User talk:Dan Koehl/2021

Fixed your talk page archiving
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, however the auto-archiving still dont seem to work... :( Dan Koehl (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The archiving bot runs every night, starting at 0:00 UTC, and it takes (currently, depending on how many pages it has to archive) until just before 7:00 UTC. See Special:Contributions/Lowercase sigmabot III. Check back tomorrow if it worked! --rchard2scout (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Zoos established in year 1974


A tag has been placed on Category:Zoos established in year 1974 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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 deleted 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. Liz Read! Talk! 15:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Buildings and structures in Eskilstuna


A tag has been placed on Category:Buildings and structures in Eskilstuna requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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 deleted 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. Liz Read! Talk! 15:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you patrol my new article?
Hey Dan, how are you doing on this lovely evening? I would like to make a request, if not much, could you patrol my new article? This is the one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostalgix

Thanks in advance buddy! Have a great day!

ArzakMululu (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Duke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jarl.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AN3


I wasn't trying to manipulate anything. I was simply trying to make sure I understood what you were saying. A common way for well-intentioned people to check they're understanding what another person is saying is to restate what they think is being said. That's what I did. Please try to assume good faith. —valereee (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Im really trying, while I see how people break the rules, executing forbidden ownership over articles, removing NPOV templates a, ignore the rule about internationalisation of articles, ignores prime sources, admins abusing their tools, Im really, really, trying to have good faith. I really do. And I really try to see how this makes Wikipedia better, I really do. Meanwhile, since I started here in 2002, it seems many older users are leaving, and others less contributors. Maybe this is really good for Wikipedia. Maybe it really is. To be honest, I have no idea about the reasons for your input in that discussion. Maybe Im to old, but when I grew up, it was very unpolite to interprete others words and motives. It was generally more polite to ask them. And Im also trying to see how discrimination against Scandinavians make Wikipedia better. I really do.  Dan Koehl (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to ask. I didn't understand what you were trying to say. I though you were saying that it was against the rules for people to remove that NPOV banner without you agreeing to its removal. What were you trying to say? —valereee (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If I reread what I said, it was exactly what I have written there. That everyone should follow the rules. If you read my reply, it says: '''I want the rules to be followed. Everyone should follow the rules. Including admins like Berig, above, who has abused his tools in a situation where he is a biased part, the worst thing an admin can do''' thats what I was trying to say. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, so your main objection is not about the removal of the tag but about Berig using rollback on a good-faith edit? That's fine, and no one should do that, but I do think it's believable, given that they only did it once in three reverts (the other two were undo and manual) that it was an error, for which they apologized.
 * The reason I asked about the NPOV was because the discussion was at AN3 and started as a discussion of whether they were allowed to remove an NPOV tag, so that's what I thought you were still talking about. —valereee (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No it isnt, it is what I just wrote above, not what you interprete. And the nPOV template was reverted another 3 times yesterday, and many times before. because the article is owned, against the rules, it has been criticized since 20 years, and the discussions are kilometers. It has a C-rate due to its low quality. And have an an Anglo-American focus which is not NPOV, it is as you can read below, also against the rules. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Discriminating Scandinavians, which is also against the rules. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?

''Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject for Countering systemic bias has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia reflects a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia reflects a Japanese bias, and so on.''

But if someone wants, its just to ignore the rule. When someone puts up a NPOV template on a page, in order to report the rules, its just to remove it. And then you threaten the reporter, and use lies like Dan Koehl is complaining about everyone's conduct. Like in DDR. Luckily, Im not in festung Königstein where they used to send people to become brainwashed. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we have many systemic biases here and I'm sure in other wikis.
 * Okay, trying to ask for clarification without giving offense: Are you saying that allowing people to remove tags that don't have consensus is a violation of our NPOV policy and therefore a violation of rules? —valereee (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Valaree, if you ever saw an NPOV template, maybe you noticed the text: '''Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (July 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)'''


 * Some details from Neutral point of view/FAQ to keep in mind:


 * The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each other's perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented.

Dan Koehl (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, and there's consensus at the article talk that there isn't an issue and that the tag is not needed, which means in the opinion of most editors at that page, the conditions to remove it are met. Your best bet is to take it to WP:NPOVN and see if you can get a larger consensus there. By ignoring consensus, you're breaking rules, too. —valereee (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Im sv wiki user number 3 and was the first admin there ever, I even translated the old perl script to PHP. I created there over 3 000 articles. During some years I was admin on 4 different projects, still being the oldest admin and burocrat on Wikispecies. I made my first article edit 11 October 2002 on enwiki which make me the 90th earliest user still 'active', Im the 2321 most active editor ever on enwiki, I have uploaded over 600 graphics to Wikimedia, including very unique medevial coat of arms of which some are not be seen anywhere else. I may have given Wikipedia som 10-15% of my life, in hours. Im very sad about the change the latest years, and how admin abuse and total neglect of all rules produces a Wikipedia, which may not really make it bbetter.Dan Koehl (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Very impressive accomplishments! I'm sorry you aren't happy with where enwiki is now, but I don't actually think this is a change. You've always needed to get consensus. That is the rule. —valereee (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

yes but heres difference between true consensus and a false one. A true consensus involves everyone, and where everyone agree that conditions are met. A false consensus is when a group of owners declare they have consensus and conditions are met, without any change of the article, and totally ignoring the passage work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. Normally described as mafia method consensus, or when you have a revolover against your head. (If you dont agree we will block you from editing) This is how minorities can control the majority. But its breaking the rules I specified above, especially the NPOV. You can never reach NPOV if you let a mafia group own an article. Then it will be as bad 20 years later, as 20 years before when users started to criticize the article. And the Wikipedia will not be a "free encyklopedia"" anymore, it will become a hijacked Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Where the rules in the end only are used as methods to control the POV content, see User_talk:Berig where an admin who has abused his tools in a situation where he was involved, is getting all sympathy. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
Dan Koehl, you appear to be trying toWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because you feel Scandinavians are somehow slandered by being called Vikings. This is not how Wikipedia works, as you show know full well from having been here for 19 years. We follow WP:COMMONNAME, and the common name in English for Scandinavians in this period (the "Viking Age") is Vikings. There's no reason to continue this discussion endlessly on different articles constantly repeating the same arguments (and spamming the same images) over and over. You are well past WP:ICANTHEARYOU now and are likely to be taken to ANI by someone soon if you don't cut it out.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Reverting other users edit in talk pages is a No-No. Please study the Wikipedia rules, which declares that reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing.The picture of a rune stone I added on a talk page is to illustrate some details in the discussion. Its not for you to decide what I shall discuss or not, which political views or opinions I should have, We have to show descent respect for other users, even we disagree with what they write. And a picture of a rune stone can not be regarded as harming the Wikipedia in any way. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be of you put it in every discussion about Vikings you start, and you do. You should know Better after 19 years…Adville (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Contrary to some other users, Im following the rules, which I always did during my 19 years here. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is wp:NOTAFORUM for you to insert random images you find “interesting” on talk pages.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , whatever opinion you may have, and my talk page is wp:NOTAFORUM, reverting other users edits on a talk page is against the rules. I did NOT insert a random picture, that is a lie, I inserted a picture of a rune stone, where text mention the word viking. Highly relevant in a discussion about vikings . Dan Koehl (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Please also avoid to your disrapture behaviour by reverting my edits in the article Norsemen. Keep in mind, that in the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality. In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view, and deliberately mistranslating texts. Such behaviour is not approved, or recommended on Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ermenrich (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Ermenrich (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Block
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive and tendentious editing. Specifically, acute WP:BLUDGEON and WP:BATTLEGROUND. For example, I counted three times that you've copied the Anglo-American focus passage (even twice in one thread), possibly there's more. Not sure what you hope to accomplish with this un-collaborative approach, but it is self-defeating and will not end well. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 19:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikimania in Cambodia
Hey Dan! We are coming together for Meetup/Phnom Penh/August 2021 in Koh Pich, and it would be great if you join that you give us one of the 3 short TED-style talks about your involvement on Wikipedia as you seem to be the most committed user living in the Kingdom of Cambodia. You can contact me through Facebook (Will Conquer) or Telegram (+855 96 236 3478) for more info. Willuconquer (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikimania in Phnom Penh
Hey Dan! It seems like you’re pretty much the biggest wiki guy in Cambodia. It’ll be fantastic and very interesting for all the participants if you give us a quick 10 to 15 minute talk about your experience. Or any other topic related. Feel free to call me through Telgram (‪+855 96 236 3478‬). - Will Conquer Willuconquer (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Marineland of Florida
Hello Dan Koehl, I noticed that you are the 'Current Coordinator' of WikiProject Zoo. As such, could you take a look at the article Marineland of Florida concerning the addition of "unsourced content" dating back to at least 2015. In July of 2021, I left a template regarding the addition of 'unsourced original research (i.e., personal experiences)' on the Talk page of Bpickering1986, who is one of the repeat offenders. Nevertheless, said offender continues to add unsourced content, as recently as September 25, 2021. My first inclination was to revert all additions back to 2015, wherein the content contains the only "References" cited in the entire article. However, that could be viewed as somewhat overzealous and would require considerable editing expertise and time that I cannot devote to Wikipedia. Your advice would be appreciated. Woodlot (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)