User talk:Kirin13/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!
- - - W e l c o m e - - -

Heritoctavus
Hello, Kirin.

Do not try to pretend you are neutral by pushing biased views. I know you are not neutral in some cases, from my long time reading of a lot of articles.

1. Insisting that controversies are not controversies but just [response] is not neutral. If that is controversies, then just accept that. Do not try to change the word [controversies] to another word.

2. A sentence such as [some country or some continent did not win any medal] is meaningless. There is no medal reserved for any specific country or continent. They just failed. It's not a record. The sentence itself does not even sound neutral because it seems like that country or continent did not get it EVEN THOUGH they well deserve it. It is a biased view. Not neutral at all. Moreover, [did not] is not even appropriate. [failed] or [could not] is suitable because its a sports competition.

3. [Ethnic 'what' people got all the medal] is clearly biased. That is based on the long time, chronic philosophy that some race in the world is superior than others. Ethnic 'what' people's success looks much bigger and shocking than it actually is, because that is unexpected, a bit stunning and sometimes, undesirable to the people with the chronic supremacy philosophy in their minds. In this international world, geographic, political makeup of countries are significant things than [racial makeup] of people. I have never seen expressions such as [they are all ethnical caucasians]. So, [all ethnical Asians] or [all ethnical Africans] is pretty much unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, I can see that you're an inexperienced Wikipedia editor by the fact you don't know how to use talk pages. New sections go on bottom, create section title, write your entry & don't forget to sign your entries. Also, when someone posts on a talk page, continue the discussion on that talk page instead of going to a different talk page. Thanks!


 * From my long time reading of articles, I know you are not neutral. You've made bias statements, you've added original research, you've added your opinions on news articles you disagree with, you've deleted information you don't agree with.  The wording you use do not go with neutral point of view.  E.g. "in spite", "losers", etc.  For your information, I was the editor who added a lot info opposing the results.  I added the info on Sotnikova +3 GOEs scores, South Korea's twitter, and 2 million on Change.org.  I'm doing my best to keep this article without either side's bias.  You've been only concerned about one side.  When Lazeks042186 deletes all the info supporting the results, you don't care. It's every Wikipedia editor's job to keep Wikipedia neutral. If you claim you're neutral, you'd be reverting edits that blanked out opposing opinions.


 * 1. 'Response' is a neutral term. I prefer that term for the section header because this section includes both criticisms and support.  But as you have notice, I let this go hours ago.


 * 2. You're arguing with the wrong person. I did not revert your edits of removing 'losers' info. I only criticized that you call them losers. Calling someone 'losers' shows you don't have respect for them, which also means that you are not holding a neutral point of view.


 * 3. Recognized that an minority group has achieved something is normal. In USA news, "first African American ...", women in technology, "first gay General", etc. It's news worthy. Figure skating has been a historically white sport. I don't think Asians have won a single figure skating Olympic medal before the 1990's.


 * Kirin13 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
RA 0808 talkcontribs 20:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your note to me.
Received your note on my Talk page. After reading the two reports from Reuters and The LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-koreans-file-complaint-figure-skating-20140321,0,6038211.story#axzz2wiiAImmY), you can clarify what the meaning is to me. There is an official position from February which was issued by the ISU last month which has not been modified by them in any way since then. Now there appears to be a possibility that in the near or distant future, that there may or may not be some report sent from Korea to the ISU regarding the outcome more than one month after the event. I am not sure what weight you are associating with an official position issued by the ISU which everyone can read, compared to a promised letter which no-one has yet even received. Maybe you can explain this, and why you have just deleted the edit which presents the only ISU official position which we have as of this date. Could I ask that you at least to wait until the Korean letter is received and acknowledged by someone as proof of its at least having been sent before you delete the only ISU official statement which is available? FelixRosch (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to verbatim include full official statements. A summary of the ISU statement is included.  Also included are the new additions to this issue, like the report that KOC is planning to file a report. If you wish to add back the full ISU statement, I will not revert that.  However please do not revert 200+ edits of this page - you can add the ISU statement, without reverting all the other work done on this article. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In principle that would work. The vast majority of the "200" edits you mentioned have only been revert-undo sequences. The bigger issue is the biased format now which does not seem to follow the general Wikipedia approach to any debate, which puts official statements/decisions first, followed by supporting positions and then opposing positions. No problem if you want add the 4 or 5 genuine cites which were added in the "200" edits you mentioned, putting them in the correct subsection. Neutral point of view is something worth keeping. I will repost the old outline on the understanding that you can add any of the new cites you wish until User:Discospiner has a chance to look more closely. FelixRosch (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please follow principle then. I'm undoing your edit. I will reorder the three sections to official, support, opposing per Wikipedia approach you mentioned. However, I do not wish to lose all the work done by a dozen editors. There have been plenty of good edits since March 8th. If you're seeing bias, please remove. If you wish to add the full ISU statement, I will not revert (even though I summary is sufficient). Please however, don't revert everyone's work. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also add that the "200" edits, even though there were a lot revert-undos, also had a lot more than 4 or 5 genuine edits. There were a few new sources. There was a lot of condensing of information. There was a lot of rewording to make the article more clear. There were small correction and adding of wikilinks. To revert 200 edits, is to make all that work to be redone. If you want Discospinster (talk) to take a look, he won't see anything if he's looking at his own edit of three weeks ago. He can take a better look at what the article looks now and see if something is wrong there. Feel free to add to the article, remove any bias, etc, but please don't revert three weeks of work. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a short note only to confirm if your reading on today's report from Korea matches everyone else; this is the quote from the Korean news article: "However, the Korean committee did not complain about the (judging) panel’s performance nor about the score Kim received." If the Korean report did not complain about the judging panel's performance as it states, then it is a reference to refining policies for Future empanelment of judges only, and not an accusation against any past judging panel in particular. If there are any other reports you have then you can let me know or post them on the Page. FelixRosch (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Reading same article, first paragraph states complaint was "over the composition of the judging panel", matching what is currently stated on ladies' page. Until further news comes out, I don't think we can be sure if complaint is only for further panels or on this past one as well. On a side note, I've separated out the judging panel vs. scoring issues. Under the scoring section, I put KOC disclosed Kim Yuna's scores will not be challenged and results cannot be overturned. Please let me know if you think something is incorrect. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Received your note the other day, and I have replaced the original neutral sequence of the outline. I am now grouping the KOC responses with the other official resopnses since they are no longer disputing the Gold medal award itself. Regarding the fine reading of the quote you mention above, this is the shortened quote, "However, the Korean committee did not complain about the (judging) panel’s performance." The general concern which Korea presented was for judging standards in general to be enhanced based on the Olympics in general, and this can be brought up in the ISU page if you think it is needed. FelixRosch (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles
Just read over the talk page which was exhausting. Thanks for fighting the good fight! Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Supporting corruptive practices and unfair practices in this world is not something to be proud of. Tsk. Tsk. Shameful.--5.42.226.30 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Did not reply personal attack; archived. Kirin13 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=602673676 your edit] to Nikolai Panin 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) 03:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nikolai Panin-Kolomensky, Nicolai Panin, Nicolai Panin Kolomenkin, Nikolai Panin-Kolominkin--> Николай Александрович Панин-Коломенкин ({{OldStyleDateDY|8 January|1872|27 December
 * Fixed on that date. Kirin13 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vincent Zhou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kernel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed on that date. Kirin13 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on your deleted comment, this is about the Kim Yuna page (though I'm not sure why you support revert of my undo considering that would make you go against talk page consensus) . What is your recommendation in dealing when editor who doesn't leave edit summaries to explain her reverts and who has chosen to ignore/not partake in talk page discussion after being informed (as and I did in every following revert)? Should it be left alone for 24 hours and then edited if no other editor has chosen to look at it? The dispute process I'm aware of require that both editors actually use the talk page, not when one has chosen to ignore it. Though I admit, my knowledge of Wikipedia policy is fairly rudimentary. Also, by WP:3RR, consecutive edits count as one revert so it's 3RR not 5RR? (I would not be bringing that up (or reading WP:3RR in detail), if I wasn't put me on the noticeboard without being given a single warning.) Thanks in advance for your explanations, Kirin13 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is never a good idea, and there's not a "right side" and a "wrong side." Even in cases where one editor does not discuss, the proper procedure is to give them time to respond on the talk page, not to keep reverting -- even if they're reverting against established consensus. Also I simply mentioned your involvement on the noticeboard. From the page on 3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."
 * If you were unaware of the 3RR policies and you are now aware of them, then that in my book is "mission accomplished" and no further action should be necessary. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, by-the-by, you're free to remove the notice and anything on your userpage whenever you wish. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally, I took no side whatsoever -- I do not support the revert of your edits, nor did I perform any reversions. Enough reversions have been performed on that page already. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I have come across as combative. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Accepted and I apologize if I'm interpreting your words in ways you did not intend. My response was partially based on a (which you removed) stating that I was engaging in disruptive editing and that the edits "have been reverted" (which I interpreted as approval of revert of my edits and approval of going against talk page consensus). Also based on two statements on the noticeboard which state I had more than three reverts implying violation of 3RR and that I should be blocked  even before I was given any sort of warning., there was only three reverts, and I would further add that one was completely unrelated to this "edit war" (even if it counts towards 3RR).
 * I was aware of WP:3RR though not with all of it's details (i.e. I was unaware that unrelated reverts seven hours before count against you). For editors who don't know other editors, wish to avoid accusations of canvassing, edit pages with few active/experienced watchers, and who are unexperienced/find-the-noticeboard-bureaucracy-difficult-to-understand, it seems like Wikipedia makes it an uphill battle to stop disruptive editors. Reading WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, it seems the solutions require the disruptive editor to actually use the talk page or wait 24 hours before re-undoing any of their edits. Kirin13 (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed that comment because it clearly was inapplicable to the current situation.
 * Thanks, and happy editing! Jsharpminor (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sir Edgar
You keep deleting content people actually did research on. Think if you are actually contributing to the accuracy of articles... before continuing your tyranny.--Sir Edgar (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Content is not deleted, it's on the Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles like I've told you multiple times. As discussed on Talk:Adelina Sotnikova‎ it should not be on her page. The rest of your comment is not worth responding to. Kirin13 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Further/additional discussion of this situation on User talk:Discospinster. Kirin13 (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 18 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Mao Asada page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609058686 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F609058686%7CMao Asada%5D%5D Ask for help])


 * Kirin13 (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Kwan
Thanks for your helpful edits in improving the Michelle Kwan page. I will look for better sources, but can I ask if Amazon is considered a reliable source if it's used to prove the existence of some of the books released by her or in her name?Saysthiguoy (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not use Amazon, since marketplace merchants can create their own products with information, so sometimes it's difficult to know if description is by Amazon or by anyone-who-wants-to-be-a-merchant seller. Instead I would use a book review, e.g. this one by Publishers Weekly.
 * Thank you for your reply! I actually just replaced all the fansite links with proper sources, including for every endorsement.  I won't need amazon after all. I can't believe I managed it, since a lot of these articles are so old.  Thanks for pushing me to improve the article lolSaysthiguoy (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again, but do you know if there is a limit on wikipedia for how many references you can list right next to each other? In the endorsements section of the Michelle Kwan page, I have 9 references listed, one after the other, at the end of the paragraph. Each reference is essential in sourcing all of the endorsements, and I can't list them separately after each endorsement because some of the references list numerous endorsements rather than just one. Is it accepted to leave it as is? Thank you again!Saysthiguoy (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Though, to my knowledge the site won't break if you add over a dozen ref's to end of one line, the general rule of thumb is to limit to 2-3. One way to do this is to have paragraph structured as such: . Note, one references is sufficient (if it's a reliable sources) and that you can reuse ref's in same line. Another, more complicated way, is WP:CITEBUNDLE for which you create a footnote and put all the company-ref mappings into it. Hope that helps, Kirin13 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You've been so helpful.Saysthiguoy (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it, and ended up only having to reuse 2 sources I think. Thanks again for all your help!  To be honest, I think it looks more cluttered this way, but at least it seems to be more in line with many other wikipedia articles I've seen.Saysthiguoy (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Round Robbin without a Nest
Some editors have inserted information in a series of articles that use {Template:see main} or {Template:see also} where it is acceptable to not have sources cited in the child article where it's just summarizing the main. In fact the main and see also articles do not have any sourcing either. This is what I found at Patronymic and parent summaries. If you can find sourcing then, be my guest and re-add the material with sources. Otherwise, I have little patience to play around with unsourced material older than 6 months that has been marked for citation but remains neglected and is dubious. It's the editor who added the material's job to add the proper sources; not the deletionists duty. Alatari (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And so is the rest of the article - none of the parent articles I've seen are cited - so why do you delete two paragraphs and not the rest of 90% of article that is also uncited? Kirin13 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I spent 30 minutes ( or more on it) as it was and I considered stripping out a bunch more. Welsh, Cornish, Irish and Iberian also.  The ones I did strip out were supposed to BE sourced in their parent articles..  The whole article is marked over 6 months so I can go ahead and start stripping out 40% of the article then.  Do you want to find sources then go ahead but I'll go ahead and remove all the things I was planning on then. Alatari (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, entries that already have their own dedicated article are only to get a single summary paragraph as the reader is already directed to a full scale article. See WP:Detail.  A single paragraph is plenty for this article when the sections have their own articles.  Alatari (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any Wikipedia guidance on what to do with articles that have lacked sources for significant time? I've seen plenty of articles with dated 2009 or even earlier. I cannot object to removal to controversial unsourced material, but I can object if removal of non-controversial unsourced material is not equally applied through the entire article. Kirin13 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , Please review WP:Detail and summary paragraphs that refer to child articles. They do not need the entire content of the child article but just a single summary paragraph.  I removed extraneous information that was duplicated in the child article.  Some of it is completely unsourced. You are a new user so maybe unfamiliar.  Alatari (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That provides absolutely no answer to my question. My question was regarding articles that have lacked sources for significant time and have tags. I have not disputed anything on your WP:DETAIL point. Kirin13 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am focused on the task and just responded to your second sentence. From: Template:Citation needed there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct simply because no-one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about 'a month' to see whether a citation can be provided.. I was trying to remove paragraphs that were already covered in the child article and were minute details and not a general overview; and that which was not sourced for > 6 months and possibly dubious.  I think I removed the wrong paragraph on one of my deletions.  I'm working my way back up the entire article.
 * The WikiProject Unreferenced articles covers the scope of getting all instances of citation needing repair.Alatari (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Then the problem is how you're justifying your deletes. You're not putting "already covered in the child article" or "minute details and not a general overview" in your edit summary. Your writing it's unsourced for over 6 months or it's dubious. The vast majority of this article is unsourced for over 6 months, so if that's the reason for deletion than the entire article should be treated as such. As far as 'dubious', I don't see how it's dubious - if unsourced is enough to be 'dubious', then once again, this should be applied to entire article. Kirin13 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was pretty clear. When I say dubious I am going by Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, as all of the things I removed have uncertainty about them.  I am leaving stubs of some things that are likely accurate as placeholders.  The section I removed last night was inaccurate as I suspected.  The Austria-Hungarian Empire didn't exist till 1867, 22 years after the edicts enforcing surnames deadlines had passed. If you want to save some of this information then find sources, then correct and restore the information from the histories.  Nothing is ever lost as long as there is article histories.  Googlescholar is helpful. I've dedicated 7 hours on this article now and it's completely volunteer work. I'm going to finish this after I eat something. Alatari (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you were not clear. You never indicated the Austria-Hungarian Empire statement was dubious. You marked other statements as dubious. Most of your deletes just say unsourced. A few edits claim info is dubious but don't offer further information (do you have reason to suspect it's false?) - by the current definition ("it's unsourced and I have no idea if it's true or not") all uncited statements are dubious and we're back to deleting 90% of article. Now you claim you left what is "likely accurate" - with you being the decider of what is "likely accurate". I guess the Russian paragraph is not "likely accurate" according to you. No idea why you bring up volunteer hours, but since you want to count, I may be a 'new' user but I've had as many edits in the last four months as you had in the last four years, so I'm going to guess that's a significant number of volunteer hours. Kirin13 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You asked about the criterion I posted the entire link above. Someone found the material in the Irish section dubious enough in 2007 and 2008 to request sources.  Citation needed requests indicate an editor or reader does not have a high certainty about the information they add the template to.  If no one can provide reliable sources in 7 years then it's likely they don't exist and leaving misinformation in an encyclopedia read by billions is more damaging than no information. This article had almost NO sources for the last 7 years.  That's disgraceful.
 * I saw this first edit to your talk page an missed the single entry in 2009 so wrongly assumed you were a couple months old. I edit mostly anonymously as without the watchlist bogging me down I can just focus on adding sources, copy edit and layout. A third of content on Wikipedia has been found to be done by anons while established editors end up spending vast amount of time patrolling  On the English version of Wikipedia alone, anonymous users make about 900,000 edits every month. These edits represent roughly a third of all contributions to the project..
 * Have you found an sources for this article? Alatari (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to "some uncertainty about its accuracy"? So that basically covers anything uncited - either that or each editor makes their own determination if they are certain or not (and thus you need only one uncertain editor). Might as well delete most of the article now.
 * Yes there is some uncertainty in all the unsourced article, especially if it is not material in an editors expertise but there are levels of uncertainty. Something that another editor has read past and decided to insert a  tag on has already dropped from the probable to the unsure, and if the marking editor is established and reputable then make that double.  Statements of opinion are already susceptible to requiring good sources and without are possible misinformation being spread to the public.  Absolute declarative statements of always, never or even rarely and of course exacting numbers, require sourcing.  The Russian paragraph I WP:BOLDly removed was full of quantifiers that appeared to be archaic (and your new source proves this out with the statements about usage by the 50 yo and under crowd).   Staszek Lem ‎ reverted and then I went to discussion.  Not being able to contact Lem I went to modify out the qualifiers and place the paragraph in prescribed scenario descriptions in a compromise attempt and a way to ease source location.  I had in mind phrasing it as it might come from a Russian etiquette manual that should be the easiest source to find.  So information I boldly removed had at least some part a {cn} tag of 6 months plus, fell into the numeric, quantified or opinion realm and I left at least one descriptive paragraph that seemed tolerably correct as stripping entire sections out would make improving this article all the more hard.  It's obviously a useful article with broad coverage.  Alatari (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly any sources in 7 years - I'm not surprised. Once you leave 'featured' and 'good' articles, you'll find tons of poorly sourced articles. My policy, unless I can ascertain it's false or willing to put in the effort to find out if info exists online, then tag it and let it be. Unless I'm willing to take the time to prove it wrong, I don't delete someone else's work that's been around for years.
 * Wikipedia is under a labor shortage and it's deteriorating "Even though Wikipedia has far fewer active editors than it did in its heyday, the number and length of its articles continue to grow. This means the volunteers who remain have more to do, and Gardner says she can sense the effects: “Anecdotally, the editing community has a sense of feeling a little bit beleaguered and overworked.”"
 * Not sure how you got that edit as the "first edit" on my talk page, but indefinitely blocked users do tend to leave interesting comments. (Btw, talk pages are a poor way to tell a user's 'age'. Rather look up user's contribs, user rights, and edit count.) Not sure what you're trying to prove with your IP argument (btw, I don't see where in blog article it says "established editors end up spending vast amount of time patrolling"). From what I can tell, your last IP (24.241.69.99) didn't have many edits either. And there is plenty of "established editors" that go from article to article "just focus[ing] on adding sources, copy edit and layout".
 * The date of the {Welcome} message had never failed to quickly give me an idea how new an editor was ... until now. I'll use those other features from now on.
 * The idea about established editors needing to spend large amounts of time patrolling is something that stuck with me from this 2007 article in Scientific American. I read more of the other more current research (like the above linked Decline of Wikipedia) well, Twinkle/Huggle and their ilk have quite handily lessened that workload.
 * There's a wide number of reasons why I would rather not log in... I find conversing with people to be emotionally straining. There is too much responsibility in becoming a respected part of the community.  My health isn't great and my energy levels are very low and there are other things that need doing other than Wikipedia.  Maybe, I'm wrong and this should be what I spend what time I have left immersed in. TMI Alatari (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My problem is with info being deleted because it's unsourced while other unsourced info is left because you think it's probably true. I'd have less issue with your edits if you enacted them evenly across the entire article or used better edit summaries for deletion (e.g. delete because "already covered in the child article and were minute details and not a general overview"). Or if your revisions edited the words you disagreed with instead of deleting the entire paragraph.
 * Kirin13 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Minutia is pushed into the {See also} or {Main article} while this article retains a Summary detail. The child articles retained the minutia except one paragraph that was pretty dubious. I'll check to see if I made a mistake on those moves. Alatari (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

BGT
Thanks for the explanation. 78.147.146.4 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Contact
This form of contact sucks, it would be a better solution if you gave me a simple email address to respond to.

You state my IP has changed many different pages, I would like to discuss this though not in a public forum.

contact mrethiopian(at)gmail.c0m — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEthiopian (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't email. Since your account only has a single edit - which is to my talk page - I don't know who you are. If you can refer me to specific diffs/edits or give me the IP address of concern, then I can figure out what you're talking about. As far as your IP changing pages you didn't, that's not unusual when the IP is a shared one. You might not even realize you have a shared IP. Kirin13 (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking at Eastern Slavic names page
Hello

you neglected my changes at page i am editing Eastern Slavic naming customs with comments: "the" or descriptor words go outside of wikilink". Could you submit the link at rules which forbid this to confirm what you wrote.

Could you leave some extended comments apropos your deed. In particular, could you explain what goes outside and why. Could you convey your view on the further statement: when wikilink related to the person is "his wife", then that's supposed by a reader that it goes to Alix of Hesse, but when you cut it up to "wife", then it is supposed by reader that it goes to the article dedicated to notion of wife as whole, and that is substantial. Thank you. --Sterndmitri (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you give the rules to what you wrote? Can you actually write edit summaries for your edits instead of leaving it blank? Blank edit summaries make your edits much more likely to be reverted. I'll concede to "his wife" but not the other two. Including the additional words doesn't make where the link is pointing to clear. More generally, this page has improper prose, grammar, etc. and needs to be rewritten. Kirin13 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So rewrite it then. Aggressive (or let's call it as "unpolite") reaction is quite strange. --Sterndmitri (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Post Scriptum. Revealing the "improper prose, grammar etc." and the necessity of the article "to be rewritten" after my message here above only (although, accordingly the statistics, you make changes there for a quite long) may be conceived as quite ridiculous as well. And complaints (to myself) as the reply on my request. And total ignoring all the questions i put above. You are like "attacked" and defend yourself. Instead those whos work is corrected are normally feel themselves not in best condition. Good luck! --Sterndmitri (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I gave edit summary when I reverted your edits. You reverted without any explanation. Then you're surprised that I undid your revert. Your actions were "impolite" - reverting without explanation and then demanding rules before any explanation of your side. Not sure what you were expecting. I answered your questions, it's not my fault if you don't like my answers. The message was to you since you're the primary contributor to this page. However, based on your above writings, your English needs some work. As far as your claim that I already rewrote the page - I only edited the file captions. Kirin13 (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Radar comm
I have redirected my article see to Radar and will put information there with more sources and will rectify the problem you mentioned. Sources were clear to me, but being honest I really didn't noticed other issue, Thanks. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 17:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page since that's where the rest of discussion is. Kirin13 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Photos Deleted
Thanks for deleting all of my editing on the following pages

Tessa Virtue Scott Moir Meryl Davis Charlie White Maddie Ziegler Nash Grier

What do you know about figure skating I think I know more than you so don't go deleting my edits.. Why did you delete all the new pictures I posted?

-Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous1381938 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not delete your pictures. They were already deleted by different user, so I removed the red links & restored the images that existed before your copyright infringing images. Kirin13 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by copyright infringing images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous1381938 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See commons:User talk:Anonymous1381938. From the looks of it, commons:User:Lupo tagged your images as "possible copyright violation" and commons:User:Ankry deleted as "copyright violation". They'll be the best people to ask. (Notice that images often times end up on Wikimedia Commons and not on Wikipedia, so any notes/issues are put on your Wikimedia Commons talk page.) Some policy pages concerning the issue: WP:IUP and WP:GID. Personally, I find the image policies to be complicated, so I avoid this area. Good luck, Kirin13 (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
As you can see here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=19_Kids_and_Counting&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia#topeditors I have, by far, made the most edits on this article. There was about a six-month period when I quit editing the page because I was so tired of it. At that time I was the only decent editor, fighting to keep things straight. Now there are a few others, like you. Again, please keep it up. Thank you. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar. This article is a bit frustrating to edit since there is so many IPs who don't feel the need to source their edits or discuss their edits. I've considered more than once taking it off my watchlist. Thanks for the encouragement to stick around. Kirin13 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The other editor did source the edits and you still reverted so you dont want sources, you want it your way. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 65.205.13.26: I want sources, which 'you' did not provide. But more than that, I want it to actually be relevant & important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an inclusion of everything that's true regardless of how trivial it is. It's an encyclopedia. If it is not important, then it shouldn't be included. As far as your particular edits - you claim it's important to the plot. I have multiple times wrote to you to put it in the plot section if that's why you believe it should be included. You prefer to include it in character table as if 'born on toilet' is the most important thing about person besides their name & birth date. Kirin13 (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic 19 Kids and Counting. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
 * Thank you for the note - I would not have looked at that page otherwise since I wasn't aware of the discussion there. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

3rr
I think this "advice' applies to you as well.

I would highly recommend to you to self-revert on 19 Kids and Counting. This is because it is your 4th revert in less than 9 hours – this is in violoation of WP:3RR. 3RR is a bright-line rule – it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong – if you break it, you will be blocked. If you self-revert, it considers a cancel the last revert. If you don't self-revert, you will be blocked. Kirin13 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read through many pages, and am still reading and learning. I have seen many times sections that are in dispute removed until there is agreement. I did this and even that you reverted. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Typically discussions are continued on page they were started, so I've continued the discussion back on your talk page. In short, I have not broken 3RR. Kirin13 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I would highly recommend to you to self-revert on 19 Kids and Counting. This is because it is your 4th revert in less than 9 hours – this is in violoation of WP:3RR. 3RR is a bright-line rule – it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong – if you break it, you will be blocked. If you self-revert, it considers a cancel the last revert. If you don't self-revert, you will be blocked. Kirin13 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Typically discussions are continued on page they were started: so copy&paste:
 * I think this "advice' applies to you as well.
 * I would highly recommend to you to self-revert on 19 Kids and Counting. This is because it is your 4th revert in less than 9 hours – this is in violoation of WP:3RR. 3RR is a bright-line rule – it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong – if you break it, you will be blocked. If you self-revert, it considers a cancel the last revert. If you don't self-revert, you will be blocked. Kirin13 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read through many pages, and am still reading and learning. I have seen many times sections that are in dispute removed until there is agreement. I did this and even that you reverted. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And my reply: I have not broken 3RR, because it requires more than 3 reverts in 24 hours and consecutive reverts count as 1. By the rules I have 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, you have 4 – which means you have broken the bright-line rule and any admin can block you without discussion for it.
 * Once again, I suggest you self-revert, unless you do want a block. Kirin13 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not want your threats on my page. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * on page where discussion was started, per Wikipedia standard practice. Kirin13 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dragon Challenge
Ok, I'm not going to start reverting and then get one of us banned. Instead, I'll leave it for now. But most of the info you added seriously needs a copyedit/re-wording. The grammar you are using isn't the best. Also, take a look at what I changed in ref 14....make sure not to make these silly mistakes in the future.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Info I added was barely any words – so if things need serious copyedit/re-wording, then that's the article you've been editing, not the info I added.
 * Feel free to edit any grammar mistakes, but once again, I hardly added any words. Most the grammar & syntax issues I see on the page are not mine.
 * Ref 14, as you said, was a 'silly mistake' that you can easily fix instead of making an issue of. Humans make silly mistakes, so I'm pretty sure I'll make plenty of those in the future.
 * Kirin13 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Kirin13 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding ref 14, I fixed it....so I don't get what your trying to say. I was just informing you so you don't repeat it by accident.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm informing you – I am a human editor, thus prone to making mistakes, and I will make mistakes in the future, as you said, "by accident". Kirin13 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's get rid of the attitude from both of us and talk normally. I'm just trying to figure out why your making this such a big deal. And with this whole ref 14 thing. I honestly don't understand why your making a deal about it. I literally asked you to take a look at what I changed so you know what your mistake was. I was hoping that once you saw what you did, you would at least make an effort not to do it again when citing other sources.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know why you wasted the time to write to me about it when it would have taken you less time to correct it. I watch pages, so I would have noticed your correction. That particular error was one I've made before and will make again. Certain websites love adding text when you copy&paste any line, e.g. the title. Most the time I catch it, occasionally I don't. That's life ... if you're human. Kirin13 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, how am I supposed to know that your watching the page? And trust me, I've made this exact same mistake before so don't worry, I'm human (this sentence is supposed to be read in a joking manner).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and an FYI
Hello K. Thanks for your revert on the Declan Donnelly article. I am guessing that you saw that I had asked this editor to stop messing with the templates and they went ahead and did it again. FWIW I have seen this kind of thing before but it was awhile ago and I wouldn't know if this is a sock or just someone new fooling around with our articles. I hope that they stop but I won't hold my breath. Thanks for your time and for your vigilance. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it took me a couple minutes to post a warning: checked user's contribs, saw he's done it before, checked that those edits got reverted, check talk page for previous messages, check timestamp of last message vs timestamp of Donnelly edit, go back to talk page, & post new warning – by which time you posted, but since I hadn't refreshed page, I didn't see, thus duel warning, thus revert of my warning. Hopefully he's had his fun and left. Haven't quite figured out why people get a kick out of vandalizing Wikipedia. Later, Kirin13 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

List of individual dogs
I usually no longer bother trying to edit Wikis as the process is now so user-hostile. In the list of individual dogs- we are not talking the string theory entry here- I made a small addition that you eliminated because it didn't provide a source. The entry with sources should look like this & perhaps you could reinsert yourself as I don't know how to install a ref (thanks).

Joy, a Spaniel, belonging to the last Russian crown prince Alexei Romanov, with whom he often appears in photographs and from whom he was inseparable. Alexei was executed at the age of 13 with the rest of his family at Ekaterinburg in 1917. Joy was the only survivor of the massacre and was discovered wandering in the grounds of the house shortly after by White Russians who briefly occupied the town too late to rescue the Romanovs. Joy was taken by one of them into exile in Britain where he died at Windsor several years later, still pining for his young master.

Great Escape of the Royal Spaniel Daily Mail, 27 January 2014; Sophie Buxhoeveden Left Behind: Fourteen Months in Siberia During the Revolution, December 1917-February 1919 Longmans Green, London, 1929; Paul Rodzianko Tattered Banners: An Autobiography  Seeley Service, London 1939 Alanredux — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanredux (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All info on all articles needs to be sourced regardless of how 'trivial' that article is. Removing unsourced info is not 'hostile', it's normal. Do you know how much fake info is added Wikipedia everyday?


 * I don't add info without a source. Since I cannot access the source you list, I cannot add it. If you need help referencing, see Help:Referencing for beginners or ask for help at Help desk. Kirin13 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi- by user hostile I was referring to difficulties (I have) editing, not to your removal of the entry. The sources I mentioned are easily scouted on the net but I will source properly with page refs & repost at some point Alanredux — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanredux (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the post. The (no doubt honest) contemporary sources on which the newspaper articles rely are by Rodzianko and Buxhoeveden but to do page citations I would need a national library with a pretty extensive collection- will check in Canberra & add if I find. I was visiting the dogs section for something unrelated & had been reading around the Crimea crisis where I came across one of the paper articles & made the link to this poignant tale. Alanredux — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanredux (talk • contribs) 02:03, 6 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Kirin13, how are you? And do you help users on Wikipedia? -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 18:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a social network. Please spend some time actually editing instead of constantly putting up chat messages on other's talk pages. Kirin13 (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Kirin, try to help me on Wikipedia with building an encyclopedia, and also helping others to revert vandalism with twinkle and love. Thanks, :) -- Allen  (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Repeat: "Wikipedia is not a social network. Please spend some time actually editing instead of constantly putting up chat messages on other's talk pages." I do a lot more vandalism reverting than you do. What tools I choose to use is not your concern. Spend some time doing actual editing, because at the moment, 90% of your contribs are just chat/prettifying your user page. Kirin13 (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=628378795 your edit] to Princess Mako of Akishino 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) 20:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ] since 2004, when images of her in sailor fuku appeared on television. An image repository was set up, and a video featuring fanart of Princess Mako was uploaded onto the popular video-
 * . Kirin13 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nagano links
Yesterday someone made Nagano into a disambiguation page, and it remained that way up until half an hour or so ago. The edit summary for the move back suggests that it is only until the links are fixed. bd2412 T 18:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the post. When I looked Nagano, it redirected to Nagano, Nagano and there was a separate Nagano (disambiguation). Looking through the revision history & logs, it's an utter mess. Judging by the edit summaries, the claim is that "Nagano" was the disambiguation page and it was a recent not-discussed move that made "Nagano" be "Nagano, Nagano".
 * However looking at revision history & logs, I don't see any records of "Nagano" being the disambiguation page. I see record of "Nagano, Nagano" being moved to "Nagano" over a month ago (and no discussion). Then, today, a move of "Nagano" back to "Nagano, Nagano". However instead of reverting "Nagano" back to a redirect to "Nagano, Nagano", a (non-discussion) move of "Nagano (disambiguation)" to "Nagano" was made. Then a revert of that move, making "Nagano" be a redirect to "Nagano, Nagano" – this is where my edit happened. Then revert back to the (non-discussion) move of "Nagano (disambiguation)" to "Nagano", where we currently stand.
 * Looking at logs of "Nagano" and "Nagano (disambiguation)", I don't see any records of "Nagano" of ever being the disambiguation page. Furthermore, looking at the hatnote on "Nagano, Nagano" page, "Nagano" has been redirect to "Nagano, Nagano" for a long time.
 * Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At this moment, Nagano is a disambiguation page again. bd2412  T 00:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware (and wrote so above) but it seems to be an undiscussed move, since the 'stable' version is for Nagano to be re-direct to Nagano, Nagano. Kirin13 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the number of meanings, I am not at all confident that there is a stable target (or use) for this title. In the interim, it is showing up at the Daily Disambig as the biggest issue to be addressed. bd2412  T 01:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , the move has been reverted back to Nagano redirected to Nagano, Nagano. So, I would assume, "Nagano" will be taken off the Daily Disambig. If, after discussion, a decision is made to have "Nagano" be the disambig page, hopefully the links will be edited before the move is made. Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Archived talk page
Kirin, did you archive your talk page as I've been seeing thus it was gone? Your first archive is linked up on top right. -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 01:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Allen, as you have noticed my archive is linked above. So why are you asking me stupid questions? Kirin13 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking up to this page was an archive, seeing this difference above you did archived it manually. To be honest Kirin, don't make me feel bad. :) -- Allen  (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 03:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know perfectly well what I did. Now can you stop wasting my time? Kirin13 (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Animals with sequenced genome
OK, reverted this category for dog and similar, it was done as a part of bigger scan for all lists of sequenced genomes. Is there any tool for checking category tree authomatically? I thought that HotCat has this obvious functionality that it does not allow to add higher level categories if lower ones are already added? Thanks. Hsp90 (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't worked extensively in categorization to know what tools are out there. The only tool I've used is CatScan, but I doubt that's what you're looking for. Kirin13 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to self: regarding edits on &, also discussed

Disambiguation link notification for November 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.


 * Han Cong
 * added a link pointing to David Wilson


 * Sui Wenjing
 * added a link pointing to David Wilson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed: & . Kirin13 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hogwarts through the years.
Over the course of the series the castle went through various design changes to accommodate story lines, budget ext. Here is a break down of the changes. Click the links to view the different stages of the castle.

Movie 1&2 Castle:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/02/article-2109071-02E5DDD20000044D-817_964x591.jpg

Movie 3 Castle:

In this version the ventral tower on the right has a new spire, and taller base, as does the far right towers. Here is the new clock tower and wooden bridge set that was used for the film.

https://az480170.vo.msecnd.net/debd7172-44dc-4681-b074-d940a93cc4e1/img/prd/7be896fe-a2a5-4f19-ae0e-1b2805d39f77/l_hogw05_evp_hpe3.png

http://s283.photobucket.com/user/lcbaseball22/media/buckbeak01-1-1.jpg.html?t=1269151961

Movie 4&5 Castle:

'''The fourth movie featured only slight changes to the entrance hall, now being made into a courtyard, and the new Owlery being added next to the clock tower and wooden bridge from the previous film. This version also continued on into movie 5'''

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100209203859/harrypotter/images/2/23/Hogwartsmatte1c2_%282%29.jpg http://s485.photobucket.com/user/tears-to-roses/media/Harry%20Potter/Forum%20Pics/owlery_zps48841b7b.jpg.html

Movie 6 Castle:

'''The 6th film saw the addition of the astronomy tower. Its located in the centre of the castle, and features two turrets. The bell tower/central tower was also lowered to make the astronomy tower taller'''

http://www.heyuguys.com/images/2012/03/Harry-Potter-Studio-Tour-Hogwarts-Model-HeyUGuys-51.jpg

Movie 7 P2 Castle:

'''For the final film a lot of design changes were made to help make the action of the film run better. The entrance courtyard was expanded almost double in size. The bridge the connected the left side of the castle to the right, was now extended and instead of connecting to the castle, it connects to the mountain opposite. The boathouse had a new design, and several of the towers changed in size and look.'''

New courtyard: http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111120024403/harrypotter/images/8/87/Students_under_Snape.jpg

New Bridge: http://www.hogwartsite.net/Gallery/albums/HP7/TeaserTrailer-VIDEOGAME_PARTE2/teaservideogame_156.jpg

FINALLY:

Hogwarts in the final film: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7220/6875470530_05c46ba5f7_z.jpg

Hogwarts in the 6th film: http://www.heyuguys.com/images/2012/03/Harry-Potter-Studio-Tour-Hogwarts-Model-HeyUGuys-5.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Davis2003 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 23 November 2014‎ (UTC)


 * First of all - use the article talk page. Second, your link spam aren't even models. You just threw a bunch of unsourced images and trivia, which proves absolutely nothing. Do you have any actual sources? Kirin13 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think screen shots from the actual film proves nothing then there is something wrong with you. Also, the images don't need to be sources if they are linked. I never uploaded the images to Wikipedia, so your argument is invalid there. See the talker page for more details. B.Davis2003 (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What you posted weren't screen shots. They were random imagery, artist rendering, etc. and all unsourced. Images do need a source if they are going to be claiming something. A direct link to an image is not a source, an article including the image is. No idea what the 'download argument' is but since I never made one, have fun making it invalid. Will reply on article's talk page in a moment. Kirin13 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder
Hello, just reminding you to warn new users when reverting edits that goes against Wikipedia policy. Such as This revert To 19 Kids and Counting. Thanks! Lor Chat 00:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I place plenty of warnings. I just don't care about whose edit can be interpreted to be done in good faith. Kirin13 (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ref's in Yaoi
Sorry, I don't know how to do that - they used to be in the article a long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yaoi&direction=prev&oldid=469604504 --110.20.234.69 (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've recovered ref "Nagaike03" from the old diff. However there was no ref named "McLelland 2000 136". Can you specify where you found this ref? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's on the bara article, sorry. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, found it, thank you. Kirin13 (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a robot that consolidates references? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is one, I'm not aware of it. does some work with refs, but I'm not aware of it consolidating them. Kirin13 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hachi
Why am I not allowed to add content? I add it, and Kirin13 removes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriday64 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The plot section is already too long. Adding three sentences about an irrelevant detail of the movie does not help. Kirin13 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kellen Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artesia. 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) 08:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * . Kirin13 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Bot that consolidates refs
Apparently Yobot is capable of consolidating identical refs. :) --110.20.234.69 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw its edit yesterday. I've seen Yobot before doing other tasks. From my experience, it doesn't go through pages as often as AnomieBOT or other bots. The page may have caught the bot's attention for other reasons and it simply did other fixes while it was there. Another words, it's probably best to consolidate refs yourself whenever you notice identical refs. I've seen pages with non-consolidated identical refs that were added several years ago, so don't just wait for a bot. Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

weidashenling
I do not know who is that preson.I do not know who is that one manipulated me. I do not know who is that preson.I only want to plus these words in the entry:Maiden name.These words are all real.Every Chinese people know these words are real.Every Koreans know these words are real.Every Vietnamese know these words are real.Every Japanese know these words are real.Not someone manipulate me.It is only the truth.

In China Mainland,North Korea and Vietnam,under Mao Zedong,Kim Il Sung and Ho Chi Minh's orders in 1950s,every married Women in China Mainland or in North Korea or in Vietnam had no choice but must keep their father's family name after get married.Otherwise it will not be a legal marriage. By the influence of neighbors,Taiwan and South Korea Women were also all keep their father's family names after get married.The Japan government does not recognize the married couples who has a different surnames' marriage as legal marriage.Almost every Japanese women take their husbands' family names after they get married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weidadeshenling (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 December 2014‎ (UTC)


 * As I told you on, the issue is not so much the content as the fact you have too many errors: capitalization, spaces, WP:OVERLINK, syntax, grammar, etc. The fact that both of these usernames are editing similar articles, with similar content, making the same errors, tells me it's one person. Kirin13 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Tea
Hey, Kirin13. I saw your revert of my edit on the tea article. I'll try to add some references for that content. Shouldn't take too long. -Difference engine (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright & thank you for willingness to find references. Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Jason Brown
Hi Kirin13. Saw your revert on the Jason Brown (figure skater) article, and completely understand and support your reasoning. What if instead of disambiguating to the football player, we instead had text on the top linking to the disambiguation page. Here's why I think this is a good idea: even though typing in "Jason Brown" in WP's search box takes them to the disambig page, when people Google "Jason Brown", the first or second link is to the figure skater, and there is no link to the disambiguation page on Google's first page of results. I think a click-through link to the disambiguation page would help people better navigate if they were searching for a different Jason Brown. What are your thoughts on this? (Please let me know on my talk page, since I may not re-check this page in the near future).

Thanks for all you do for WP! Davemcarlson (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Wikipedia editing guideline, such a hatnote is discouraged. See WP:NAMB. Since article name is not ambiguous, there shouldn't be a hatnote. If we did this for one Jason Brown, then we should do that for all. Then we have a slippery slope to all the articles on Wikipedia. As far as Google, it clearly identifies the the link as a figure skater. Someone looking for a football player won't click on it and go to the next result (which on my google result page was "Jason Brown (American football)"). Kirin13 (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jelena Glebova
Hey, sorry - for some reason I didn't notice your explanation for the change. However, since Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union during the time of her birth and according to international law (as supported by several international organizations and most independent states) the occupation and annexation into the USSR was illegal and therefore void, the name "Estonia" should be used. That is the case for almost all the articles on people born during that period in Estonia. H2ppyme (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Soviet Union was the de facto government. The way listed is the way I've seen individuals born in any of the SSRs listed. I noticed that you've been changing place of birth on a lot of Estonian biographies. Where was consensus for this established? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus is the 99% of articles on people born in Estonia during that period. I merely changed the 1%. You and a couple of more editors are the only ones who keep fighting it, and only on some certain pages, often in sports-related articles for some reason.H2ppyme (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning, the consensus of 99% sport articles is to list SSR. Has this ever been discussed? On an Estonia project page perhaps? Is there any Wikipedia standard for this (over history plenty of places have been illegally occupied or annexed)? Or is this "whoever changes the most pages has consensus"-consensus? Regards, Kirin13 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been official discussions before and they have resulted in no consensus. However since 99% of all the articles had simply "Estonia" in the infobox even before I first started reverting the 1% back from "Estonian SSR". And this is the point - many places have been illegally annexed and occupied. However, their controlling power has been usually disregarded, since it was often Nazi Germany. For some reason people are much less keen to keep Germany as the birthplace than the Soviet Union, which occupied foreign territories quite in the same way...H2ppyme (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nazi Germany is just one of hundreds of examples over history. I haven't been part of those discussions, but one reason people may be "less keen" is because it was wartime occupation and of relatively short duration (compared to Eastonia where it was 50 years without active warfare). If there is no consensus, then I'm not sure by which consensus you're changing articles behind the scenes. I encourage you to try to get consensus again. Regards, Kirin13 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the petty reasons for disagreement, but the UN, the Council of Europe and the European Union have declared the Soviet occupation to have been illegal - that makes it just as illegal as the Nazi occupations during the war. I see no difference whether an occupying power signed birth certificates for 4 years or 49 years in that aspect. Furthermore - many of the articles that I have changed once only had "Estonia" in their infoboxes, but were at some point changed to "Estonian SSR" by some possibly Russian editors. I have no interest to start the discussion again, it went on as long that you could write a book about it. Ca. 2/3 of the editors supported using either the legal name or the geographic name (both Estonia), while some simply compared the situation to the other Soviet republics. Anyways, the result was obviously no consensus. However I see nothing wrong with keeping things in line, since the only articles that seem to use "Estonian SSR" seem to be either some random articles re-changed by single editors or new articles about ethnic Russian football and ice hockey players or figure skaters. It is obvious that these are articles that are mostly created by ethnic Russians, since those sports really are more popular among Russians. Therefore it is no wonder they have used a different style in the infoboxes. If it was up to me, I would only use geographically well-defined area names, not the legal state entities per se.H2ppyme (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Denis Ten
Hello, I noticed there has been a series of editing in the article on Denis Ten concerning his quad jump. I did some reference search and included the result in Talk:Denis Ten. I hope this helps to bring a closure on this matter. Seameetsmountain (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * . Thanks for all the work tracking down sources and details. Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Four Continents Figure Skating Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daisuke Murakami. 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) 09:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * . Kirin13 (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Austin Kanallakan
I'm not very familiar with figure skating so wanted to get your expertise on this. I was looking into a few articles related to Articles for deletion/Kellen Johnson. Austin Kanallakan "won three gold medals on the ISU Junior Grand Prix series and silver at the 2006 JGP Final". Those wouldn't count for WP:NSKATE #4, right? Since they're GP but at the junior level? czar ⨹   20:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Though it doesn't count for #4, Kanallakan has actually done better than what's required by #2 (just not in the correct event). #2 says that anyone who makes it to free skate at Junior Worlds, which is top 24, meets NSKATE. Though Kanallakan never competed at Junior Worlds, he did compete at the Junior Grand Prix Final, to which only the top eight skaters qualify, three times. For both seniors and juniors, it's much harder to qualify for the Grand Prix Final than it is to make the free skate at Worlds. I'm not sure why WP:NSKATE recognizes Junior Worlds but not Junior Grand Prix Final. The extended guidelines, WP:FIGURE/N, has #7 – a win on the JGP circuit, which Kanallakan has three. Regards, Kirin13 (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Norma Sahlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbara Brown. 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) 09:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * . Kirin13 (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Importance of Gallup 2008 interview
Hello! Can you explain why you decided, that the choosing of language to conduct the Gallup 2008 interview is so important to include in article about Ukraine? --Geohem (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already explained that the poll shows the preferred language of the majority of the population of Ukraine. The language a country speaks seems like important information about a country. If you disagree, then discuss your WP:BOLD change on the article's talk page. Kirin13 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's wrong opinion. The usage of survey's form for one of many interviews does not shows the preferred language of the majority of the population of Ukraine. Such conclusions must be based only on reliable secondary sources.--Geohem (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gallop is considered reliable source – if you don't, than I'm not sure what you would consider a reliable source? A poll conducted by the Ukrainian government? It's clear that the government's census (Ukrainian language > 2/3 vs Russian language < 1/3) gives a very inaccurate view of language prevalence, since all the other sources give significantly different result. Kirin13 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Merlin Entertainments Group
On the Alton Towers, Thorpe Park, and Chessington World of Adventures, the reason I changed the "Merlin Entertainment Studios" to "Merlin Magic Making" is because "MMM" is their planning and design team. The website I used was "magic.lcmpreview.co.uk" thats the URL for "Merlin Magic Making." Please change it back. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyFan22 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not reverting. If you want to add a section to Merlin Entertainments about the Merlin Magic Making team, go ahead. But adding an external link not related to the articles, isn't constructive editing and can be considered WP:SPAM. Kirin13 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)