User talk:Krakkos: Difference between revisions

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Hello, Krakkos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Go Phightins! (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Vangio and Sido, Krakkos!

Wikipedia editor Falkirks just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have reviewed and passed your new article. Great Work!

To reply, leave a comment on Falkirks's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Was it on purpose that you did not mention all the reverts in this edit or by mistake? The reverts being made are all regarding very concrete concerns you've had quite some time to explain on the talk page also. If this was just done by mistake, can I ask you to fix that? If not, then I think the onus is on you to give justifications on the talk page. As pointed out in detail, the versions of these sentences you have reverted to are badly sourced and appear to be a POV fork section which deliberately argues against another better sourced part of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed at Talk:Germanic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. As you know very well, the article relevant topics ARE being discussed at the article talk page. This message to you personally as an editor, is about your editing approach. Article talk pages are not the right place to point out systematic problems with individual editors, and it is always good to assume good faith as much as possible anyway, and first try to explain concerns to other editors, giving them a chance to explain any misunderstandings etc. Do you think there were any misunderstandings or errors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Krakkos,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Romance-speaking countries and territories, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnic peoples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Krakkos. You and Andrew have both been warned for edit warring at Goths, per the result of the AN3 complaint. The closure says;

From here on, if either of you makes any change at all on the Goths article without a prior consensus on the talk page, you may be blocked. Both of you are free to make arguments on the Talk page. I would particularly like to see an RfC on the issue of source dating, since changes of source publication date were made in three of the diffs cited above (#2, 4 and 7). If Krakkos's changes of the publication dates are indeed an example of poor behavior, as claimed by Andrew on Talk ('insistence on this silliness'), then Andrew should find it easy to get support from others in an RfC.

Be aware of the 'any changes at all' restriction, since that disallows even small technical edits. (The two of you frequenlty disagree about small technical edits). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krakkos, as I was allowing you to edit at will when you pulled this off (and don't worry, the shameless dishonesty of what you've done will eventually become clear) I really wonder what you think happens next. On Germanic peoples you did the same thing, and it created a situation where you felt there was no point even trying to edit any more. It seems you can only work alone and this is going to lead to your exit from Wikipedia and the removal of all your edits eventually? To be clear:

• I can now start making drafts of how the article should look. When the block stops, work starts again, and I will of course take note of the history of how you lie and screw others. Of course I'd be happy to work with you if you DON't do that, but I will, in any case, work. I will call in the community quicker also whenever you so much as post a single lie about a word in a footnote, and believe me I was avoiding doing that until now, and could have been MUCH harder. I see myself as a rare case of someone who has worked with you, but still wants to give you a chance. But...
• The talk page is still no problem and I can keep posting problems and proposals there, in order to keep a clear record of a path for work when the block stops. My concern is not you, but the article, and this block is therefore no real problem to me. You can contribute, but you won't/can't I guess, except in the sense of trying to disrupt and make things less clear, but this will be easy to ignore now, because drafting can happen elsewhere. It looks like Germanic peoples again.
• Obviously my good faith acceptance of the idea of keeping off the main page now looks very naive. As usual, you do not seem to care a bit how you look to the people you should be trying to work with. Working within WP policies is the opposite of your aim. I predict that is not going to last long now you've taken things to this level.

In summary, you seem unable to work honestly and with others, but I would still like that to change. It is surreal sometimes. For a couple of short moments I really hoped/thought you were not going to do a repeat, and you were really going to try to make a real article according to WP policy, where you would actually compromise and work with other editors, and learn from them about how we work. I would still like you to learn how to do that, but it seems that was not possible? Now is the time to decide?

My question to you: do you have a non-BS proposal about how to work together now? Please understand I'd be very happy to see any kind of honest proposal from you, but I do have a very sensitive BS detector and really I am calm person but I hate lies and dishonesty. (It is a good combination on Wikipedia.) If you include one more lie or twisted reference in your reply to this, then I know where to file it. Perhaps take some time before answering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]