User talk:KDS4444/Archive 6

Your GA nomination of Scallop
The article Scallop you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Scallop for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

AN/I Kevjonesin vs Checkingfax
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 05:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

eugene-kontorovich
Hi, Just a quick reminder that while the sources in the article aren't the best for the GNG, the issue at hand is if the subject meets the GNG. He does. Sources were on the talk page and a web search quickly turns up others. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hobit: So it is. I would withdraw my nomination, but another editor has already agreed with it so it needs to go ahead now.  A quick request on my end: could you be sure to create a link to either the article or the deletion discussion when leaving a talk page message?  It's not that I can't copy and paste the article (whose title is actually "Eugene Kontorovich", no hyphen) but because it is much easier for the person receiving the message and wanting to follow up on it to just click on a link rather than have to take extra steps to get there, yes?  Thanks!  KDS4444 (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough on both counts (I was rushing away at the time and so dropped the ball). Hobit (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Gender-neutral plural terms
Just curious, why do you hate the use of them? If we don't know the gender, then what should we say (without the obvious of flat out asking what the person's gender is)? -- JDC808  ♫  03:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough— though I have made my own gender clear on my user page both in a userbox and in my photo— not that you should have to refer to such things in order to find out! (It would be convenient if there were something about a username which could designate the gender of its owner.  Alas, there is not!  So I just make my position clear when the situation moves me.)  Given the extremely small proportion of editors who are women, I have found that it is usually safe to assume the male gender and let the women correct me (which so far has never happened, though I am certain a female editor would not hesitate to do). Checking a userpage is often an easy way to figure this out, as a large proportion of editors who ARE women make this quite clear on their userpages!  And the lazy men who do not are, well, men.  By and large.  KDS4444 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A few days late responding. I'll admit that I didn't look at your user page when I was typing my response and said "their" when I was referring to you. -- JDC808  ♫  21:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries! KDS4444 (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

DRN
KDS, I note that you are tending to open discussion at DRN with the filing editor before the other editors have weighed in. While it may or may not have been fine in those instances — I haven't really looked — it's unusual for that to be appropriate. We're there to mediate or moderate discussions, not offer opinions. Offering opinions is perfectly fine at Third Opinion, but DRN (and MEDCOM) are more about facilitating discussion between the parties to try to achieve consensus. Doing so requires volunteers to appear neutral, rather than just coming in as another disputant. It makes DRN appear to be an opinionboard, of which Wikipedia has many, rather than a dispute resolution board. Offering opinions may, of course, be an appropriate part of moderating a dispute depending on the circumstances, but it's rarely appropriate to start with that with none of the other disputants present. About the only exceptions I can think of to waiting for the other disputants to chime in (and closing the case if they do not) is where there should not be any dispute in the first place because either (a) one party (usually the filing party) is unquestionably and utterly editing in violation of policy (and has made no viable argument for a IAR local exception) or (b) where one party is arguing against a clear and unquestionable (and reasonably recent) consensus. But even in those cases, the proper action is not to debate with them, but to close the case with that reason. Thank you for helping with DRN and good moderating. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I take your point, and will try to be more careful about this. Can you point me to which dispute specifically I did this in?  I am working about four or maybe even five of them right now.  Thanks!  KDS4444 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an example, but I'll be the first to admit that you didn't give the first opinion in that case. Again, I'm not saying that your opinions are bad or incorrect but only that they may be premature for the way DRN is supposed to work. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think this is a more widespread issue among volunteers right now and I've posted a comment of general concern about it on the DRN talk page (without naming names). Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct there, and though I think the comment was relevant to the article in question and perhaps helpful for one of the editors in the dispute to help him defuse the other editor, it had no business being included in the dispute discussion itself. Where is that trout anyway?? I will try to be more aware of myself in this respect in the future, and my thanks to you for pointing it out to me. KDS4444 (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

About Gay Dog Food's editing conflict
Anons are editing it, how would I add them as one of those in conflict? -- Aleccat  14:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aleccat: Give their IP addresses as if they were user names, and leave notices on the talk pages of said IP addresses, creating them yourself if need be! We can block them eventually if we have to!  KDS4444 (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

Cheers!
Thank you for your "thanks". — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124; 15:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Gay Dog Food's ongoing editing conflict
I went to said users pages and notified them of the conflict in search of resolution, could you help me resolve this? Sorry, I just don't know how to fix the dispute resolution. Any help would be appreciated. -- Aleccat  22:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Coupla things. First, you don't need to start a new header for every response you make to me on my talk page.  I am notified of every change here, so you can just add any new comments under previous ones that either of us have made under any previous heading.  It is often useful to add another colon  for each level of response (I leave one, you leave two, I leave three, etc.) at the beginning of your comment.  This makes it easier for both of us to follow the conversation (a conversation which I began on your talk page, which would have been useful for both of us if it had stayed there since having fragments of it here looks weird, but no worries, next time!).  Next, in order to complete your DRN filing, you need to add these editors— i.e., their IP addresses— to the filing, right below your own username, in the list of involved parties.  Another editor will come along and verify that you have notified everyone (which you have said you have done, which is perfect). After that, if there has been adequate talk page discussion, your case may be considered for dispute resolution.  If you need help with this, then you need to read the guidelines on filing a dispute and follow them carefully.  Got it??  Thanks!!!  And again, good luck!  KDS4444 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aleccat: it looks like your case has been closed now by one of the other DRN volunteers. If you still want to file the case, you'll need to follow the instructions left there to the letter.  Let me know if you need any additional help with this.  Getting a case successfully brought to DRN is not all that easy!  Which is a good thing, because it takes a lot of time to handle cases and we don't want to make it easy for people to use up other people's time without good cause.  I never did look at the merits of your particular case and so can't comment on whether or not your "cause" was good (as it were!) but I can tell you were concerned about the issue and wanted someone else to get involved.  DRN can help with that under certain circumstances.  If you continue to have conflicts with the IP editors and you are able to engage them in a talk page discussion and that discussion STILL becomes a dead end, you can then bring it back to DRN and we will be glad to see what we can do at that point, yes?  Cheers!  KDS4444 (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Clam/Bivalvia merge
Hi KDS4444, just a quick note to let you know that I reinstated the previous state of Clam and proposed a merger into Bivalvia so we can establish consensus. I think your move was completely reasonable but with the subsequent discussion on how to deal with clams within the bivalvia article it is clear to me that it is not a completely obvious merge and so would benefit from discussion.

I copied your rationale from Talk:Clam into the merge proposal, if you want to change/reformat/edit that please do. Best wishes |→ Spaully ~talk~ 10:48, 22 February 2017 (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) 19:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

DRN - Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty
Hi KDS4444, I was preparing a reply earlier for this and ready to post but the case has been bot-archived just a few hours back. From history, I see that other cases like 'garage punk' has been unarchived but I am less certain how to adjust extension dates and so forth. Can you help restore so we can continue the discussion? It's the weekend and I can spare some time, hope to resolve this. Thanks. Shiok (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Shiok: I have now taken a shot at unarchiving this discussion. Am not at all sure I did so correctly, but I have added it back into the main discussion page and included the final comment by LemonGirl.  Can you post your response there?  I will assume that if I have created a malformed discussion that Robert will know how to fix this for us.  KDS4444 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.

Hi I just realised that the recent restore of the thread may have set its expiry to 10-March - there's a date in the source. Can you confirm and if that's correct, will you be marking it as either "Resolved" or "General close" as you said earlier? Even though Moralis seem interested in volunteering recently, he simply made some comments and disappeared! Shiok (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dipendranath Bandyopadhyay
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dipendranath Bandyopadhyay. ansh 666 09:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
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.


 * Data center infrastructure management
 * added a link pointing to Server


 * Geneva Seal
 * added a link pointing to Cartier

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Brandishing a firearm
It's not just limited to Virginia and West Virginia; it's also a federal law. Plus it's in the federal U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (§2B3.2(b)(3)(A)iii)) as an aggravating factor in robberies. St. claires fire (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Kidney (disambiguation)
Just an FYI, I speedy-closed the MfD - disambiguation pages get listed at AfD, not MfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Human-centric
Template:Human-centric has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call
This is a volunteer roll call sent to you on behalf of the current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Coordinator, Robert McClenon, and is being sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to the roll call list. Those who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after May 31, 2017 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after May 31, 2017, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)  (Not watching this page)

Baahubali characters
The articles for the main characters of this franchise have just entered expansion. Please give them some time. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  11:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Silver-gilt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karat. 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) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"drop in"?
What do you mean by "drop in"? I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

— another editor has begin a discussion at Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution Noticeboard regarding the Bill Nye article. You were mentioned in the dispute (did you not receive a notice?) but so far have not responded to it. Are you aware of this? If not, please go to WP:DRN and check it out. I am a volunteer editor who assists with disputes, and it seems you are involved in one. I'd like to help out, but without more participants, this is pointless. Care to join us? KDS4444 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * (Aside: have you considered creating a userpage? Without one, your name always appears in red, which doesn't let people like me know if I have just misspelled your name or that no such userpage yet exists. If it existed, it would turn blue, which would make me feel more certain, yes?)  KDS4444 (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody notified me, and now that I see it I'm disgusted by the dishonest posting by Anarcho, who's been acting like a bully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Then I will hope you will say as much. I am mystified how you were not notified, but you remain welcome.  Please try to make sure your comments are WP:CIVIL and know that I am not here to take sides, only to help resolve, yes?  KDS4444 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I just re-read it again. "(shows WP:COMPETENCE is an issue)" this page looks like just more bullying and insults by Anarcho. You go ahead and tell them, I'm not interested in it given that nobody bothered to notify me and then you claim I "chose" not to participate. If you want me to participate, I want to see Anarcho apologize first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont mean to barge in but none of us were notified of being involved in that discussion. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  19:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137 I understand you feel like you have been bullied, and I understand you feel strongly about this issue. I can only do so much here— I have gone out of my way to let you know that your participation is welcome, but I am not going to coerce you into participating in the dispute resolution process if you don't want to be a part of it. It looked from the beginning that you were "pinged" about the discussion, and that subsequent to this you took no steps to participate in it (it sounds like you never got the ping, and I do not know why). Please assume some good faith here— I have no stake in the outcome, and am only trying to help resolve the dispute. I don't get paid to do this, I do it because it feels good to help people find common ground (when it can be found, which isn't always). I understand you feel hurt, but please don't ask me to demand that others offer up apologies. That almost never works. What works is bringing your position to the table and laying it out for others to see it and consider it, knowing you might have made some mistakes and being prepared to accept them. Or maybe you haven't made any such mistakes, but unless you are willing to talk about it, we may never know. By leaving the conversation to others, you also leave the outcome to them. That is an approach that isn't going to serve you well in the long run— Wikipedia is a place full of opportunities to become upset over things, and DRN is one venue for diffusing those emotions, hopefully to help prevent them from flaring up in the future. I haven't checked the DRN page this morning to see what may have happened there since I visited last, I came straight here to my userpage to read your comments. Please take that as a sign of my interest in your position. But I won't coerce, and you don't need to respond to this message if you'd rather not. We can leave it at that, if you like, and I will tell you I am sorry this hasn't worked out. KDS4444 (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thus far there's been something abusive posted about me, NOBODY bothered to notify me about it, then you decided I had "not chosen to leave a statement nor participate in the discussion" and then said I "may have come to the conclusion that he has been acting inappropriately, and that participating in this dialogue would only make this more evident."

If you can't see how insulting that is, you need to take a step back.

Despite all your claims, it really looks to me like you ARE trying to force, shame, coerce, or otherwise manipulate me into "participating" after I was never informed of the existence of the posting, and you're trying to make me come in with some walk of shame or something based on that.

This is completely unacceptable to me. What you have done here, at least from my view, is enable bullying behavior. I can't "participate" under those conditions because the entire process as laid out started with a bullying attack and is a farce.

I'm happy to discuss or reiterate my points about the non-"Reliable Source" status of a gossip column whose primary sources are a pair of reddit comments on the talkpage of the article, but I will not participate in a farce that I was never informed of where people are trying to put words into my mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh and since I did see this: you're not accurately reflecting what I've said. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=780666631&oldid=780654757 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so I got your "message" and I see you were just trying to dishonestly bully me the whole time. Thanks for proving it. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Morty C-137, I have explained to you I think twice now about the confusion over notifying you about the DRN discussion. I went out of my way to make sure you knew about it even though I assumed you were already aware of it because of the ping in the filing.  I have gently encouraged you to participate in that discussion because I thought you would benefit from it, but I also made clear I would not coerce you to join and I let the matter drop.  You then went on an edit war with Pepe, making the DRN case more difficult for me to try to resolve.  You can paint a negative picture of me if you want to try to do that, but I have been trying my best to act in good faith based on the (sometimes erroneous) information I had at any given point, and you seem to only want to get into deeper trouble while blaming me for the situation.  Morty, I am sorry you were not duly notified about the DRN discussion.  If you had known about it, would you have decided to participate?  Because the good news is, the case is still open and you still can.  No one is stopping you except you.  But jumping into an edit war isn't going to help anything.  I don't get the sense that you are listening to me.  And this whole business is taking up a GREAT deal of my volunteer time.  You have not considered that I may have been acting in good faith towards you based on the limited information I had along the way, and instead repeatedly characterized me as a bully.  Nothing I can do seems to be able to convince you otherwise, either to politely invite you to become involved or politely tell you that you may do as you wish and remain apart, and politely tell you that I mistakenly assumed you were notified when somehow you were not. I still have an obligation to try to resolve the DRN conflict, and as you are choosing not to participate in that (?), I anticipate being able to wrap it up quickly as having a disappointing "no resolution."  I can only invest so much more of myself in trying to help (yes, help) you.  You are hearing what you want to hear.  I am weary. KDS4444 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There you go again. I did not "jump into an edit war". You were not polite, you were passive-aggressive and threatening. I'm glad you finally said the words "I'm sorry" but then you launch immediately into insinuating I wouldn't have participated? Really? Morty C-137 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We're done here, Morty. We are done.  I am done.  Good luck to you.  KDS4444 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over Bill Nye Saves The World
So it appears the discussion continues, since another editor that was not a part of the discussion but should have been has continued adding what I would consider an unreliable source to the article. I was completely fine with it before this addition. Round and round we go again I guess. I have not touched the article, merely added my thoughts on the talk page and the dispute board. We desperately need a third party or another editor not tied to this (or both) to come to a consensus. I have my suspicions about Pepe, given his/her edit count and his/her user page. Some of Mortys concerns are starting to make sense although I dont necessarily agree with him/her on some of what he/she has said. I am not sure what to do at this point. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  23:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me have a look— will be back here in a jif. KDS4444 (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Milonica: Morty and Pepe got into an edit war. They have now both been warned.  As you can see from the above, Morty has become acerbic.  Nothing I do seems to be able to halt that.  I don't see Bill Nye's article coming to any meaningful resolution via DRN.  The most likely scenario is that both Morty and Pepe will continue to violate community norms on this or other articles until their accounts finally get blocked indefinitely.  It's like a train wreck I have seen happen several times in the past.  I have tried to stop the train sometimes, but truly I have not yet learned how and I end up getting run over in the process.  Which is a shame, because I really like trains.  Oi.  KDS4444 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"Morty has become acerbic" - KDS4444, if I'm "acerbic", it's because your behavior has made me so. Especially your threats and that insulting "I can't believe you didn't see this coming" comment, trying to blame me for not being willing to participate in your farce under duress. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you. You don't need to respond.  "Acerbic" is my interpretation of your behavior.  I am now asking you --politely— to walk away from this dead horse.  You are making me regret I ever tried to help.  Please leave me alone now.  Thank you.  KDS4444 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is my final edit here. I appreciate your help KDS, at least you can say you tried. I agree, it is out of control and I want nothing to do with it. I too want to be left alone and get back to editing less controversial stuff. I should not have stuck my head in this hole. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  21:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Hello KDS4444, you made copyright violation with this your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euthyneura&type=revision&diff=573974037&oldid=543162843 You can remove the sentence "This article incorporates CC-BY-2.0 text from the reference ..." only if you will write the text in your own words. (That means virtually the text of the whole wikipedia article). Therefore is is better to keep the sentence from the Reference section. Thanks for your attention. Have a nice day, --Snek01 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Just curious
Are you interested in motorcycles and scooters? There's a project I'd be happy to invite you to if you are: WP:WikiProject Motorcycling. New folks are always welcome. - Bri (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:The company logo for Victory Motorcycles.png


The file File:The company logo for Victory Motorcycles.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * File media exists on Commons c:File:VfB Fortuna Chemnitz.png, this is mostly a simple logo, not a an F8 because the Commons file is 'free' license and this is tagged NFUR not needed.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

DRN Newsletter 1
You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at the The dispute Resolution noticeboard. To stop receiving messages in the future, remove your name from The volunteer list. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Talkback
 QEDK ( 愛 ) 20:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Vegan symbolism merger
Why did you merge Vegan symbolism into Veganism when we were still discussing it on Veganism's talk page? --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was being WP:BOLD, and because such merger proposals almost always linger for weeks, months, or even years before being taken care of or decided against. If you feel the information that I added from the Vegan symbolism article does not belong in the article on Veganism (?) please feel free to remove it.  I don't think that we need an entire separate article on Vegan symbolism, and a merger was an alternative to a deletion discussion.  The information seemed relevant, and I did not want to lose it to deletion, so a merger was the most expeditious and, I think, reasonable answer.  If you feel differently, as I said, please feel free to take the information out, and my apologies for not being patient with the merger process. KDS4444 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The page was only halfdone and I was modelling it off of Anarchist symbolism.--Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The anarchist symbolism page is a very poor model, filled with original research and unreferenced claims (most of which I have now removed). Do you understand what a WP:CONTENT FORK is?  Because that is what I saw the vegan symbolism article as, and is why I merged it into the article on veganism. KDS4444 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk page comments
Hello, KDS. I noticed your comment at Talk:An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. Edits like this are not helpful to Wikipedia or to the discussion. Please discuss article content, not other editors. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. As you know, Morty accuses you of stalking him. This kind of comment, at an article where you had never edited before, only adds fuel to that fire. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have known better. Sorry.  Won't do it again.  KDS4444 (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Randy Quaid
I'm not sure the protection will resolve it, but the article needed it anyway. There's a discussion on the article's talk page from last year.  Enigma msg  22:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Randy Quaid, again
Maybe if we try this on my user talk page? I have a lot fewer rules (I would even say you could "Igonore All" of them, as that is, I think one of your mottoes, and a fine one when practiced) and I don't delete conversations from it without cause. So I will ask again: why did you change the actor's name in his article? KDS4444 (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OTRS note
Please review the note in 2017021510019971. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Have read and responded. Over.  KDS4444 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Anarchist symbolism
Hi, yes, I'm not native English speaker. That section about usage of red flag by anarchists is based on site, which I put in the ref, so I don't understand how you can describe this edit "ref did not support it". This is not true. Did you understand polish and learn it? I think no:

''Jak na ironię, jednym z pierwotnych anarchistycznych symboli była czerwona flaga (rzeczywiście, jak zauważają anarchistyczni historycy Nicolas Walter i Heiner Becker, "Kropotkin zawsze wolał czerwoną flagę" [Piotr Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves (Działaj dla siebie samego), s. 128]). [...]''

''W zgodzie z nimi pozostaje relacja Murraya Bookchina, że "w późniejszych latach anarchiści mieli przyjąć czarną flagę", opowiadającego o hiszpańskim ruchu anarchistycznym w czerwcu 1870 roku [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, s. 57]. W tym czasie anarchiści powszechnie używali czerwonej flagi. [...]''

''Jednak używanie czerwonej flagi natychmiast nie zanikło. Toteż widzimy, jak Kropotkin napisał w Wyznaniach zbuntowanego (opublikowanych w 1885 roku, ale napisanych między 1880 a 1882) o "anarchistycznych grupach (...) niosących czerwony sztandar rewolucji". Jak zauważa Woodcock, "czarna flaga nie została powszechnie przyjęta przez anarchistów w tym czasie. Wielu, tak jak Kropotkin, wciąż uważało siebie za socjalistów, a czerwoną flagę za swoją również" [Words of a Rebel (Wyznania zbuntowanego), s. 75, s. 225]. Do tego jeszcze odkrywamy, że anarchiści z Chicago używali zarówno czarnych, jak i czerwonych flag przez całe lata osiemdziesiąte XIX wieku. [...]''

Po rewolucji rosyjskiej i stoczeniu się jej do dyktatury (najpierw Lenina, potem Stalina) używanie czerwonej flagi przez anarchistów zanikło, gdyż już nie "opowiadała się ona za wolnością" i była kojarzona z partiami komunistycznymi czy też, w najlepszym razie, z biurokratyczną, reformistyczną i autorytarną socjaldemokracją.

--Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, my Polish is a bit rusty. This is one of the reasons why I do not edit the Polish Wikipedia.  However, I am able to use Google Translate (thanks for providing a link, so that I could best understand what you posted in a language that you guessed already I did not speak).  What I should have said in my edit summary was more like "Ref not suitable"— the reference is to an anarchist website, which might not be considered a reliable source for information on anarchism (for conflict-of-interest reasons).  What the inclusion of the red flag needs is a reference to a more reliable source that is entirely independent of the subject— this is what you have not provided, and was why I removed the section.  I see that you have now added it back, and have still not provided an appropriate citation.  I am all for including information on the red flag if it can be sourced to something more reliable than an anarchist website.  Can you identify such a source?  In any language?  A book, maybe?  Polish will work just fine.  But not an anarchist website in Polish (or any other language).  Please advise.  Thank you.  KDS4444 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
 * Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Page Curation/Suggested improvements
 * The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
 * User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:
 * Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page almonard
Sir, The brand almonard is a legendary fan brand in india. When i was searching for the details, i was not able to find any details of the same in Wikipedia. hence added the details i obtained from websites. I understand the mistakes in presenting the page. As a new user, i would like to improve the page. I have started editing the same. Thank you — Preceding --[[User:Mettleboy|Mettleboy (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)]] comment added by Mettleboy (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I did not notice your note here until after the page was deleted. If the brand is notable, as you say, then there should be lots of evidence of this in published reliable independent sources— it is still possible for the article to be recreated!  Is there an article on the Hindi (or other Indian) Wikipedia?  If you can find some newspaper articles in major papers or mentions in books or journals, then I encourage you to recreate the page and to include all of these as citations in evidence of notability.  Also, make sure your tone is not promotional in the rewrite: sometimes even notable subjects get deleted when they are written with such flower language as "...is the best product ever..." or "...is a household name..."  (not that you did these things, just giving examples).  If you'd like help with this process, just let me know, and sorry for the quick deletion.  Like I said, if it really is notable, then we really should have an article on it and all that means is citations, citations, citations!  Good luck!  KDS4444 (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD notification
As you were the original nominator of this article at AfD before it was speedied as a copyvio, I am alerting you that I just created Articles for deletion/CDM Electronics, Inc. (2nd nomination). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Angelyne billboard.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Angelyne billboard.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)