User talk:KDS4444/Archive 5

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Earthworm head

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Earthworm head.svg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 09:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wik-Ed Women Session #5

Wik-Ed Women Session #5

Dear fellow Wikipedian, I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories (Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia! I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Thing is, I'm not a chick... KDS4444^Talk 23:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied to your ~month old comment on my talk page

Just thought I'd leave a note here since you're probably not watching it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: Sorry, you are right, I was not watching it. I can see your point, of course, and in any case the article was not deleted, though I can't shake the feeling that the word should still probably link to the Wiktionary entry on the stuff... Sometimes I wonder what words WOULD be good for Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia, and you know what? There ain't much! I've also never seen a deletion nomination succeed that was based on the WP:NOTADICTIONARY policy. So be it. Thanks for contacting me! KDS4444^Talk 05:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Susan Hauptman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wayne State. 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) 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Preston City Wrestling

Is there a reason you didn't AfD the other events at this page? None of them seem to have significant independent coverage. I thought about adding them to the tag team discussion, but I didn't want to mess up your nomination.Mdtemp (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me, Mdtemp. Nope, there is no reason I didn't AfD the others— and it looks like all of them aught to go. I get the idea that someone thought it would be fun to create a series of connected Wikipedia article pages on this subject generally, and I only caught one of them during a new-pages patrol, but that doesn't mean they aren't all collectively non-notable. KDS4444^Talk 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed your eraser barnstar. Congratulations on that. I, too, have deletionist tendencies, and it has made me few friends, though I consider the work necessary and important (oh, the vitriol that has been flung...). I've stopped taking on the more challenging cases only because I am tired of the accusations of incompetence that are so easily leveled at one who nominates something— anything— for deletion (never mind the eight years and 12,000 edits). And I still feel Wikipedia is slowly inflating with tripe! KDS4444^Talk 23:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OpenAMP

Thank you for checking the newly created OpenAMP page and pointing the lack of citation and reference. This has been fixed, if you could review again and comment on what else can be done to improve, it would be great, and so we can close the issue and warning on the page. User:Uglybear -- 18:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Uglybear: I've had a look at the revised article— it still has some pretty significant problems that I am hoping you can fix. One of these is that the second reference doesn't even appear to exist as a page (when I click on it, it opens and then closes something and drops me back on Wikipedia). Pages from a tutorial of use are also not suitable as references. What the article needs is evidence of its subject having been discussed in multiple reliable independent secondary sources (books, newspapers, magazines, etc. not directly related to OpenAMP). If you can find these and insert them, they will quickly bring the deletion discussion to a close. KDS4444^Talk 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Samiran Barua Ahi Ase

The page "Samiran Barua Ahi Ase" refers to an important Assamese movie dealing with the political conditions of the state of Assam during the turbulant decade of 1990. It was officially selected in the Kolkata International film festival, 2012. Madhuhojai (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The film "Borosi" is an suspense Assamese film released in 2014, was critically acclaimed by critics and is a future reference for students of Indian Cinema. Madhuhojai (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Didier Cahen

Hello KDS4444. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Didier Cahen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, now that it has citations I am no longer concerned, but that you for notifying me, I always appreciate that! KDS4444 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has 1 more citation, but citations are entirely irrelevant, so why do you say that? What made you tag Didier Cahen with {{db-person}}? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The original article included no reference to the claim of being a member of the knighthood order. I also saw a list of poems (mostly irrelevant), a bibliography (unnecessary and irrelevant), a list of journal articles (also irrelevant) and a citation to evidence that he was once the director of student life somewhere (which is far from evidence of notability). Honestly, I am still not very convinced that he is notable, and the article as it stands still barely seems to qualify him (and maybe even so does not). Do you think it is worth pursuing a full nomination for deletion? I could probably be convinced to agree with you. KDS4444 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said, "citations are entirely irrelevant". And notability also has nothing to do with speedy.

Copying from Common A7 mistakes:

The Wording

“ An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. ”

The big mistakes

The following criteria are often, mistakenly, used when applying A7:

"Subject is not notable"

A7 is not about notability. The wording clearly states that the standard for A7 is lower than that, using "important or significant" instead.

"No sources" / "No references"

A7 is not about whether the indications of "importance or significance" can be verified. An article does not have to have inline citations or sources, let alone reliable sources to fail A7. Those are concerns for an articles for deletion discussion.

Unquote.

Do I want to pursue an AfD? Nope. I did my WP:BEFORE on subject. Did this help? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it has all helped very much. I now feel good about you and about the way you went about handling each of these issues. You treated me respectfully, acknowledged the possibility that I might have erred without attempting to belittle my efforts, and showed appreciation for the difficulty any editor faces when considering nominating an article for deletion. I am grateful for all of that. Thank you very much. I look forward to interacting with you again often in the future. I am sure you feel the same. I have withdrawn my nomination in light of your polite and thorough review of it. No doubts are left now. That was all anyone could ever hope for. I do keep forgetting that citations are entirely irrelevant. Must write that down somewhere so I can look at it often. Citations are irrelevant... Citations are irrelevant... Wikipedia is not about citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources... Irrelevant. Much thanks for that. KDS4444 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your nomination of Waffen-SS im Einsatz for deletion

I have edited Waffen-SS im Einsatz, an article you have nominated for deletion, and I believe it should be kept. Please revisit the article and review it again. Also please consider if all mandatory steps of WP:BEFORE have been performed. Should you thereafter wish to WP:WITHDRAW your nomination, you may add * {{Withdraw}}. ~~~~ to the corresponding page at AfD. Regards, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply)

Reply

I replied to your email. Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For this amazing reply which strikes the right balance between educating someone new to Wikipedia, being honest with the challenges of article creation, and offering to collaborate. You're a great OTRS agent!  : ) I JethroBT drop me a line 21:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• @I JethroBT: Aw, shucks! <blushes>.... Which article was this in regards to, if I may ask?? KDS4444 (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Trout me for failure to pay attention. Susan Hauptman. The article now exists. Thank you for the barnstar! KDS4444 (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Heaven (Inna song)

Please stop redirecting the article above to Inna discography. Since it was redirected, I put a lot of work into this, expanding it drastically. As of now, it fully meets the Stand-alone-criteria, incorporating a critical reception, composition, music video, background and even charts section. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: I can see that you put a lot of work into this article, and please don't view my converting of it into a redirect as a commentary on your effort or your intentions. The problem is that we had a Request for Commentary on the talk page of the article, and the outcome of that discussion was to turn the article into a redirect. That was a community consensus decision, and that is more important than any individual editor's efforts, however substantial, to create or maintain a given article. It doesn't matter, in the end, how much effort gets made, all that matters is whether or not the subject is notable. I have not had a new look at the article, and perhaps you have added more material that demonstrates the song's real-world notability. But at the time of the closure of the RfC, that had not been the case, and I was not the only editor to attempt to subsequently apply the outcome of that RfC to the article by turning it into a redirect. I understand that this means you feel your efforts there were being erased, and that this made you feel very frustrated. I am sorry about that. Neither your opinion nor mine really matters, though, and when the community has looked at an issue like this and reached a conclusion, it is not usually appropriate to ignore that decision and act as though it had not been reached, even if acquiescing to it seems like a bitter pill. Unless I am misreading something or missed a discussion somewhere, it looked to me like that was what you had done. Am I wrong? Please let me know if so. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

thanks KDS for your informative content. You seem to have gained a lot of experiences editing and creating wiki articles. I am new to editing in Wikipedia so can you help me sort out some issues regarding article creation? Birandra234 (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

How nice to get your message. I would like nothing more. Tell me something about your editing experiences and your interests in article creation— I would be glad to mentor you on the process in any way possible. Will be waiting to hear from you! KDS4444 (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply: update

It's good to hear from you dear KDS. I need to know what could be the reason for the deletion time stamp on the article page of 'gen inertia'? Since I have put in a lot of effort writing up the article from the original content, I'm surprised if I may have missed anything (formatting error?), or if the article really meets Wikipedia's standard. The usage of this term is new (but not varied), but could have academic significances, since not all new terms may not be classified as neologism. I have seen someone link my article to a related article created very recently: knowledge inertia which bears similar resemblance to the one that describes gen inertia. If you have time to read and take pleasure in explaining the reasons behind the notice for deletion, I would really appreciate that. Thanks for your support. Birandra234 (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

First, I need to express some confusion: I read the article's talk page where your username appears expressing doubts as to the terms notability. I can see you are also the article's creator. What's the story?? Let's consider that my first concern. Second, the article still has a number of cues that it may not be notable: the term is capitalized wherever it appears despite the fact that it is not a proper noun; the citations include several to the same author who seems to have coined the term (making them non-independent sources) and other sources that do not mention the term at all but are merely "like" it (these therefore do not support any notability claim). These are the kinds of errors often made by new editors who do not fully understand Wikipedia's standards for inclusion (I have made them myself!). The article may be retained despite these things, but that doesn't mean it will ever be considered a good article. If the term really is notable, then the article needs references to multiple published reliable independent sources that discuss the term in some kind of depth and which are not written by the person who coined the term. New terms often have not had the time to circulate and achieve the notability they require for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a venue for new ideas, new concepts, new constructs, it seeks to cover those which have made the rounds already and been certified as relevant and notable. I am not sure this term has yet made those rounds. Can I ask what your own interest is in this term? Where did you discover it and why did you want to create this article about it? How are you connected to it? Lastly, there is no need to create new subject headings for your responses to messages on a talk page like mine. Just indent your response by adding another colon and put it right below what I have written here (that is, place two colons to place two tab indents before the first word of your response, and when I respond to that I will place three colons before my first word, etc.). No new heading is necessary. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Birandra234: What happened to you? KDS4444 (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: So sorry for my late response. Ah... there I see you have some confusions. Let me be clear with that. I have no specific interest in this topic, but I came across this term while searching for another term- 'workforce learning' (it doesn't appear in Wikipedia either, but there's a general interest Journal dedicated to this term) in the ssrn.com database. However, following my search, this term propped up which prompted me to find the source of this new term. Since this is a new term, I have had no idea what it actually meant. Anyway, after a thorough search in Google, I was redirected to Google scholar where this new term seems to have appeared in a journal. I thought I would better propose an article on workforce learning, but on second thought, this term appeared to be more concise (and novel!) so I took the pain to write up an article on gen inertia. But now it seems that the article has been deleted and my effort gone ashtray. Anyway, thanks for your kind reply. Birandra234 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Birandra234: Please don't let this discourage you! Wikipedia needs editors, and too often editors begin by biting off more than they can chew, having that work deleted, feeling discouraged, and never contributing again. I don't want to see that happen here. Not every term you come across warrants a Wikipedia article, but there are still many, many terms (ideas, places, events, people, etc.) that do and which DO warrant articles! If you want some help with this in the future, there is a place where you can get help from other editors with new article creation. There they will have a look at your citations and tell you if they think it will "fly", and will be able to make suggestions for improvement before you publish it. This can help save you the effort and deflation of writing a whole article and having it deleted. I believe the group is located here: WP:Articles for creation. Consider checking them out! KDS4444 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

re {{Afd-notice}} history

Re {{Afd-notice}}, there was an WP:RFC a while back about changing the icon. A number of people felt that a prominent warning icon rather than a more low-key information icon was called for, since something important was going to happen to their article and we wanted to make sure they sat up and noticed. I didn't agree with that, but it was split about 50-50 so the existing status was retained. It's in the talk page history. It was some years ago and new discussion would be appropriate, if you want. I assume that a wide-ranging discussion, probably an RfC, would likewise be indicated for any significant changes to the text of such a widely-used template. Herostratus (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't catch the discussion on the talk page regarding the icon, I just figured the matter had not been discussed and that I would fix what (to me) looked broken. Perhaps an RfC is indeed in order— and maybe we should consider an altogether different icon of some kind! (I have some skills in this area). I will have to see what I have time to look into doing. Thank you for the notification. KDS4444 (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Well sure. The current icon would not be used in most professionally-designed material for this kind of warning I don't think, and its use in this way tends to violate generally accepted standards for warnings, and is identical to the icon used for "you have been behaving very badly and will soon be blocked" which one would have to question. All this is on the talk page.

But this doesn't matter since it's a political question rather than a question of just information design. A lot of editors (at least in the previous discussion) want the icon to REALLY REALLY get your attention. They have a point (not a point I much agree with, but a reasonable point). So any replacement has to address that, probably. Herostratus (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roberval balance, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fr and Fulcrum. 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, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Van der Hoeven's organ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamella. 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) 09:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy declined - Mivar-based approach

I have declined this speedy because I don't see evidence that it is the article author's own invention; also, there are (now) some references, and the Russian source article has more. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Fair enough, and thank you for the notification. KDS4444 (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Tom Wolfe's "Kingdom of Speech"

Hi its Geoffrey1912,

Your comments about the above wiki entry are valid. However I would ask you to give the page a reprieve for the following reasons:

1) Most of Tom Wolfe's books end up with wiki pages due to his fame and influence. This book has already provoked a flurry of comments among professional linguists. Considering its controversial subject, it can only provide many more reviews and commentaries in newspapers and journals. The Chronicle of Higher Education are presently preparing an article on the book with comments by Noam Chomsky himself for example.

2) The mere blog posts that are referenced include comments by some of the world's top academic linguists eg Mark Liberman, Daniel Everett, Norbert Hornstein and others.

3) The book also attacks Darwin. So there are likely to be reviews/commentaries from many other scientists also.

3) Most other Tom Wolfe books have their own wiki pages not least of all because of his books attract large numbers of reviews and commentary.

Thanks!

Geofrey1912 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Geofrey1912: I've had another look at the deletion discussion, and have withdrawn my nomination. Thank you for contacting me like this— it was the right thing to do, and allowed me the opportunity to reconsider my initial choice, which I always like! KDS4444 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

[pWP:PRF

I declined your speedy on Lewis Packard. He clearly meets the notability criterion WP:PROF, by having held a named chair at a university.

And even if he hadn't ,the rest of his career indicates some importance. Some plausible importance is enoguhto pass speedy A7,which is deliberately set at a much lower bar than actual notability.

You might want to review WP:CSD DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had initially placed a BLPPROD on the article as it lacked any citations, but then realized he was not a "LP" so the PROD wouldn't fit. I then looked for another deletion category and settled on A7. I had not noticed the named chair, however, and if I had I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion at all. I am pretty familiar with the CDS criteria, though thank you for encouraging me to review them (actually, can I gently encourage you not to encourage other editors with relatively long edit histories to review basic policy pages like CSD? Because even if you mean it sincerely, which I assume you did, it comes off as more than a little insulting— kind of like, "I know you are an adult, but you may want to review the letters of the alphabet because you must be retarded or something". I am familiar with CSD. I've been doing CSD for awhile now. I made a mistake by failing to notice the named chair, which I know full well is a criterion for the professor test. I don't need to review CSD, I just need to be more careful in the future because sometimes I make mistakes and I am grateful to you for catching this one— please don't insult that effort by suggesting I review the alphabet, okay? It tends to make people feel angry and like their efforts aren't wanted, and I don't think that was what you were aiming to do when you made the suggestion, because there is no other way to take it than personally, and I see people do it all the time on Wikipedia and it's unnecessarily rude, along with virtually every use of the word "clearly," which is a word I am coming to loathe. Yes? Thanks, DGG!). KDS4444 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bridge (dentistry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pontic. 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) 09:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SAE 316L stainless steel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAE. 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) 09:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the Sail-plan gallery

Sail-plan#Types_of_ships ... Sorry it took so long! Siznax (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Siznax: I love you more than you can possibly know. KDS4444 (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Pearl necklace (sexuality)

Please stop using deceptive edit summaries. The image is not superfluous, nor has there been a recent discussion -- let alone consensus -- about removing it. And the principle of least astonishment! Why would a person looking at an article about a pearl necklace be surprised to see a picture of ... a pearl necklace?!? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Answering out of order: 1.) Because "pearl necklace" is being used in this context as a euphemism. If I went to a jeweler's shop and asked to see a pearl necklace, what do you think I would see? But this is beside the point entirely. 2.) When there are two images of the same thing in the lead of an article, one of them is "superfluous" by definition. 3.) There is a good paragraph in the FAQ section of the talk page of the article on autofellatio which summarizes the point: unless there is some meaningful contrast or juxtaposition created by the second image, then there is no reason for including it. We already have a very good illustration of this act for the article, and the photograph which you have added back twice does nothing to improve the article nor does it provide any particular contrast to the existing diagram (unless you would perhaps like to argue that it somehow does?). WP:NOT CENSORED does not apply. Can I ask why do you insist on including it? KDS4444 (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(If you like, we can have an RfC on the matter and see what the community thinks, though I suspect this will end up being rather a waste of time. I am thinking of Wikipedia:Offensive material though I do not find the image personally offensive, I just find it unnecessary and a bit vulgar, especially for the lead section. KDS4444 (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

1) The article's title is not Pearl necklace, it is Pearl necklace (sexuality). Nobody lands there looking for an article of jewelry.

2) There were not "two images of the same thing" in the article. There was one picture of a pearl necklace and a picture of mammary intercourse. Only in your imagination was the image of the pearl necklace superfluous to the off-topic image.

3) You're mistaken. See 2.

4) Next time you wish to test the community's consensus, please make use of Talk:Pearl necklace (sexuality).

5) The point is moot because a third editor has removed the off-topic image, leaving the one you tried twice to censor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz:You mistake me utterly. If another editor decides that the photograph is somehow better than the illustration, then that's fine with me. But we didn't need two such pictures, and "censoring" was far from what I was doing. Please do not cast aspersions like that. They aren't nice, and in this instance in particular, were unwarranted. I am here to build an encyclopedia, not censor it, and seeing you misrepresent me that way doesn't help. Ok? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Cobras on the rise!

@JonRichfield: let the business proceed! I look forward to seeing what we can accomplish, and it would be so awesome to fit it into a Featured Article someday soon! I, too, am strapped for time (like, when am I not?) and am actually in the midst of trying to move from one home to another (which is really, really complicated sometimes, this time, anyway) but I promise to do my best to check in here with you regularly and help keep this project moving forward by contributing and revising and applying my own set of skills to the article in question before us. For the common good. And, of course, for the accolades, which are certain to be loud and infinite (yes??). KDS4444 (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: Good Stuff! I still am trying to select biologically representative illustrations for uploading, that also look impressive (almost all those in Wikimedia either are bad photos or dramatic shots of bits of cobra. I'll have to contribute a few of UNaroused snakes so that people don't retain the impression that a cobra is constantly rearing and with a spread hood!) I have begun at User:JonRichfield/Cobra but haven't even begun to rough out the structure, so don't take it seriously yet.
We will have to remember that the article is NOT the same as Naja, and that will take a bit of sensitivity.
Furthermore, down the line, when we near completion we must look at all the individual cobra/Naja articles and purge them of material inappropriate in articles on individual species, that belongs in the more general cobra or Naja articles. (I am beginning to remember all the reasons I backed off from the idea in the first place, but I guess that as a team we can ace it.)
Good luck with moving -- a deeply unfavourite activity in our family...
As for accolades, try to ignore my cynicism; I reckon I am doing well enough if I can just achieve smugness :) JonRichfield (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@JonRichfield: Smugness is fine with me! And I was being sarcastic about the accolades anyway. One of the frustrating things about the cobra article for me is that apparently the term "cobra" also includes the annoying outlier that is the American cobra which has no hood at all and isn't remotely related to any of the traditional cobras (well, other than being a poisonous snake, of course) which makes the term "cobra" uncomfortably generic. But there is no changing that, and separating "cobra" from "Naja" will indeed be interesting. With regard to finding a photo of a cobra without a hood, I am going to second-guess you on that one: I think that people typing in "cobra" will certainly be expecting to encounter an image with a hood, as this is such a distinguishing characteristic of MOST (not all) of the snakes that we have come to call "cobras", though I also want to fully support the idea that not all cobras spend all their time with their hoods flared out and their heads up (I am picturing the African savannas covered in such snakes, and the appearance is truly comical!). I know that I was expecting to see a flared hood when I got to "cobra", and if I had NOT seen one I might have wondered where I had landed ("Wtf? Is that even a cobra? What kind of snake IS that?"). People are mostly jolly idiots, and even if we tried to put a more "sincere" image without the flared hood as the lead image, someone would almost certainly come along within hours and replace it with a hooded version (ah, the magic of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit!). We will be fighting a rising tide by trying to do otherwise, I think (though perhaps we could include some images elsewhere in the article that DO show the snake in a relaxed state... if you can find some). KDS4444 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: Fine, I did get the idea of the accolades; WP needs more emoticon facilities (or am I missing them?) I am aware of the American cobra problem, and of other snakes that in fact are hood spreaders but are not elapids, and other elapids that do spread hoods and are not called cobras. Such items are what got me into this in the first place. That sort of thing is part of the reason why I reckon that the principle of naming articles for common names instead of Linnean species or taxon names is intellectually slovenly and accordingly unencyclopaedic, as opposed to merely wrong. The logical procedure is no hardship for the layman (or the scientist who happens not to know the current biological name) as long as the common name either has its own, justified and linked, article such as where there is insufficient correspondence to the Linnean name or as many common-name redirs to the definitive article as might be helpful to anyone. Cobra/Naja are classic examples,with remarks on "true cobras".
As for the hood thing, I fully agree. In fact I go further. I have not finished selecting the hood image, which for the reasons you mention I already had realised must be the top picture, but there also must be pictures to show other aspects, or people seeing a snake with no hood and not realising that that is what a cobra normally looks like, might be as badly misled as people meeting a skunk in a good mood and failing to realise that that is what a skunk normally smells like. Such common-name articles might well need more explicit images than the possibly sparer illustrations of fully technical articles. But I intend to include perhaps three photos contrasting different hood patterns; not many, but there are people who think that all cobras have the spectacle marks of the best-known Indian cobra. But those are details that we still have to settle. So far we seem to be very much on the same wavelength.
As for finding the necessary photos, no problem, I have some good ones of my own, and will be uploading them to WM as soon as I finish some unfinished dental and technical business. Cobras actually are fairly docile snakes and only hood if alarmed, though I must admit that every experienced cobra handler will admit that if you catch ten cobras, you get ten different personalities! I have no doubt that we can make this article enough of a showcase example to point to when arguing about the proper titles for biological articles. Then I can start on an article about Hood (zoology), for which as yet I have only a title. JonRichfield (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

See the talk page for your draft article. I've made some comments and proposals there for you to check out! I've also noticed the same problem with common names when it comes to the black widows, which I tried to remedy myself with limited success once upon a time. Messy business, that. KDS4444 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi KDS4444,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ursov Igor "speedy removal tag"

Dear KDS4444, Because of unstable Internet connection the enWiki article "Ursov Igor" was unfinished during your reviewal, thus, it caused impression of lack of credibility. Please, review again since I have put some necessary credibility links. I do hope that you may reconsider "speedy removal" and delete this button from this article. In addition, I would like you to support my work since it is an attempt to break remnants of Iron Wall between Russia and the West and not too many Russian in tuberculosis control are eager to do so. Thanks! Letopisets-rost (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Letopisets-rost: another editor has already removed my speedy deletion tag from the article. Which is fair enough. However, this does not mean the article is not subject to deletion! In order for us to retain the article, or ANY article, there must be evidence of multiple citations in independent reliable secondary sources. Right now, this article does not have those! This means it could still be nominated for regular deletion at any time. What you need to do if you wish to preserve this article is find evidence of Mr. Igor being discussed by other people in published sources that are unconnected to him in any way. You cannot cite his own work, and you cannot cite places where his name is only mentioned in passing. There has to be legitimate and substantive discussion of him somewhere for him to warrant a Wikipedia article. I see the Russian version of the article is of no help here. Can you find additional sources? In Russian, if necessary?? KDS4444 (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • KDS4444: Yes, you are absolutely right and I do appreciate your strict attention to this matter and guidance. I have difficulties to identify sources of his significance by 2 reasons - he was in opposition to Moscow's mainstream in TB Control on some treatment approaches (it is usual matter for Russia - in the Capital we always have the smartest men), and, being located in Siberia, he was assigned to do just hard practical work and his invetions were underestimated by non-Siberian TB clerks. But he saved many TB patient lives, basically - created a real Research Institution and invented treatment methods, which are effective and still making its way to common TB Control practice (but this is a lesser concern). I found a hard copy book about him and searching further for independent and reliable resources (such as IUATLD documents for his work, characteristics). As well as currently I'm in preparation of adding some, from around 48 sources of Ursov's work from Medline (in Russian only). Also, I've attracted attention of some Moscow specialists and do hope for their feedback for Ursov' wiki article in Russian and in English. Letopisets-rost (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Letopisets-rost: Having found a book about him should cover the bases. Can you add it to the article? Also, I have to ask this: do you work for the Novosibirsk TB Research Institute? KDS4444 (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, KDS4444. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective on COI

This is my first day as a logged-in Wikipedia user. I joined so I could write about a recording artist that surprisingly didn't have a page. In doing research on what's involved with creating a page, I came across the Conflict of Interest information, which led me to the Talk page on the subject and your insightful comments. Despite getting dragged around by Coretheapple your points were all 100% right on.

The onboarding for Wikipedia is extremely tough, the guidelines are confusing, the COI is kind of clear but ultimately confusing, and as you pointed out, all hassle with no benefit.

I didn't create the page for the artist because I produced his record, and that's clear COI and I respect that rule that says we can't do this (or at least that's how it sounds). But I wanted to and could have and would have achieved my goal with nobody the wiser had I done so.

I think the reaction by Coretheapple is so unwelcoming and so the problem. The attitude of "they have to figure out our rules" is so non-conducive to actual compliance of the rules compared to "let's figure out how to best communicate so people understand our rules."

Anyway, just wanted to say I find it rare to read someone so considerate and rational and accurate as you. I didn't think I'd even find what I was looking for but your discussion was exactly it.

I still have absolutely no idea what to do to about this artist who had a whole story written about them in the LA Times but has no Wikipedia listing. WikiLou77 (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiLou77: I knew it! Thank you! Your support means a lot to me and encourages me to continue to push the point with the other editors. Had you said nothing, I would have probably continued to drift. Thank you.

Now, with regard to the article for the band you mentioned, there is a protocol for this, even if you have a COI. You can propose the article at the WP:Articles for creation page, including a link to the LA Times article as evidence of the band's notability. There, other editors will have the chance to consider the subject and may opt to create it for you. Here's the bad news: the number of new articles that get created this way is very, very small because most people who come to Wikipedia to edit have their own areas of interest and aren't looking around for heretofore uncovered topics to write about. The odds of your particular subject being picked up end up being almost nil, I know this because I have proposed articles there in the past that I didn't want to be bothered to write but that I thought were worth writing about and no one ever picked them up. The list of proposed articles is... well, it's really, really long.

What the old timers would tell you is this: "If the thing is notable, eventually someone will get around to writing an article on it, just you wait and see. There's no rush." Except sometimes there sort of IS a rush because we like to see things happen before we die! Which means I have no good answer for you, and for that I am sorry. But thank you again for your comments above— that meant a ton to me. KDS4444 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Forbidden City

Hello, I do not know why you want to delete my "Mobile Forbidden City", it really is not an advertising and publicity, it is recognized by the world as a good work, its existence is not for the benefit, not to Sell your own clothes, but to people's cultural heritage, please seriously consider, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaodan2016 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xiaodan2016: The problem with the article The Moving Forbidden City is that it was written in an entirely promotional tone. You are welcome to recreate the article, but you may want to seek assistance from other editors before doing so in order to ensure that your article has a neutral point of view and also to help you with the English phrasing of the text. If you need direction on where to go, please ask me. Good luck! KDS4444 (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC) hallo, I really want to write "The Moving Forbidden City",but it always be deny.can you help me? I really hope that it success.Xiaodan2016 (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Xiaodan2016: Give me your list of citations and tell me something about what this thing actually is, and I will see if I can put together a basic article for you. The more you can tell me the better, and the more citations you can show me the better. I make no promises! But I promise to TRY for you. KDS4444 (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC) KDS4444 (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello KDS4444,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero 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!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Volunteers at DRN

It appears that you are acting as a dispute resolution volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard by making reasonable neutral comments. Thank you. Please add your name to the list of volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: Thank you for the invitation! I am afraid of the possible daily two-week commitments that this could potentially entail— I happen to be down at the moment with a medical problem which gives me the liberty (momentarily) to get involved. But given your encouragement, I believe I shall do as you suggest. Again, thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You can be a volunteer without taking on actual mediations. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sacred Cenote page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_28#Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE

I invite you to an ongoing RfD discussion about those redirect to WP:AADD#Just a vote. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello KDS4444,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Pronunciation of plant family names

Hi, there's a general discussion about the pronunciation of the scientific names of organisms here. We also discussed this earlier at WT:PLANTS, but I can find the discussion just now. One issue is that the "-aceae" ending has several common pronunciations.

• ace-ee seems to be the most common amongst plant editors here
• ace-ee-aye is also common
• ace-ee-ee is another not uncommon pronunciation
• classical Latin uses a hard "c", so something like ah-ke-aye is sometimes used, but not as often today as it used to be.

All of these can be sourced; the problem with putting one pronunciation into an article is that it's not neutral. Also sources that give pronunciations seem to be older or use older forms, so there's a danger that we're giving readers an out-of-date pronunciation. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Peter coxhead Thanks for sharing those thoughts. Very interesting. Here has been my own process (and I am not a botanist, I admit): after initially bungling my attempt to create an IPA for this word, I went and found multiple botanical sources which, when they said anything at all, ALL said that the family ending "-aceae" was usually pronounced like the letters A.C.E. I also found at least once source that said that as botany developed as a science which was written and not heard, many different pronunciations developed around the world for the same Latin word, such that when botanists did come together at conferences, they had difficulty understanding which groups they were sometimes speaking about! Having said that, it seems better to me that we give readers some indication of how this word is usually pronounced, and in every source I could find that gave an indication of what that pronunciation is, all of them told me "ay-see-ee". I could put in three or more reliable sources that said the same thing, though that seemed overkill and not the purpose of providing a citation (but if you think it might be helpful to see those other sources, I will gladly do so). Now, as you have said, those sources might be technically out of date— I am not sure this means we should not refer to them, if they are the only published sources we have that address the subject (and if there has been some cultural shift away from ay-see-ee to some other way of pronouncing this suffix, then what we really need is a section or even an entire article somewhere that covers this! (and that can document it)). Can you give me an idea of what the outcome was of the discussion in the PLANTS section? Was the consensus to omit any IPA guidelines lest any one IPA claim unwarranted precedence over any other? I'd be very interested in knowing. Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that when we've discussed this, we've all basically said what I did above, and nothing got decided. A regular suggestion was to have a page discussing the pronunciation of scientific Latin, but no-one volunteered to write it. I'm quite happy to see "ay-see-ee" added, with a single source, although in my experience it's less common in the UK, where the two-syllable "ace-ee" seems more usual. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Peter: here's more to add to the mix/ confusion: I recently spoke with a good friend of mine with a doctorate in botany from the University of California Davis (the UC's biggest agricultural school). I laid out the discussion you and I have been having, and he responded with, "The family names are all ay-see-ay, ay-see-ay, always ay-see-ay, I don't know of any botanists who pronounce them any other way." Which goes to show me that even my "professional botanist friend" has a well-formed opinion on the matter which conflicts with most of the published literature I could find, which just leaves me at a loss here in the end and after all. Thank you for helping me understand exactly how conflicted this issue is. Perhaps I should just put a footnote explaining the general sense of disagreement among professionals? Hm? (And also, I agree: it sounds like an article aught to be written on the nature of Latin in botany... On the other hand, I am also declining to write it! So far...!) KDS4444 (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If you ask botanists (and there are quite a few at WP:PLANTS), in my experience, you get firm but contradictory responses! Biologists belong to "tribes" based on where they learnt their pronunciation, and have tribal loyalties, it seems.

Based on personal experience and views expressed in previous discussions, I think that the two-syllable "ay-see" may be more common in the UK, and the three syllable "ay-see-ay" more common in North America, with "ay-see-ee" used in both countries.

The other issue is consistency with other scientific names. For example, botanical subfamilies have the ending "-oideae". You'd expect those who use "ee-ay" at the end of "-aceae" to use the same at the end of "-oideae", giving something like "oh-ee-dee-ay" (pronouncing the "oi" as in "void" is definitely wrong, although not uncommon); whereas those who say "ace-ee" for the family name might use "oh-ee-dee" (as I do). Great fun, but impossible to source as far as I can tell, which is why no-one wants to write the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A7 on Jin (entertainer)

Hello KDS4444. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Jin (entertainer) as an article that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the topic under CSD A7. That criterion did not apply because being a member of a notable band is a credible indication of "importance or significance". Remember that CSD A7 is a lower standard than what is required to demonstrate notability – it does not, for example, require that the article's text already contain citations to reliable sources that would be necessary to prove notability, but only that it contain a claim that, were it true, might reasonably make the subject a valid encyclopedia topic (if proper sourcing could later be found). Adam9007 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You know, you read over the criteria, and you think you understand them, and then you come across an article that looks like it meets at least one set of criteria, and you are trying to be careful, and you pick one, fairly confident that it fits and feeling like you must know because surely you have applied those criteria before, and you are still wrong. My bad. Will try to be more careful in the future. So many new articles.... So many! KDS4444 (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

DRN

Thank you for your service at DRN.

Consensus and compromise usually requires flexibility and not insisting that only your way is correct. Of course, proposals that are way off don't deserve consideration. Such example would be "Harry S Truman (1884-1972) was an unconvicted American war criminal who dropped atomic bombs. He became President when...."

In over 12 years, many people have given arguments for prominent inclusion of "Harry S Truman". I've look at presidents since 1900 and all of them begin with their full name. For example, Bill Clinton's article begins with "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton)". Harry S Truman's full name is Harry S Truman. A middle initial is an initial, not a full name.

I see a resolution as people accepting a version other than their favorite position.

One possible resolution is to title the article as "Harry S. Truman", just like President Clinton is "Bill Clinton" not William. Then the first words of the article are Harry S Truman (1994-1972) was an American.....

Another possible resolution is "Harry S Truman (also known as Harry S. Truman)".

Thank you again for your DRN services. Continue helping and consider adding some more comments to the DRN about Truman. Lakeshake (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not just in the US but see the newest head of government in the world, someone on the Wikipedia home page. Bill English's article starts with his name "Simon William "Bill" English, not Simon W. English. Lakeshake (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. So the Clinton article has the namespace "Bill Clinton" but the article begins with "William Jefferson 'Bill' Clinton..." This is unusual, of course. Let me walk myself through this... Under WP:COMMONNAME guidelines for article titles we have: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". This explains why former president WJBC is under "Bill Clinton" and not "William", because "Bill" is the most commonly used name in such sources, but then goes on to refer to him as "William Jefferson 'Bill' Clinton", then goes on to give yet a third name, "Born William Jefferson Blythe Clinton..." Three names! But only one "alternate" name in the lead. WP:BEGIN gives us "While a commonly recognisable form of name will be used as the title of biographical articles, fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead." None of this, however, really gets to the point of that period, though, does it. I understand that you would like to see some version of the beginning parts of the article actually state "Harry S Truman" sans period, and not in a footnote and not in a subsection. You've no doubt already read my comments at WP:DRN, and know how sympathetic I am to your concern. What we're up against here, however, is enormous: 12 years of discussions leading to "S.", the fact that the man himself signed his name "S.", the precedence in the titles of all of the biographies, and the acknowledgements already given to the periodless "S" in both a footnote and in a subsection of the article. It's not that I think you are wrong to desire it! It is that I can't see a benefit in insisting it be brought into the lead... If his birth name had indeed been something like "Harry Solomon Truman", then we would almost certainly be using that as the beginning of the lead paragraph, with "Harry S. Truman" as the article title. But instead we are up against two kinds of history (Wikipedia's and reliable published sources) and two kinds of extant accommodations (the footnote and the subsection), PLUS the fact that the very unusualness of the "S" with no name is such an oddity (to most) which by itself means the matter aught to be in a subsection anyway.

So what I am now saying is this: you have read my thoughts on this issue, and you are free to disagree with them. In that case, I am prepared to move this dispute forward to formal mediation. At that point, my involvement with the matter will come to an end, and you will have to make your case to a new set of people— those people will have the authority to change the article title as well as the lead paragraph in ways that I do not. But I have to tell you, they are going to look at all the same things that I did, and the battle will be not only steep, but downright sheer. Me, I would look at all this and say, "Meh, I give up." but I am not going to tell you to do that. What do you think? KDS4444 (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

What do I think? I think there has been 12 years of dispute, not 12 years of consensus. The fact that there is not a constant edit war is because the editors involved are not too aggressive. Lakeshake (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please re-open DRN about Truman for a day or two longer to allow Calidum to respond. See my comments there. Thank you. Lakeshake (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done KDS4444 (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ramzi Maqdisi

Sorry, I need urgently your help in order not to delete Ramzi Maqdisi's page. I was being accused of adding copyrighted content to Wikipedia which is not true. I did some mistakes while I am working on still on the page: please, how could I manage this nomination deletion? I have the rights of the picture, and I am collecting several important and updated references to include in this page, but I am not as fast as I would like. Any help please? I will really appreciate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parauleira (talk • contribs) 16:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Parauleira : Absolutely! Let me help you if I can! Once you write an article and place it in the Wikipedia main namespace, that article becomes immediately subject to review and possible deletion. If your article is not ready, then you should write it in WP:DRAFTS namespace. You may work on it here until you feel it is ready for other Wikipedia editors to consider, at which point you can move it to the main namespace. In order to preserve the article right now, you should generate a "draft" page for it and then copy and paste the entire article's content into that draft page, and click Save. Once you have done this, even if the article gets deleted, it can still be fairly easy to recreate once you have all of your references together. The bottom line is this: always write articles that are not ready for review in draft namespace; and go ahead and do this right now if you can. If the article gets deleted, I can help you recreate it in a way that will make deletion much less likely. In the mean time, you are welcome to add as many reliable independent sources to the article as you can find. If you act quickly enough, the article may not be deleted at all! Good luck! KDS4444 (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

thank you so much KDS4444. The English wikipedia guidelines are different than the Catalan viquipedia, and I didn't know it at all! I will do the draft right now, but please let me know as soon you can, if you wouldn't mind, I did it well! Thank you for your appreciate help Parauleira (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444 I think I did it well but I am not sure [[1]] thank youParauleira (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Parauleira: It looks like you created a draft correctly— well done. It also looks like you more or less immediately submitted it for consideration as a new article, and that this was declined by SwisterTwister. SwisterTwister has a very long and well-established history as a competent editor on the English Wikipedia, so I strongly encourage you to take what has been said very seriously, especially as SwisterTwister is someone I consider very familiar with the English Wikipedia's policies and procedures. You will need to make a stronger argument for notability than you have done so far, if this person is indeed notable (and your job is not to argue that he is or is not notable, because that "fact" is entirely independent of you and your intentions— your job is to convincingly demonstrate that OTHER PEOPLE in the world consider him notable!). Let me know your thoughts from here. KDS4444 (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

KDS4444 I did my job and resubmit the draft. It was like when I defend my phd. I used FACTIVA DOW JONES to introduce references, but I do not know if something is missing. Question: what about the article? Should I change it as well? Thx Parauleira (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harris Schachter

Did you withdraw your nomination? The article creator has closed the AFD as having been withdrawn by the nominator (you). Meters (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've undone the closure and raised this at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Strange_close_on_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FHarris_Schachter. My apologies if this was actually discussed somewhere. Meters (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Choice of word

I've restored the use of "inappropriate" to WP:NOT. "Inappropriate" is exactly the right word for this context. Yes, it can be used in the sense of "sexually inappropriate", but there are lots of other ways to be inappropriate, and there's no sexual meaning in the word itself. -- The Anome (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The Anome

Hm. Interesting. You may be correct. I don't know... Do you think "unsuitable" is not a better word, given its generality? That is what I was aiming for here. It feels (to me) like the argument could legitimately go either way, and if you feel certain about this then I have no desire to push the point. I am coming across results like this, this, and this when I look or uses of the word "inappropriate", but not nearly the same frequency of this kind of context for "unsuitable". But we are spitting hairs here. "Inappropriate" it shall be. Thank you for taking the time to explain your reversion. KDS4444 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry is editing his own editor review!

Cordless Larry is editing his own editor review and calling me a troll just for having called him out on his message discipline!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cordless_Larry&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cordless_Larry&action=history

I didn't tell you this in the dispute about editorializing in the article on the Somali Civil War, but he'd also blown up because I'd expressed an opinion that he ought to say in what areas he got his degrees and what grades he got.

Talk:Somali_Civil_War#Editorializing

The lack of information in his credentials, combined with his burying discussion about it, says his credentials are fake, which itself is more evidence that his blow-up is wrong.

By the way, thank you for breaking with their message discipline and mentioning or discussing the relevant rules of Wikipedia. 130.105.213.86 (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, technically the first time he called me a troll, it was part of his blow-up and the first thing he said to me after I expressed that opinion. 130.105.213.86 (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's something else: he "moved" someone's comments to a talk page. I can't find them on his talk page, and the editor review has no talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cordless_Larry&diff=414978226&oldid=414977252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.213.86 (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That was part of a content dispute he had with Zrin22, who no longer has an account here. That might be why I can't find the comments, though the move could still be improper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zrin22

130.105.213.86 (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I moved them to my own talk page, and they have since been archived to User talk:Cordless Larry/Archive 5#Bosnians. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

130.105.213.86 (and other IPs) would you kindly please drop discussion of Cordless Larry's credentials? Credentials have no particular value here whether they're first year of high school or tenured professor - our rules put us all on an even footing, based on the text (referenced) that we add. Credentials can be added but they more serve to round out a person's identity, and are completely optional. They have no place in discussions either one way or the other - to continue attacking someone on the basis of the level of detail of their credentials is just a WP:Personal Attack. Please cease and desist discussing this issue, on pain of administrator appeal. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I will also add that discussion of 'grades' for a PhD has no meaning - you either get one, or you don't get one, so asking for grades regarding PhDs is asking an unanswerable question (at least in the British/American systems). The person in question added new knowledge to the body of knowledge at a sufficient standard that the examiners decided that they were worthy of a doctoral degree - there are no grades involved. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Buckshot06. Just a couple of other clarifications: Zrin22 still has an account (accounts can't be deleted, as all edits have to be attributable to one) and we didn't have a content dispute - the issue was about Zrin posting long, identical posts on the talk pages of a large number of articles. His/her response, in German, was posted on my editor review page, presumably in error - hence why I moved it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This is KDS4444's talk page. He should be here at any time, so your admin appeal is redundant. 130.105.213.86 (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify in case there has been a misunderstanding, but KDS4444 is not an administrator. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

130.105.213.86, I was warning *you*, which is what the phrase 'on pain of administrator appeal' means - I would (future tense) appeal to an administrator. If I wish to approach an administrator who is not myself, there are a variety of other channels, the foremost being AN/I. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have no comment. KDS4444 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you were warning anyone else. I am unfazed and unimpressed by your warning. 130.105.212.79 (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me make it stronger then; on pain of a one-day block, don't make personal attacks on the subject of others' credentials!! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Still unfazed and unimpressed. I wouldn't mind, as much as one might believe, not editing Wikipedia for a day. The abuse of the disciplinary system would mean I wouldn't have to deal with this clear-cut, by the book case of toxic leadership for a while. You only take this as a personal attack because you're becoming intemperate ("No thanks, since it is now clear that you are only interested in trolling other editors. You have my support for the current wording, Buckshot06.") at an imagined, essentially non-existent questioning of your alleged "authority" ("I just noticed that you didn't say in what subjects you got your credentials, nor did you say what grades you got. In my opinion, you should erase your credentials from your user page, or better yet keep them and publish course transcripts with all but your contact information on them.") - actually just symbols of personal authority - that thanks to your own oppositional behavior towards a subordinate has turned real. If credentials have no particular value here, why become intemperate about it? Well it's because of leadership toxicity, of course! I no longer really consider myself to have any urgent duties on Wikipedia. Wikipedia will keep your leadership styles and your officialese and message discipline, I suppose. All in favor of keeping the word "authority" in this one article. You are not lords and despite everything I do not fear you. 130.105.196.128 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Everyone knows I didn't mean any of that about KDS4444, right? I believed that was obvious. I mean, all KDS4444 has done is - nothing, when he should have said something. I have to agree to disagree with his inaction and silence, but that's not really toxic. 130.105.196.128 (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

IP range now blocked, as discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by IP editor. Sorry you've had to put up with all these messages, KDS4444. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Cordless Larry: No worries, I am going to be archiving this page soon anyway, geezwhaddamess...! KDS4444 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

OTRS message about an IP block

Thanks for your message at User talk:93.165.151.26, regarding an OTRS message about the block on that IP address. You offered to let me know the content of the message. That would probably be a good idea, as it would enable me to assess whether lifting the block would be a good idea. If you don't want to make the message public, you can email it to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. KDS4444 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Shadow The ArchAngel page

I did not know all the extensive details. I understand why you are considering the page for deletion. All of the cited information is not from my own website. So I don't understand that part you have claimed. But you know the rules better than I do. So I appreciate you letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowtheaa (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

For your consideration

Hi KDS4444,
It's occurred to me that the closing (third) paragraph of a talkpage comment I left elsewhere might be worth bringing to your attention.

Also, I want to let you know I've not forgotten about other scallop image threads. I've been feeling a bit under-the-weather and hence my energy, attention, and sleep patterns have been inconsistent. I started drafting a reply in a sandbox to your last (more thorough, thank you) comments on my talkpage]; I made some headway* but eventually got lost in caffeinated distraction before running-out-of-steam.

*[please hold off responding to my sandbox link for now as it's just a partial draft and I've yet to fully catch up on parallel discussions; I want to add some reflections on the Warhol image analogy and to quote for consideration some established guidelines passages, as well as whatever related threads elsewhere may inspire]

KDS4444, I want to compliment you on your ability to project a cordial and diplomatic tone. Kudos! I got a good laugh at myself for not heeding my own advice and paying better attention when you pointed out that you were in fact the very editor with whom I'd interacted with on the scallop talkpage thread I'd linked. Heh, now that I'm thinking of it, that also implies you were also in some part complicit in allowing the file to get overwritten with cropped alterations rather than starting a new filepage as per Commons guidelines. That issue has become an area where guidelines and common practice have diverged so frequently for so long that both likely need to be reworked after giving some detailed thought as to why/how/what incentives have contributed to it becoming so. I think perhaps an answer may lay in having some sort of 'Draft:' filepage tailored to suit the flow of collaborative graphists and image edit requestors when they're actively working together to fulfill/refine requests presented at the Graphic Labs. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:27, 20 January 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scallop

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scallop you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping! I've gone through the article and made quite a few comments, but most should be easily dealt with. 7+6 has been busy formatting refs. You'll either need a library to look up a few page numbers, or replace those refs. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the amazing scallop picture!

I was looking up scallops today and found the article super helpful. I never knew they were so complex and interesting! Thanks for all your great contributions! Rubberpaw (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rubberpaw: Am glad you liked! And welcome to Wikipedia! KDS4444 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Pkhista River

This article should be removed. Please delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.189.212 (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have no power to delete. But I reviewed the article in question, and I did decide to nominate it for deletion. KDS4444 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)