User talk:KDS4444/Archive 3

Welcome to my talk page!
Please make your entry below. If you are beginning a new discussion with me, be sure to
 * Place it at the bottom of the page
 * To give the section you are adding a heading (with the text "==Heading title of some kind==" ), and
 * To sign your entry at the end with four tildes like this: ~ so I can see who you are. Thanks!

Pectinidae and Scallop
I tried to do at least a first go-round on fixing those two articles. I left another update on the talk page at Pectinidae. There is more work to be done to the articles but I should explain that I am going away on Monday for more than two weeks and I have to do my packing now. I may not be able to do much more on this until late August. Invertzoo (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You have at least taken a solid swipe at the business, and that is to the good. Go enjoy your vacation!  The bivalvia will all be right here waiting when you return! (Bivalvia...  which are clams... which are also two different articles with overlapping information... which aught to be sorted out as well at some point, it seems to me.)  KDS 4444  Talk  07:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bivalvia and clam thing is a bit tricky, because some people in the US use the word clam to refer only to the edible species that are infaunal, in contrast to oysters, scallops, mussels, etc. Other US people, especially I think malacologists, use the word "clam" in a broader sense to mean bivalve. People in the UK don't really use the word clam very much at all. I suppose one could argue that the common name for Bivalvia is really bivalves, not clams...? I dunno... But you are right that those articles need sorting out -- there are probably other similar things going on in other parts of the bivalve coverage. Invertzoo (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Apex (mollusc)
 * added a link pointing to Umbo


 * Mimachlamys
 * added a link pointing to Convex

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Cladistics
I did a more or less random sample of various non-molluscan creatures with common names to see what is currently being done with regard to scientific names and article titles. Here is what I found ("->" and "=>" both mean "redirects to":


 * siphonaptera (order level) -> flea
 * Rhopalocera (sub order level)->butterfly but lepidoptera (order)no redirect (includes the moths)
 * Cow->cattle, genus level
 * Bos no redirect, also genus level
 * Beef, no redirect, ONLY on food related information
 * Serpentes->snake (suborder)
 * Lacertilia->lizard (suborder)
 * Reptilia->reptile (class)
 * Cetacea no redirect (order)
 * Whale no redirect, but this is awkward as it does not give a proper taxonomy for what a "whale" then is, and the content overlaps hugely with cetacea, but this is because "whale" can include or exclude the dolphins and porpoises AND "whale" even as just cetacea includes the baleen whales and the toothed whales (both taxonomic categories); in other words, "whale" is a complicated cultural term, and is not applied consistently to a specific order (or other level)
 * Eagle no redirect and has no taxobox, stating that there are several relatively unrelated genera that are eagles, though all are diurnal birds of prey; same complicated situation as "whale" above
 * Accipitridae no redirect (is not just the eagles, because it includes hawks, osprey, etc. and some classification seems to be up for debate at the subfamily level)
 * Medusozoa (subphylum)->jellyfish
 * Araneae (order)->spider
 * Brachyura (infraorder)->crab
 * Earthworm no redirect and lumbricidae has a separate article, but these are the same animal (family level) (latter is nothing more than a one-paragraph summary of the family; also, cladistics here seem to be in a constant state of flux anyway).
 * Chilopoda (class level)->centipede
 * Primates (order level)->primate
 * Elephant no redirect, order Proboscidea has only one remaining family, Elephantidae, including elephants and mammoths. Elephantidae seems like it should redirect to elephant, and that all mammoths are also elephants— the articles overlap.
 * Nematoda->nematode
 * rodentia (order)->rodent
 * Selachimorpha (superorder)->shark (the various orders and families of shark are seldom given redirects to common names until you hit the species level. i.e., great white shark, and common names at the family level get redirected to scientific names, e.g., dog shark -> Squalidae, and even at the order level, mackerel shark gets redirected to Lamniformes, which includes the great white shark) probably because no one knows what a mackerel shark really is)
 * Aves (class level)->bird
 * Sus (genus)=>pig
 * Pork, no redirect, article ONLY On food uses
 * Camelus (genus)=>camel
 * Artiodactyla (order)=>even toed ungulates
 * Didelphimorphia (order)=>opossum

What I interpret from this is that there is a pattern of consistently using the common name with a redirect from a scientific name as long as that common name corresponds well with a scientific name (exceptions: eagles, whales, elephants, earthworms). Scientific name used when no equivalent common name exists or seems to have any regular use (i.e., mackerel sharks). There is often a gap in common usage between the the order/ suborder level and the family level, such that the superfamilies don't often have equivalent common names and neither do many of the suborders, but at the order level, family level, and species level, if the animal has a common name at that level, that is the title of the article on that animal in all respects. Mind you, my approach was not exactly scientific or methodical, but it was conducted with as few preconceptions of the business as I could muster.  KDS 4444 Talk  04:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pterioidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superfamily. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Neural map of a giant scallop

 * Just wanted to say Congratulations!!! Invertzoo (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Flight feather
Hi there! I like the new picture you've added to the top of the flight feather article, but I have some concerns about our ability to use it on Wikipedia. You've uploaded it with the descriptor "public domain", but I see a logo in the corner (watermarks aren't generally acceptable on Wikipedia) and there is absolutely nothing on the owlpages.com website which indicates that it's a public domain picture. Do you have something that indicates it is?

Also, can I suggest that you move the new bit about coverts into the remiges section rather than the lead? The introductory paragraphs aren't supposed to include anything not mentioned in the expanded article, and (since they're not really flight feathers) I'm not sure it's appropriate to include them there anyway. It would be good to add the information into the body of the article though. :) MeegsC (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * MeegsC: Got your message. You are correct when you say that nothing on the owlpages.com web site indicates that this image (or any other on that site) is in the public domain-- my understanding is/ has been that as a line drawing without shading or color, it lacks even a minimal degree of artistic creativity and so does not meet the necessary threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright protection and therefore is in the public domain (the "owlpages.com" watermark should probably be removed from the image).  However, please inform me if you think my interpretation here is incorrect-- I do try to be careful about these things, but this would not be my first mistake and I much prefer to be corrected than to be allowed to retain a misunderstanding of policy.  What is your take on this??


 * Also, I agree with you completely on the placement of the bit on coverts— let me see what I did there and what I can do to fix it.  KDS 4444  Talk  01:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Let me run it past the more knowledgeable folks at the WP:CQ project and see what they think. If all else fails, we can probably get a project artist (there are a few in the WP:BIRDS group) that could recreate something very similar. MeegsC (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfect to me. Let me know what comes of any discussion there.  The diagram really does make the whole article much easier to comprehend (and truthfully, I could recreate an analogous image-- I just didn't want to remake the wheel if there was already one turning somewhere, is all!).   KDS 4444  Talk  02:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Commenting as requested at WP:MCQ - IMHO the image is clearly of sufficient creativity to qualify for copyright protection.--ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we'll have to mark the image for deletion. Do you think you can create something similar without too much trouble? Or should we ask the lab for help (as mentioned on the WP:MCQ page)? MeegsC (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One other thing: the new tectrices section will need to be referenced. (That's a requirement for FA articles — no unreferenced sections!) Do you have anything there you can use? MeegsC (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Have marked the image for deletion, reluctantly. So be it.  Have added 2 citations for section on tectrices.  (What's up with the section on "Delayed development in hoatzins"??  Does that really belong here in this article?)  KDS 4444  Talk  02:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. Can you replicate it? You look to be a pretty skilled illustrator, looking at some of your other pix! Not sure whether the hoatzins bit needs to be there, but it was there when the article went FA, so presumably none of the reviewers had a problem with it. I suppose it is interesting that the developmental delay is due to the presence of claws (no other birds have them on their wings), which allow the youngsters to climb around in the trees. Thanks for the citations, by the way! MeegsC (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Am just about done putting together an image, but am using a chicken wing rather than an owl wing so that I don't create a derivative work. Chickens are a bit different from owls, but wings is wings, so I expect to have it up soon.  And it looks pretty good!   KDS 4444  Talk  23:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Image done: File:Chicken wing.svg. Care to add it for me??  KDS 4444  Talk  00:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=621358356 your edit] to Propeamussiidae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Valves of these animals are fragile, either equivalved or nearly so, small to medium sized, and

Disambiguation link notification for August 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ostreoidea
 * added links pointing to Superfamily and Taxonomy


 * Imidacloprid
 * added a link pointing to Apis


 * Ostreoida
 * added a link pointing to Superfamily

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

emailed
Andrew Gray (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Cyclomethicone
 * added a link pointing to Volatile


 * Silicone oil
 * added a link pointing to Volatility

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Scallop merger
Hi KDS4444,

Congratulations on getting that scallop image featured and up on the main page today! I just voiced my support at the merger you proposed. Do you intend to carry out that merger? It looks like the community is in support of it; no one has objected since you proposed it several weeks ago.

Neelix (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

KDS4444: Thanks for your invitation to look at a merge discussion for Pectinidae. I've acknowledged the invite there and will add more soon. Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Raashid Alvi
The pending changes protection at Raashid Alvi were removed yesterday - and this morning User:Irfan.hamd added 29Kb of the same old material. Fully understand if you don't want to get involved - but a "heads up" if you are still interested. - Arjayay (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

He's back?? No effing way. Incredible. I have some things to take care of this morning here in Los Angeles, but when I get back, there's gonna be some trouble. Unbelievable. Well, actually, I take that back. Par for the course, I guess. Yes, I want to get involved. Wish there were no reason to. Thank you for the heads-up! I wonder if this means the page is now going to be headed for full protection... Which is ridiculous, for a third-rate Indian politician that no one has ever heard of outside of India. But whatever. I'll be back.  KDS 4444 Talk  17:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies
Missed it without an edit summary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi KD,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Scallop Diagram2.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 13, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-11-13. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello KDS4444: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  Hafspajen (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nautilus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whorl. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar
(Welcome! - KDS 4444 Talk  23:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC))
 * I very much regret opening that article... though I agree, the image was likely not free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Congo peacock
 * added a link pointing to Congo


 * Peafowl
 * added a link pointing to Congo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

peafowl
It probably needs some sort of tag; I've an idea that there might be a standard template for this, rather than an edit notice. Leave it with me, and I'll do one or the other in the next day or two. Thanks for the fixing Jimfbleak - talk to me?  17:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Multifaceted reflector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lumen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=642957489 your edit] to Tassel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the Bible, The Lord spoke to Moses to tell Israelites to make tassels modern Hebrew tzitzit on the corners of their garments in remembering all the commandments of

Featured Photo
Hi thanks for your comment. I reverted to the original, I too was a bit concerned that it had been pushed too far, thank you for the confirmation. talk→  WPPilot   12:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GeoResonance logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:GeoResonance logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, since the associated article is now gone, this file might as well go as well. I will make no defense of it.  Thank you for notifying me.   KDS 4444  Talk  20:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

,
Hope it is OK that I moved your resoning around this woderful image to Reason. When people notice a long text, they thing something is wrong, I have noticed this many times. Hafspajen (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nautilus

 * Any chance I could get you to write the blurb? I'm at a loss as to how to do it succinctly. (link) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Gimme 24 hours or so.   KDS 4444  Talk  00:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly. I'll be off for five days starting tomorrow, so I'll probably check it when I get back. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Blurb done— but what do you think? I tried to keep it short and simple yet with a few intriguing details.  Please revise if you see fit, yes?  Enjoy your break!  KDS 4444  Talk  09:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thanks. I've just made a few minor changes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL @ "Sordid, but legit" (re: Author Alan Roger Currie article)
That simple comment was very entertaining. Kudos. Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Am glad I entertain. While I have your attention, can I ask why this article was not recreated under Alan Roger Currie rather than Alan Roger Currie (American author)?  Because it does not look like there are other "Alan Roger Curries" from which this one needs to be distinguished.  And a second question: are you yourself Mr. Alan Roger Currie? If not, can I ask what is your affiliation with regards to him?  <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  22:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion that the article Alan Roger Currie (American author) be modified to display simply Alan Roger Currie As for your second inquiry, I would rather not respond (publicly) because any response I have previously offered has always led to unnecessary debates, discussions, and 'drama.'  Cheers  Chicago Smooth (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Also, I strongly recommend you consider reviewing the information at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, especially WP:YOURSELF.  The quote by Cato is very telling.  Lastly, see WP:PROUD.  Cheers to you as well. <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  21:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have read both of these before. I totally understand the objectives of each, as well as the cautionary warnings of each.  Thank you.  Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

interactions with new user at Eucestoda
Hi,

Thanks for this. Just so you know, there have been a number of emails back and forth about this topic. There won't likely be a response, but your concerns have not gone unheard or unaddressed. Removing messages is not an uncommon approach for someone who wants to avoid conflict. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, since communication is expected, sometimes that can just invite additional conflict rather than effectively signal a request to disengage.

Personally, knowing how confusing and intimidating editing can be for a new user -- especially when it comes to other people undoing and criticizing your work -- I think it's best to allow a little space to adapt sometimes. In other words, it may be counter-productive when someone signals a desire not to communicate, to continue to communicate on the subject of non-communication :) If there were serious behavioral or content-related issues -- and if those issues continued after the removal of the message -- that's one thing, but I think otherwise we can assume good faith that removing a message means acknowledgement (I think if this user had even just said the word "acknowledged" in an edit summary, you wouldn't likely have felt so ignored). It's annoying, I agree, but if content-related problems persist and further attempts at communication fail, things can escalate to a noticeboard, where noncommunication never goes over well.

That's just my $0.02. Thanks for your productive comments. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, and I hope Victoria eventually overcomes her aversion (perfectly understandable) to talk page interaction. One takes risks by editing Wikipedia, including the risks of having one's work scrutinized.  Know that I meant no ill.  I doubt any of this will ever reach someplace like WP:AIN.  I am happy to let it all go, with more apologies.  <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  15:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous Opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipelines
Hi, you recently proposed a merger of Indigenous Opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipelines on one day, and then closed and performed the merger yourself 38 hours later. While you informed the involved editor, you neither waited for a reply, nor waited the standard five days for a merger discussion (per WP:MERGE). Said user, User:Evan.j.miranda, is new to Wikipedia and is taking [my class on indigenous rights], and came to me completely bewildered about what just happened. On top of that your "merge" involved adding exactly zero bytes from the merged article to Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines. This was out of standard process and a fairly heavy instance of biting the newcomers.

While I could do this myself, I am asking you to undo the merger and reopen the discussion for at least the next five days. This a notable subtopic with plenty of RS'ed material. It's attracting independent coverage in media and scholarly sources. Examples of the latter:   There's a reasonable case for WP:SPINOFF here, a possibility that you short-circuited by imagining that everyone on Wikipedia is familiar with online debates and posts their thoughts within a few hours. --Carwil (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Fustiaria) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Fustiaria, KDS4444!

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

"note that Zipcode Zoo is a wiki/ mirror of Wikipedia and other sites; nor does it verify the statement in the article: it should probably not be cited as a reliable source, or at all."

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

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Dentalium elephantinum
 * added a link pointing to Amboyna


 * Green-sticking
 * added a link pointing to Monofilament

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simple machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wedge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

New articles
I note that you have created a number of new articles for Wikipedia. New articles are always welcome as indeed are your efforts to create them.

You maybe unaware but you are short circuiting the official article creation process. This may be understandable, because at least one procedure document suggests that you can create articles exactly the way that you do - and indeed you can.

What it doesn't tell you is: that when you create a draft article in your userspace, and then self move it into article space, its sudden appearance is automatically flagged and the article is (almost) immediately scrutinised. If there is nothing unacceptable with it, all well and good. But if the article has any shortcomings, it will be deleted in toto without explanation. If you do not have an independent copy, you will have to recreate it from scratch because you cannot get it undeleted (though by jumping through a few hoops you can get it undeleted back into your user space)

The best (and correct) procedure is to create your article in user space as before. When you believe it is ready, click the big blue "Submit your draft for review!" button. Your article will be srutinised as before, but this time, if there is something wrong, you will get a polite rejection notice at the top of your draft with a reason(s) as to what needs to be improved. The important bit is that you will still have something to improve. If your article is good, the reviewer will move it into article space for you and it will not be flagged as a new article.

I hope that this is of some assistance. I B Wright (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never noticed the "Submit your draft for review" button— somehow that has escaped my attention (I've also never had an article deleted for unacceptability, and am very careful about making sure I have a completely assembled piece before I move it to article space, so I guess I have been lucky so far). However, I also have no desire to circumvent regular procedure and will certainly look for this the next time I put an article together.  Thank you for the notification— it makes me wonder what else I may be doing/ have done with equal obliviousness.  If you spot anything, you will let me know, yes? <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  12:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, fear not: we all do things that are wrong. We all rely on our more experienced compatriots to provide the necessary guidance.  I have been at this, on and off, for over ten years, and I still learn new wrinkles even now.  Good luck and best wishes.  I B Wright (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Strontium aluminate, defense of the article
The book went to print in 2012 (I think), my edit dates back to 2006. (Not the first time my text was lifted word by word from here.) I was wondering; word by word lifts aren't my style, the phrasing in the book was a bit too "my style", so I checked the times. The blame goes the other way! :D This may be actually a long-term problem for wikipedia in general... Glad we have the edit history with timestamps. Shaddack (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are kidding. Shut my mouth, and my deepest apologies.  Those bastards!!!! <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  16:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Kelayres massacre at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are aware that Template:Did you know nominations/Kelayres massacre is only draft DYK space, and you or somebody else has to soon move the nomination to Template talk:Did you know? Choor monster (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was aware that something was still not complete, but was not certain exactly what I was supposed to do to move the nomination forward (can I really just do a page move to do this?) <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444 Talk  16:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears to be all that you do is add the template Did you know nominations/Kelayres massacre at the top of the July 3 nominations section, and provide a really clear edit summary. Then you'll be asked to do a QPQ, I think, that part I have no idea. Choor monster (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I now have the impression that you are exempt from QPQ. Perhaps you should put in ":*Reviewed: First nomination, exempt from QPQ." Choor monster (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Having never done a DYK nomination, I think I might have been considered exempt from the get go. And then I thought, "What the heck— they need someone to help review something, I can do that."  So I did.  I figured it couldn't hurt, and it didn't, though I'd still like to see someone review OUR nominated article (your article, my nomination— we will have to do some kind of Internet "handshake" the day it shows up on the main page, if it ever does) soon.  But I suppose it also wouldn't hurt to point things out to folks too, so maybe I will try to do that! <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  11:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I expect there may be quite some delay. DYK review includes looking through sources and checking for copyvio, close paraphasing, POV.  The only saving grace is there is no concern over BLP issues.  In this case, not only is the article length more than 10x the usual nomination, almost all the sources are either off-line, and worse, date from the 1930s, or else they come from restricted access sites.  Look at the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Croats (military unit) for an example.
 * I'll of course e-mail PDF copies of sources to any reviewer who asks. Choor monster (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kelayres massacre
Hello! Your submission of Kelayres massacre at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wugapodes (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well done! Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kelayres massacre
Materialscientist (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi K.D.,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Caenorhabditis elegans hermaphrodite adult-en.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 13, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-08-13. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Occupation of The Heart (Ageh Ye Rooz)
The result of the above discussion was "Merge", not "Redirect". The difference is that in a merge the info (or the main part of it) should be added to the target article, and then the subject should be redirected to the target. I fixed your mal-formatted redirect, but could you please add some info on the record to the discography or the musical career sections? Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, so, Kraxler, I looked at the article, and at the merge decision, and all it looked like I could do to actually make it a "merge" was to put the track listing into the discography section of the merged-to article, which would make that particular album stand out more than any of the others there for no apparent reason. Other than the track list, the merged-from article didn't seem to have anything in the way of "meat" in it to preserve that wasn't already part of the merged-to article (i.e., the distributor's name, the year the album came out).  I am not sure what I should have pulled out from the latter and added to the former, or where I should have put it.  But I performed the redirect (sorry it was malformatted) and will take responsibility for making the merge more "merge-like" if you can give me a few pointers on what more I might include from the merged-from article (do you think the track list should go there?). <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  11:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, track lists don't usually go in discography sections. I'll have a look at it later. Kraxler (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently the record was mentioned somewhere in another section, and somebody keeps editing the article, so there's no need to do anything anymore. Sorry to have bothered you. Kraxler (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Raashid Alvi
Our Raashid Alvi sock puppets are back - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we both knew this would happen. Let me have a look at things and see what the plan of attack might be.  Thanks for the heads-up! <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  18:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Dismaland.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Dismaland.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Blue Denim
Please have a discussion before you delete articles. This is not a new thing. Your one opinion does not give the power to delete an article.- Visnvoisnvo, 6 September 2015
 * Visnvoisnvo: it may have appeared as though the article was deleted, I did not actually delete-- I turned it into a redirect to the artist because the song itself does not appear to have adequate citations to secondary, reliable, independent, verifiable sources. Please see WP:MUSIC section on "Singles", which states, "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."  Also see WP:NSONG.  This song never made it above number 35 in its best showing on a music chart-- combined with the absence (so far) of adequate sources, to me this all suggests it is not technically notable and therefore does not warrant a standalone article. Can you add evidence of its notability through the inclusion of some independent reliable sources?  If so, then please do!  Otherwise, the article should have remained as a redirect. <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  19:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Brass Goggles
Why is the album considered to be not notable? Is there some guideline in the namespace that goes against Brass Goggles being a page? -- Matthew  - (talk · userpage · contributions) 11:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, there is no namespace issue. The article as it stood did not have any reliable independent sources in it (an Amazon.com link and link to a lyrics page do not constitute adequate sourcing).  Has the album been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources?  If it has, then it can certainly stand as an article.  Until then, a redirect seems like a more appropriate solution. <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  13:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oshun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yoruba. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ticket: Heads Up
Re "heads up": This was looked at at ANI and ARBCOM request case. The group/individual who was promoting this theory User Talk:VeritasVincitUSA was indef'd. They were trying to gin it up at Daily Kos and now apparently at Ring of Fire. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dark data
No, Dark data (business) is a deliberate split from that one, per Talk:Dark data. The dark data article previously described two entirely different things called "dark data". Since I can't remove a speedy template from a page I created, would appreciate you retracting it. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can just contest the speedy on the talk page, of course. First time that I've been on this side of a CSD... --McGeddon (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this then leave us with no article called simply "dark data"? If we are going to retain an article on dark data at all, it shouldn't be under a clarifying subtitle like "(business)" but should just be called "dark data", no?  If this is so, then the article currently called "dark data" should be replaced with the meaning that currently exists under "dark data (business)" (and the latter should be deleted). <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  17:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! AfDing the dark data article seemed the cleanest way to do that, in the face of an IP unwilling to discuss the scope of the article - if it's deleted, we have an AfD to deter the recreation of similar content, and can move dark data (business) into its place. --McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, so, I now think I understand... Do you still want me to remove the CSD nomination of the business version then?  I will now do this.  <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  17:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444 Talk  17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Bill Ottman.jpeg
Undeleted. It has no description page whatsoever, so it would help if you'd add everything. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * will do, and thank you! <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444 Talk  00:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of GIET
Hello KDS444! You left a message on my talk page about the speedy deletion nomination of the article GIET. (It's not an article by the way - it's a disambiguation page). Just wanted to apologize for the trouble - I wasn't really aware of the problems caused by empty articles and stuff - I generally use the visual editor, and there's no way you can CREATE an article using the vis-editor.... so till now I created empty pages first and THEN wrote the article.... After a kind wikipedian pointed out the mistakes I was making, I started creating new articles in my namespace first. Sorry for the trouble. KNivedat (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, totally no problem. Once the article namespace actually had content, removing the speedy deletion nom was completely appropriate.  Really, I nominated it for SD much too soon after it had been created by you.  I should have checked the clock.  Normally I don't nominate anything for SD until I can see it has existed for at least 30 minutes.  In your case, I completely jumped the gun.  For which, my apologies.  And I see it is all fixed now, yes?  <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  15:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Adam McArthur updates
I've added a bunch more references for Adam McArthur after digging into his martial arts career. Originally I did not want to waste my time on that if his article was going to be deleted anyway, hence my note, but please check it over and see if that's enough to pass notability. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a statement withdrawing the nomination. <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444 Talk  17:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion
All three of my recent articles that you nominated for deletion clearly meet WP:ACADEMIC criterion #3 because they are members of the Royal Society of Canada. Please remove the speedy delete tags and exercise due diligence in checking the criteria in the future. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the articles' talk pages. I have withdrawn the nominations, but the presumption of notability based on membership in the RSC is a rebuttable one and all three of these require more than links to their university web pages and Google Scholar hit counts to substantiate a bona fide notability claim.  Please see if you can expand them to include more independent sourcing.  Otherwise they will remain open to a regular deletion nomination. <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  00:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

AFD - Withdrawing
Hi KDS4444, Just to make you aware per WP:SK1 you can't withdraw an AFD if there's a delete !vote there, If there's a keep or any other then it's fine but if there's a delete !vote then obviously it's not, So technically this afd shouldn't of been closed as such, Had I spotted it a week ago I would've reverted the close but no point reverting a close that was made a week ago!, Anyway just thought I'd give you a heads up, Cheers & Happy editing :) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You see, Davey, that's what I thought! And in my final comment on the deletion discussion, that is what I said as well. I did withdraw from the nomination, but I did NOT close the discussion— I think the person you want to talk to in this case is the person who did close it: SwisterTwister.  Cheers to you as well!  And let me know if it looks like I got any of this wrong, yes?  Thanks!  <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  00:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ah right okay well yeah you can't withdraw sorry :), I've left him a message but I wasn't sure if you were aware of Sk1 & all that, If you were I apologize, It's hard to know who does and who doesn't know AFD, Apart from the AFD Withdrawn part I don't think there was anything else :), Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 00:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My closing comment was "I would like to withdraw my nomination, however this does not have great bearing as other editors have made good faith suggestions/ support for both redirecting and deletion." AfD is tricky, goodness knows.  This one part I remembered, though.  <font face="Verdana"> KDS 4444  Talk  00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You did!, I was reading something else ? .... I have no idea, AFD's a pain in my rectum at times , Well in that case just ignore me entirely , Think I'm losing the bloody plot lol, – Davey 2010 Talk 00:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)