web content. I did so because one of the lines in the article was "The original episode was uploaded to YouTube on September 7th, 2014." If you feel like you can create an article on the film that will not be deleted under the A7 criteria, feel free, but I would recommend doing it through the Articles for Creation process. When you have the article ready to submit, let me know and I'll take a look at it and give you feedback. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm. Please see Sandeep nokhwal which you recently correctly tagged for deletion, and let me know if you can figure out what went wrong. This might help solve some of the many issues that our work group is attempting to address in very close collaboration with the WMF team at WP:NPPAFC. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Honestly, I think people creating pages just need a better grasp of notability, NPOV, and COI policies, because 90% of speedy deletions I tag or perform are A7 or G11. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the double CSD tagging. Can you see any technical issues there rather than notability and/or policies? (We're already wotking with a team of devs to address the non-existent information for new users). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure. My best guess is because I used TW and you used the curation tool. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what you're asking me. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Precisely, and that's why we're now getting a user right to patrol pages and why we're currently working very closely together with the devs to update Page Curation and it New Pages Feed with all the missing features that they left undone when the internal row began that ultimately culminated in all of them leaving by the end of 2015. The current effort will actually make it better and more user friendly - for patrolling new pages - than Twinkle but it's development is a labour-intensive task and I'm not expecting a roll out of the new version for quite a while. Twinkle's features will remain untouched, but the Page Curation tool will be even better - trust me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the article Composer Cuong Manh Nguyen(Nguyen Manh Cuong), which you proposed for deletion, I have marked the article for speedy deletion, as I think that the article meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. In cases where it applies, speedy deletion is preferable to proposed deletion. I have left the {{prod}} tag in place, so that if speedy deletion is rejected, your proposed deletion will remain in place. Thanks! Dps04 (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm. I see you have blocked User:Riisen 48 hours for personal attacks. Just for reference this user has been blocked 72 hours before for the same thing as User:Kamalikachanda by Widr. I realize blocks are not intended to be punitive, but this and this as well as various talk page discussions sort of show that this particular editor is unable to learn from their past mistakes and is not really here to help build Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It seems (in my opinion) highly likely that they will continue to their disruptive ways once this latest block expires. Perhaps some may see this a bit of bad faith on my part, but this particular editor has been repeatedly advised by multiple editors that collaborative edting requires being civil and being willing to discuss things, which are two things this editor seems to have no interest in doing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Well, if I had known that at the time, I would have probably blocked for longer, but it feels a bit heavy handed to extend the block after I already placed it. My typical personal attack block sequence is somewhere around 48 hours, then one week, then one month, then six months, then indef, so even if I had known about the 72 hour block I still would have probably only done a week. Feel free to ping me or ANI if he keeps making personal attacks when he returns. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. Perhaps it's best to continue AGF and hope that being blocked for a second time will cause this editor to have a change of heart. If not, then he will likely end up at ANI the next time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there's going to be a next time, at least not for this particular account. It has been indef'd as a sock based upon checkuser evidence. It seems the master has been socking and disrupting since 2011. Anyway, with Kamalika Chanda now salted, it appears the master is going to have to find something different to create the next time they show up. Thanks again for your assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see the page "Frank Cooper" and the revision summary for an explanation for why I feel this is a relevant figure.

Regards, Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Matthewethanchowtoy: It was deleted by Materialscientist. If you would like to contest the deletion, please discuss it with him. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, in a subject to the deletion of the Wiki page that I created, I thereby challenge you to the reason as to why you deleted my page. What is your problem???? Can't you just let someone write something in peace??? You r just a freakin student!!!!! At a university... who cares??? please do not delete it again... Damn u got me pissed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risk Skar (talk • contribs) 16:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Risk Star: Hi! I deleted the article because someone else nominated it for deletion under speedy deletion criteria A7, which is for articles about a real person that do not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the person, among others...that is, for articles about a real person that do not give an indication why the person might be notable. Please read those two links, and then if you still are confused, I will be more than happy to attempt to explain it further. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello: if you are receiving this, you have transcluded Example (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks ^confirmed_suspected | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE), I have created a Usercheck with more content, that I plan to update with more when I come across it, as of right now Usercheck-Super has only three more things than Usercheck-full, but as mentioned, I plan to update it, the three things I mentioned are pending changes log, giving all of the revisions you have accepted or rejected, Abuse filter, which gives you the ability to examine your edits, and get many details about an edit, along with Articles created, which links to a page which gives a breakdown of all the pages you have made. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey. Mind reconsidering pending changes protection on Dak Prescott? An editor asked me about it, and it seems clear that the volume is much too high to use pending changes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it. I'll semi in just a moment. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm the aforementioned "an editor". Prescott's the starting quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys, a high-profile position to put it mildly, so the vandalism likely won't end anytime soon. See Tony Romo for a precedent. Just a heads up that I'll probably be back here on October 27 asking for more protection. Lizard (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Lo, the very instant semi-protection wore off the page was shelled. Note the only legitimate contribution from an IP was worded terribly unencyclopedically. Would you mind restoring semi? Thanks, Lizard (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected three months, which should take it through the NFL season, depending on the Cowboys' playoff success. We can reevaluate further then. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with you about not separating them out by homicidal status... but that only works if you put them back into alphabetical order afterwards. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: Whoops, my bad! I was trying to do too many things at once when I did that. I'll fix it when I get home. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Few days back a page named "Zaki Ameer" [1] was created by someone and you had deleted the page under the criteria of speedy deletion (A7 and G11). I don't know what that person had added at the time. But now I want to retrieve the page and recreate it. I have content and reliable sources as well for the content. Can you help with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arif Rizvi (talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Cooped Up (film). Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Thanks, but it only registers as mine because I slapped the submission template on there in response to an OTRS ticket. You should contact the person who originally created the draft. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

for fixing the broken Casenavs from a misfunction in Template:Casenav/closed. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm, thank you for getting involved in the article. We currently have a problem. The consensus established that the infobox before the election will show the candidates that have access to more than 270 votes, electoral + write ins. There are two candidates missing, if you check the history of the article you will be able to see what I am talking about. Some users have been removing them every time someone adds them. They are aware of the consensus and they still do it. Please if you can check it out.

I know that this must be exhausting but today the article is the most important source of information about a future event so it should be as inclusive as it can get. After the elections the article is a whole different thing, is a record of what happened. Thank you. Clarinetcousin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for the protection of Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/2. Would it be possible to extend the page protection to all subpages of Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor, since they all suffer from the same disruptive editing issues?T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Ks0stm a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks, for granting me the rights.Hope,I'll keep up to your expectations. Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 07:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@ARUNEEK: I'm a bit tardy on noticing this, but thank you very much! =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

Warm regards, Mz7 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm, I saw that you blocked Counterjeh for 60 hours for violating the 3-revert rule. Would it possible to indefinitely block this editor? It seems this editor is either reverting vandalism rollbacks or harassing other editors. Thanks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, saw that after looking into it further...when I blocked I had only seen the page history at UAA. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, thanks again. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ks0stm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Linguist If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 15:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the 20,000 Challenge, aiming for 20,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the extended confirmed protection at Donald Trump. The mass of recent edits to the talk page shows the kind of onslaught that would have happened to the main article, if it wasn't for that protection. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: No problem! Once the onslaught has subsided, let me know so we can try lowering it to semi-protection. I'm not particularly convinced it will be effective now that he's been elected, but I'm hesitant to leave up indefinite extended confirmed protection without demonstrated need to have it long term (since, after all, this is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at wp:PERM.
Message added 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ks0stm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was taking it personally. Now I realize it wasn't directed at me. Sca (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ks0stm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—M@sssly^✉ 13:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ks0stm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Linguist If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 10:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for your information on the 1RR. I believe I have been consistent 1RR per 24 hour period. I noticed you didn't send a notice to MaverickLittle who I had reverted for reverting to a minority source. He immediately reverted back (violating 1RR) and made no attempt to establish consensus on the talk page. Even if this was by mistake, you can see how this may make you appear bias. Thanks for listening. Gsonnenf (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ks0stm, somebody impersonting you, heads up. SA 13 Bro (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@SA 13 Bro: Saw that! Probably the same sockpuppeteer I blocked for impersonating User:Graham87. Thanks for getting that taken care of! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Calculus I. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Calculus. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Calculus – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Nthep (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thanks, but I just made it as a redirect (or so I assume without looking). You should notify the person who expanded it into an article. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ks0stm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Two years ago ...

Storm Prediction Center
... you were recipient no. 1040 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm still quite proud of my work on that article! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for doing anti-vandalism work! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Thank you! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that picture back on Wikipedia, and with a proper license tag, too. Great, fast work, and I appreciate it. Wineconnoisseur2016 (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the username discussion on your "☈" alternate account. Consensus was clearly against allowing it. Normally at this point the account would be blocked, but that doesn't seem necessary in this particular situation. I guess either just don't use it or rename it to something else, whichever you prefer. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't really feel a need to respond to your request, especially when it is only tangentially related to the discussion, but as you asked, FWIW, after a month of development by me, the poll was started in October 2011 here, and the results were not released to us until 5 months later. here is one thread of many others in many places; I cannot reveal the insults and other rubbish I received by email and I am under no obligation to do so. There is more here which is based on what was no longer a representative sample and after the results had been triaged by a WMF contractor who was never actually commissioned to produce that report. His official rôle was uniquely to be the 'coordinator' or messenger, between the community and the Foundation. Later investigation (discussions at various Wikimanias) revealed that the excuses for the delays were unfounded. If you intend to take further issue with my comments, I do suggest you read the information provided here, very very carefully. You will then understand how scrupulous I am about 100% correct reporting of anything on Wikipedia, the composing of survey polls - which I also do professionally, and demanding honest rationales for RfCs.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you take a look at ticket:2016113010028748?

We have someone planning to do an edit-athon looking for a local admin. Obviously, my hope is that you can personally volunteer but if not, would you be willing to take over this ticket and help locate someone?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that I'll take a look at that in the next few days. I'm rather ill right now (I seem to have caught a lovely case of strep throat) and don't really feel up to doing much more than resting at the moment. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I recommend that you get a better license than Technician. you should get General or Extra really it's better EggsInMyPockets (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. I have declined the speedy deletion of this article twice and you delete it for the very reason I declined the speedy deletion both times. - GB fan 01:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@GB fan: I'll defer to you here, but personally all I can tell from what's currently there is that it's some sort of production. I strongly considered A3, too, since there's nothing but references and an infobox, but it does seem to be in a bit of a grey area around those two criteria. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm. TCould you please add an edit notice to Breitbart News like this one: Template:Editnotices/Page/Steve_Bannon? Many thanks.- MrX 12:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@MrX:  Done. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheMagnificentist was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of films and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cooped Up (film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

- TheMagnificentist (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Ks0stm, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! - TheMagnificentist (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Thanks, but I just submitted the article in response to an OTRS ticket. I would recommend notifying the original creator of the draft. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Other than ANI, is there somewhere else to report this kind of activity ? Is there a good centralized place to report this? It appears to be spamming and promotion type activity. Sagecandor (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe I may have reverted, twice. Won't do it again, thanks. But need to know a good place to report this kind of stuff. Can you help look into this for me? Sagecandor (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Other than ANI, there's ANEW for edit warring or RSN if you think the source is unreliable. The reason I declined the AIV and recommended ANI specifically is because the editor is an established user, not a spam-only account. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Oh, and I forgot about the neutral point of view noticeboard. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, but I'm not sure those are the best places for this. It's not a WP:RSN issue as it is spam links to a primary source from a dubious website. Basically so black and white as to not be WP:RSN matter. The other stuff appears pretty obviously page blanking wars and conflicts which reflect negatively on the reputation of Russia. [2] [3] [4] Can you have a look at my report about this kind of activity and let me know what you think ? Sagecandor (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: That discussion is as good a place as any about the content issues. However, I still would take it to ANI for the behavior issues, personally. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you had luck in the past with getting concrete results and action when you brought reports to ANI ? Sagecandor (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha that's actually a fair question. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'll chime in if you make a report there and ping a couple other admins to chime in as well so that hopefully it doesn't just stagnate with no input, but as far as results, I can't guarantee anything. Worst comes to worst it's good to get it on the record in case the behavior continues. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about ANI, but I followed your advice and started a talk page content discussion at Talk:Great_Depression#Primary_source_added_to_this_article_-_Joseph_Stalin. I also posted request for input linking to that discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Primary_source_added_to_article_Great_Depression. But, really, adding spam links to Joseph Stalin for a WP:PRIMARY source on the Great Depression instead of relying on WP:SECONDARY sources? Ya gotta look for a moment to see what is really going on here with regards to the motivations to do that sort of thing, you know? Sagecandor (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, though if he continues please do not hesitate to file a report at ANI. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to give you an update: Good talk page discussion now ongoing at Talk:Great Depression, and Parsecboy undid the edit at Military history of the Soviet Union and I'm awaiting any response in the section I started for discussion at Talk:Military history of the Soviet Union. So far, attempts at content discussion seem like they are working out reasonably okay. Sagecandor (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist). Would you take a look at David Seaman (journalist) and consider semi-protecting as well? It is under a bombardment of largely unsourced and unreliably sourced edits, no doubt because of the same extensive off-wiki canvassing. Neutrality^talk 03:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I left the protection templates in their large forms on both pages to point the IPs/new users to the talk pages. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Neutrality^talk 04:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! Thank you for your question and I will get around it soon. I have clinic duties and I will have to leave now; my apologies for the delay and I will answer it or any other questions that are there ASAP. Best, Yash! 04:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the user I reported to AIV quickly, they were tendentious in their vandalism. In veritas (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I ust made an edit to WP:RFPP regarding the Judith Barsi request. Can you please take a look at the additional evidence provided in that revision to WP:RFPP, as well as the talk page for Judith Barsi? Please consider increasing the type of protection for this article based upon these edits. Thanks. AldezD (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding this, I wish to remind you that the WP:CSD only apply to a page if they apply to all revisions of the page. I do not believe that a sandbox page consisting (initially) only of "Xyz is a company in sector Abc" is blatant advertising. Some pages are destined for deletion sooner or later, but CSD is not the "criteria for easy deletion". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Is that a request to restore the page so that you can develop it per WP:REFUND, or did you just want to let me know that you do not think G11 was correctly applied? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The latter. Personally, I do not wish to see that page ever again, and it appears it had other problems too (though again, not CSD eligible because of the first revision). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ks0stm. Regarding 2016 United States election interference by Russia. I changed the move protection banner to be small. Please revert if you disagree. (I don't recall ever seeing a large one before). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'm fine with that. I just left it large due to the part of it that says it is not an endorsement of the current title of the article, since it is in dispute. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello I'm ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi, you left a message on my talk page about wanting to talk to me in private. I have confirmed my email address, you asked that you wanted a talk with me, if you want to talk to me my email address is (Redacted), leave a reply on my talk page, get back as soon possible. ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi (talk) 20:49 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sent you an email. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 seems to have violated that 3RR rule on this article page. [5] and doesn't seem like he will let up on edit warring. Can you do something?--Fruitloop11 (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Fruitloop11 Too bad that you are trying to force me off. However I discovered something. All Syrian civil war articles have a 1RR limit. So through your 2 reverts: [6] and [7], you have violated the rules as well. As for your claims of not letting up on edit war, I already have and offered a consensus on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16)#Battle for Aleppo has not been completed. But you don't agree. Who seems like he will not give up on edit warring? And you baselessly have accused me of being biased as "pro-free Syria"; First in the edit summary of this edit and here in your comment which is a violation of good faith. You have broken multiple rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You claim I'm edit warring but you have already reverted 3 different users and violated the 3RR rule. Also the 1RR rule is wrong. That's all I have left to say to you.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Fruitloop11 The 1RR rule and 3RR is there to prevent edit-war. So yes you have edit-warred. You however conveniently don't seem to care about it or the rules. You don't decide what rules are wrong or right. The number of users doesn't matter or excuse you. You have broken multiple rules, among them edit-warring and making baseless allegations of biased behavior and bad faith even though I never tried to do such a thing nor I ever had any such intention. I just broke one rule. I have already offered you to seek a consensus but all you did was revert instead. Don't blame me when you yourself are at real fault. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fruitloop11 and MonsterHunter32: I've provided you both with notification of the general sanctions. This article is under a 1RR sanction that can be enforced without prior notification. Rather than block the both of you, I'm going to tell you to take this to the talk page. One more revert from either of you on that page will result in a block. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea it was under 1RR. there is nothing on the talk page or in the article that would indicate so.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a notice at the top of the talk page noting the general sanctions, although it doesn't specifically note 1RR. It states for you to click a link to read those details. That is part of the reason why I didn't just block, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Fruitloop11 It is impossible for you to not know that it was 1RR unless you have never read the sanction. I didn't but now I do. You however have clearly stated in youe earlier comment that you already know about it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fruitloop11 and MonsterHunter32: I'm not going to do anything more with this than Rob did. So long as you take it to the talk page and stop reverting there's no need for further administrator action here. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We already have and a lot of editors have agreed to keep the battle open as clashes have resumed. Thank you for informing and forgiving. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Following your arbitration enforcement block of the user, don't forget to close or comment on the open filing at WP:AE in addition to the one you've processed on WP:ANEW. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoops! Didn't even check for a discussion there. I'll go do that now. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: I left a note that I'd blocked them 60 hours, but after consideration I'm leaving the AE request open so that a topic ban or similar remedy can be discussed in addition to my block if needed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Don't tell me that........ Mike V is currently being dragged through the mud at AN for making an arbitration enforcement block when a user had an open AE filing and he failed to notice it. Granted, in this case the action itself is clear-cut uncontroversial as opposed to TRM's AE filing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ks0stm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an Arb!

ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: That is absolutely, fantastically adorable!! Love it! =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2017 Arbitration Committee. Please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org indicating which, if any, of the checkuser and oversight permissions you wish to be assigned for your term. Please also tell us what email address you would like to have subscribed to the Arbitration Committee mailing lists.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalize registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Moved it here for you. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I should have paid more attention to the elections. Congratulations on your success. Nice to see someone who I know I can trust has been elected. :) Dustin (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Thanks! Fourth time was the charm, apparently. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for moving this message, and sorry about that... Evidently clicking overlapping links when your browser is at half-screen doesn't always work out so well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The "small number of emails" over the next few days will then be replaced with the "large number of emails" over the next two years. Despite which, congratulations on your results in the poll. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ks0stm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Go Phightins! 00:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of us have reached some agreement, so I wonder whether any non-admin should do the closure and the move. It is currently move-protected. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: I'll get to this within the next day if no one else has. Pinging Ks0stm to remind myself. --Ks0alt (Chase me! • Impacts • Synopsis) 00:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: I've removed the move protection. If move warring resumes feel free to let me know or make a request at RFPP. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought we had a consensus to go for the parenthetical disambiguation, but the RM is closed as "not moved". Can you re-protect the title? --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday greetings

Merry Christmas! Hello Ks0stm: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message Merry Christmas! Hello Ks0stm: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 grotto presents 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message Merry Christmas! ~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~ Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! Hello, Ks0stm! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 21:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

You may want to extend his block | considering his edit summaries are pretty vulgar as well (directed to the same person as well ) KoshVorlon 20:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

More holiday greetings

Merry Christmas! Hello Ks0stm: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message Happy Holidays The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barn Stars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5. Check Users Checking 4 Over Sighters Hiding 3 GAs 2. Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598 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.