Open main menu

Archive 1 : Archive 2 : Archive 3 : Archive 4

Feel free to leave me a message.



Contents

Reference errors on 2 JulyEdit

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

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) 00:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Packer articleEdit

Hi, thanks for the good faith efforts. I am making no effort to distort anything - particularly a single source, not sources, that you have added in good faith. I have no concerns over adding the intended information, it just seems that the wording could be more neutral. As shown now, it just seems more along the lines of the use of claim or other similar words that either draw into question what someone stated or leads potential credibility the wrong way. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to changing the wording, but the edit you are pushing misrepresents the sources, neither of which say anything about same-sex marriage supporters taking note of (or criticizing) Packer's remarks. My wording presents a context that is noted in the Schnecker report (and is independently verifiable at the linked article). -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not pushing anything. I was only trying to make it more broad-based, though unsuccessful in your view, which I understand and is fine. There is just one source noted, written by Schnecker. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There are two sources: the Huffington Post (using a wire source, namely Schnecker) and the Deseret News. I don't see how tarring those sources as "supporters of same-sex marriage" makes the wording "more broad-based", and in fact, it is inaccurate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess you're not seeing that I am acknowledging that it wasn't a successful effort. I have no concerns with that. The Deseret News source is a source for the talk, yes, but not a source for the concern or issue that is being addressed by the good faith edit. That is why I referred to a single source in what I have shared here. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I'm not understanding what problem you have with the wording and what you think it should be changed to state. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess my initial thought was that in an effort to perhaps provide some measure of context, it lends itself to imply there was more broad criticism and perhaps overstates the shift. I am not sure that I have thoughts on revised wording, so I'll just leave it alone. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Third-party sourcing for rebel motivationEdit

Let's work here on the specific issue of third-party rebel motivation sourcing here. This discussion assumes rebel motivation assertions by Russia and/or Syria will be reduced in other parts of the article. The threads on the Mediation page are getting unwieldy. I'd welcome any input from Darouet (who had a suggested reverted) or VQuakr, but suggest other editors refrain from joining this, mostly as a test case for collaboration. I want to use the the first or both AP articles:

  • Karam, Zeina; Dozier, Kimberly (8 September 2013). "Doubts linger over Syria gas attack responsibility". Seattle Times. Associated Press.
  • Dozier, Kimberly; Apuzzo, Matt (29 August 2013). "AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'". Associated Press.

Is this sourcing acceptable to you? If so, then Darouet or I will suggest a text. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The sourcing is acceptable. I'd be interested to see your proposed language. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll look to see what Darouet proposed earlier. But in general, the most frustrating issue with my experience editing this article is your side's reluctance, almost refusal, to propose or revise text that is suitable for you. Before this mediation started, it was almost exclusively revert in the history and "no" on talk pages. Just registering where I'm coming from, I'll do it. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There's some history to that. I can only speak for myself, but back after the attack happened in 2013, it took a lot of effort to produce an article that wasn't dramatically slanted to one "side" or the other, and some of the Talk page discussions from then (you can take a look at the page's archives) make the more recent dispute look like Leave it to Beaver. (One of the editors was eventually banned after accusing VQuakr and I of being "intel boys", claiming Wikipedia admins were part of a globalist conspiracy, and abusively using several sockpuppet accounts for harassment and disruption.) After that dispute was sorted out -- and not to toot my own horn here or downplay the fact that consensus can and does change, under Wikipedia's policy guidelines, but a lot of the work done to get the page into a state somewhat resembling what it looks like currently was done by me, in what was then a fairly successful effort to compromise between the mainstream group of editors and the smaller group of editors who subscribed to the false flag theory -- the page was pretty quiet until Erlbaeko started making some significant changes several months ago. Then, on the other side of the coin, VQuakr and Sayerslle began pushing back on some of those edits (Sayerslle, who was never a terribly civil or constructive contributor, got blocked for edit-warring on it, in fact). And then you got involved. And then, for a stretch of several weeks, it looks like you and Erlbaeko were basically the only editors making significant changes to the page. And then came the major sticking point in late May, which drew several more editors into the dispute and triggered a round of scrutiny from editors who hadn't been active on the page in a while and were probably surprised to find some of the changes that had been made.
So, what changed from mid- to late 2013 to this spring? For one, the issue is older now. There are parts of the article that haven't been updated in almost two years now -- one example that struck me when I was going back through it this past weekend was a promise in September 2013 by Sergei Lavrov that Russia would be imminently producing evidence to support its claim of rebel responsibility, something I don't believe ever materialized -- and frankly, it hasn't been at the forefront of my mind at all until fairly recently. But for another, Russia attacked Ukraine last year, tossing a match into an online powderkeg. On a lot of Russia and Ukraine articles, the cast of characters on each side is remarkably similar to the group on this article. Back in 2013, I was much more active on Middle East-related content than Eastern Europe-related content, and my work on the Ghouta chemical attack page was a natural outgrowth of my other work on the Syrian Civil War topic. I think in light of Russian aggression in Ukraine and what seems to be the reemergence of a Cold War posture and attitudes between the West and Russia, the Ghouta chemical attack page and discussion has taken on that character. And an unpleasant character it is: speaking from personal experience, there is a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND tendency surrounding Eastern Europe content more so than any other I've edited on, and it has gotten profoundly worse since Russia seized the Crimea last year. Thus you get editors whose personal views are sympathetic to or antagonistic toward the Kremlin and Russia's "information war" policies clashing bitterly over everything ranging from substantive issues to utter fluff.
To make a long story short(er), the reason you haven't seen "my side" propose much in the way of new content for the article is because I think many of us tend to see what you, Darouet, and Erlbaeko are doing as an effort to expand the amount of space in the article given to airing a POV that we view as propagandistic in nature and fully in line with the Russian government's maskirovka tactic, the same it is using in Ukraine and elsewhere. We don't want to propose new content; we simply don't want any to be added at all, at least nothing to give Lavrov or Assad or their scant supporters in the West and elsewhere a larger platform in the article. And that's the issue that I think you intended the mediation to resolve, because this ends one of four ways: 1) we keep fighting over this until kingdom come; 2) one side or the other gives up and the other side does what it wants with the page without any of their valid input; 3) an arbitrator comes in and imposes his or her own vision, possibly handing out topic bans or locking the page in the process (this has happened before); or 4) we figure out a mutually agreeable compromise, at least until consensus shifts again. Of the four options, I prefer door #4, and I get the sense you do as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the history lesson. I don't mean proposing new content in general. I mean proposing any compromise text in response to edits or on the talk page. Maybe you did so in 2013, but I at least don't remember much of that this year. You're not a good example, but others have simply reverted or said no with vague waves to policy or no justification/discussion at all. I am hopeful we're getting to a better place now. I won't get in to it over your use of the terms propaganda and maskirovka, but know that I don't appreciate any use of them to describe anything I or others have done on the article recently. Period.
We were headed for #5, a mediated solution. And maybe we need to go back there. But for now I think we can do #4. I appreciate your efforts to continue to work collaboratively. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

SSM in VI as it affects template and mapEdit

Dear Sir/Madam, I've been trying to work to keep the map on same sex marriage appropriately annotated. As you know, there is clear consensus on VI which about five editors agree is fully legal, but one person has been edit warring and failing to provide an appropriate reason... ironically contrary to his own past criteria. I recently reverted to another user's version of the map in which VI is light blue, though it really should be dark blue... I just don't have the ability to make such a graphic myself, but it was the most appropriate version available. So at this point I doubt there will be much to see happening (unless the situation in the territories change) other than Mr Prcc continuing to edit war. I have been in retirement for quite some time so am asking what you believe could or should be done next to address the situation. I believe there is clear consensus on VI based on the number of different people who have reverted to VI being fully legal in the Same Sex Unions template, and I believe one person is clearly refusing to accept the clear consensus, to the point of being a disruptive editor at this point. Njsustain (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually figured out how to edit the file. It now has all dark blue except for AS and MP, which are both pink. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to upload it to the appropriate place in wikimedia commons. I made alternate changes to the map's key instead. Njsustain (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

ITN for Cuban ThawEdit

--SpencerT♦C 17:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks forEdit

voting against deleting Death of Sandra Bland. Also, I suppose you and others were right about my nomination to put it into "news." I'd like to get more involved in that project if I have time, it seems cool.

Re: your links to these edits in the first iteration of the mediation, I doubt Andrevan was making an allegation; I think he was rather trying to demonstrate the difference between productive versus unproductive discussion. He stated, "were I serious, that would be casting aspersions - not describing what you actually did, which is what I did above." Furthermore, all this came at the end of behavior that was very trying, and well explains his frustration.

Andrevan seemed to think you were doing good work in the mediation. And as a number of people pointed out, he certainly was not "on one side -" for instance he deleted my text proposals as excessive and beyond his requested schema for productive mediation. -Darouet (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ITN for Flora MacDonald (politician)Edit

--SpencerT♦C 17:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

ITN – Les MunroEdit

Clarification: My opposition to this nom was not based on my "personal opinion of the man or woman who died," as you wrote. My opposition was based on the insignificance of the "Dam Busters" attacks regarding the course, duration or outcome of the war – despite the significant casualties inflicted on the ground.

I have no opinion regarding Mr. Munro (whom I'd never heard of before), and I don't question the dedication or courage of the airmen who participated in the attacks. Nor do I harbor any sympathy whatever for the Nazi cause in WWII. Sca (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Decision needed on mediationEdit

Last week I asked a question about closing the mediation here. Apparently my attempt to ping participants didn't work. Would you be able to respond? Sunray (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but on the Federal subjects of Russia page this file File:Russian Regions-EN.svg which is a map of Russian regions has not been updated to show the Crimea, I want to know if you can modify it to show that Crimea is now a part of Russia. If yes thank you very much. Signed 79.50.176.220 (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ITN for Árpád GönczEdit

--SpencerT♦C 18:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

HeyEdit

Are you also proudly Portlandian?   Sca (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sca: As a matter of fact, I am! -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
We're well aware of Portlandia over here, being as it is diametrically opposed to the predominant cultural ethos in Id-duh-ho.   Sca (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Thornton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 Azawad attackEdit

We edited the original conflict together, just a heads up to check this article outLihaas (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ITN for Joseph EngelbergerEdit

--SpencerT♦C 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions/Syrian Civil War notificationEdit

Re: [1] I know you are familiar with the sanctions, but it has to be logged here to be effective, hence the notice. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!Edit

News battles in YemenEdit

Hello. Could you create the pages of the last battles in the north, Marib and the last in Aden between loyalists and jihadists ? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Jim ColverEdit

I would like to know why you edited Jim Colver's page. I updated his page with information backed up by legitimate sources. --Christinaoverturf 15:57, 13 January 2016‎

@Christinaoverturf: Welcome to Wikipedia. The reason I reverted you is because you also 1) deleted information that was backed up by legitimate sources, although it may not have flattered Mr. Colver, and 2) introduced material that you appear to have gotten from primary sources (such as Mr. Colver) rather than from reliable secondary sources. Even if you know something to be true, you can't just add it to Wikipedia without a proper citation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats For YouEdit

File:SuperiorContentReviewScribe.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-Zahid-Zadran (talkcontribs) 15:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Yemeni CrisisEdit

Hi New article have been created could you update it ? Regards. Panam2014 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

US-Cuba ThawEdit

Hi Kudzu, I'm working with the Wikimedia Blog on a post about the US-Cuba Thaw article on Wikipedia. I noticed that you had contributed heavily to it and several similar articles in international relations, so I'd like to pick your brain and quote you for the post. A few questions: is it interesting to be following current events and then writing history for something enduring? What is your experience with international relations articles on Wikipedia—is it difficult to keep them updated? Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Thanks for your note. I tend to follow current events pretty closely, and international relations are a particular interest of mine. Wikipedia is interesting when it comes to topics like this, because when editors like me are writing up current events for the website, we do so both (from my standpoint) to inform readers about what is happening, using the best, most reliable, and most up-to-date information we can, and with an eye toward the future. I don't know if anything substantial will come from the Cuban Thaw, and this period of rapprochement could end up turning sour, but there's no question it is history in the making.
As for your question about whether it's difficult to keep them updated...it depends, and I think the three biggest factors tend to be: 1) How quickly events are developing. In the case of the Cuban Thaw, there have been a few milestone moments spread out over the course of more than a year now, so it hasn't been too hard to keep track of. That's not always true, though. I remember during the early days of the Arab Spring, events were unfolding very, very quickly, and situations would change rapidly. Which brings me to 2) the availability of reliable sources. For the Cuban Thaw, because the world's largest economy (and Anglophone country, helpful to us here on English-language Wikipedia) is involved, there is widespread coverage by free media. However, the Cuban media is tightly controlled and censored by the state, so finding reliable sources to report events from the Cuban perspective is difficult. In general, though, keeping tabs on something like the Cuban Thaw is a lot easier than monitoring the state of, say, foreign relations in East Africa, which doesn't get a lot of attention from the international media and where the reports that emerge are often hazy or contradictory. That's just one example, but I remember doing day-to-day updates on the civil war in Libya five years ago and there was all kinds of false information flying around. One thing we always have to keep in mind on Wikipedia is that we're not on a press deadline. We have the luxury of being able to wait and be cautious and make sure we get it right...though we also have the competing luxury of being able to edit, change, and update our work as events develop or new information emerges. There's a balance there somewhere, and it's one that I and many other editors have spent plenty of time debating. Which leads me to 3) editor interest. This is also a matter of balance, because if there's a topic about which very few editors are interested, pages can go for a long, long time without being updated, and obsolete information can linger for years. I see this all the time in obscure articles that say things like "as of January 2013, X was Y" or something like that. But if there's a topic that a lot of editors are interested in, odds are good that it's controversial, and that can lead to clashes between different "factions" that can turn into edit wars, sometimes require administrator intervention, sometimes mediation, etc. The Cuban Thaw articles haven't attracted as much of that as some that I've been involved with -- the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Syrian Civil War both spring instantly to mind -- but that's one of the most difficult parts of being a Wikipedian who edits on current events and international relations. People don't always see eye to eye, and I think a lot of editors really put a lot of stock in the idea that history is written by the victors, or that those who write history wield great power.
Just like the world it details, Wikipedia is constantly changing and evolving. I think a lot of us feel like we are, in a small way, writing an early draft of history when we're updating Wikipedia with information on current events. But it's important also to keep in mind that our "early draft" will be subject to indefinite revisions. We can only be certain that we're writing a history for the present time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Kudzu. Will ping you when this is published. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in pinging you—I completely forgot. The article has been published. Thank you very much! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Muhammad AliEdit

 On 4 June 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Muhammad Ali, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Nakon 05:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

New Yemeni Civil War articleEdit

Hi there,

I just found out you are the creator of the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen article and wanted to let you know about my article, in case you haven't seen it. It's the Human rights violations during the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present) one. I would really appreciate you letting me know if you think there are other events I should include.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmWinn (talkcontribs) 10:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Roster navboxesEdit

When you update a roster template, such as {{Washington Nationals roster}}, please don't forget to update the navbox, in this case {{Washington Nationals roster navbox}}. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Ross. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:FSA-grab.pngEdit

 

Thank you for uploading File:FSA-grab.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

ReynaldoEdit

What are you doing here? I am putting the info in the correct location. You screwed up and placed info that you copy/pasted from the Nationals minor league page. I have no idea why you did not put the info directly at the Reynaldo López location. All of the edit history as already located at that location.--Yankees10 03:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a histmerge request should be filed, in that case. I took the couple grafs or so that were on the minor leaguers page and expanded them considerably with new/updated content. The content of that page should not be cut-and-pasted into a redirect -- that's not the proper procedure. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I will request that [2] to [3]be merged in if you'd like. I'm not sure what you are saying with the second part because this most certainly is the proper procedure for minor league players--Yankees10 03:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
That would be acceptable. That being said, I'm having trouble finding reliable sources to support the "Reynaldo López" style. Virtually every baseball database, news story, etc. forgoes the accent mark over the "o". What is your basis for preferring "Reynaldo López"? As for the procedure, I was referring to cut-and-paste moves, which aren't allowed per WP:CUTPASTE. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
English sources hardly ever have accents. Here's a spanish language source with the accent.--Yankees10 04:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

ContestsEdit

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archie Bradley. 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) 09:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers. 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) 09:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clint Robinson. 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, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hatcher Pass, Alaska nominated at RFDEdit

Hatcher Pass, Alaska listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hatcher Pass, Alaska. Since you had some involvement with the Hatcher Pass, Alaska redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Kudzu1. 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)

Kyle McGowinEdit

Please self-revert that edit. People get their own page if they meet the general notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Lots of minor leaguers meet that, like Mickey Moniak and Nick Senzel. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:'Adan Governorate listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:'Adan Governorate. Since you had some involvement with the Category:'Adan Governorate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GXXF TC 19:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinckney consensusEdit

Would you mind just following up on my talkpage comment with a pointer to where to find consensus to use "assassination"? Thanks. - Brianhe (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Eaton (baseball). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Meetup InvitationEdit

You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.

  • Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
  • Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
  • Location: Edminston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
  • Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!

(This message was sent to WikiProject members via Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

Nationals Rain Delay with no rainEdit

Hello, I would like to talk to you about the rain delay on the Washington Nationals page, as it does deserve to be on wikipedia as does the infamous "Natinals" incident, so I just wanted to get your opinion on why that paragraph was deleted instead of merged into the current paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENGRIFFEY24 (talkcontribs) 02:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Already covered on 2017 Washington Nationals season in a much less POV tone and with sources backing it up. See also: WP:RECENTISM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion?Edit

Hello Kudzu, long time no talk. I'm here to ask for a third opinion, might be useful in resolving this issue here on the page of Korcha, a town in Southeast Albania -- see Talk:Korçë#Antiquity. I figure its an area you're pretty divorced from, so could be useful in getting the view from a different point (not to use that "POV" phrase which means a very different thing in real life haha), very much appreciated if you have the time. Best. --Yalens (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Welp, the issue appears (hopefully) to be resolved. Thanks anyways though!--Yalens (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Citation Barnstar
For the excellent work on the Tom Petty article. Thanks! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Uw-hoax: ANZUSEdit

Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at ANZUS. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia — and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. New Zealand is no longer a member of ANZUS since 1986 and New Zealand does not have a formal defence (defense) alliance with the United States of America. All the official New Zealand sources under the .govt.nz I cited would contradict you that it is not. Would you kindly please stop restoring this complete nonsense about New Zealand being "partially suspended", thank you!

Edit re-characterizing Republican party at United StatesEdit

The designation "center-right" for the Republican party at the article United States has been hotly contested and should not be changed lightly. The talk page archives show how much went into arriving at consensus. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Dhtwiki: "Lightly" or not, we are outright lying to Wikipedia's readers by characterizing one of the most right-wing political parties in the developed world as "center-right". It simply isn't true. I didn't see a discussion active on the talk page, so I changed it. If consensus is otherwise, so be it, but to call the modern-day Republican Party "center-right" is completely wrong and misrepresents the party's positions on virtually every issue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Kudzu1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHEdit

Sources from before an event cannot reasonably be used to provide background on an event without it being SYNTH. It is wikipedia editors picking and choosing information that they think is relevant, which may or may not actually be. Use background info that is given in stories about the event. There is plenty. Please revert yourself so other editors can start with a clean slate. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No chance. Multiple RS refer to those events and issues as background, and there are no Wikipedia guidelines against using earlier sources to flesh those references out. I appreciate your concern, but this is decidedly not a SYNTH violation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
All but one sources in the Background section itself is from from before the event. If what you say is true, then link those current sources in that section. And don't add anything to that section that has yet to be mentioned as background in a CURRENT article. Once that background is covered in a current source, THEN add additional references from earlier. Right now, its being worked backwards. -- Netoholic @ 09:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
What you want to see happen has already been done, with contemporary sources cited in that section as well as throughout the article making explicit reference to the events and issues covered in greater detail in the earlier sources cited -- again, and I can't stress this enough -- as background. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Its a start, but several of the points still need current sources that establish those details as Background to this event. It would so much better to remove those details, and let the section build naturally. I feel like you have some connections you want to draw or think should be drawn, without first letting current sources make those connections. -- Netoholic @ 10:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Nope and nope. Everything is backed up in contemporary references, and the only reason the older references are used is to explain the context they mention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 Washington Nationals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marco Estrada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Washington Nationals minor league players, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Prensa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ismael GuillónEdit

 

The article Ismael Guillón has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Disambiguation link notification for September 1Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Washington Nationals minor league players, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October!Edit

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


Interview requestEdit

Dear Kudzu1

I am part of a research project at the University of Westminster, London, that looks at contentious Wikipedia articles and would like to interview you about your work and the issues and intricacies within collaboration practices. We have observed that you are a prominent and decorated contributor within the Wikipedia community, particularly in articles related to ongoing armed conflicts.

This interview would be a part of a research study which analyzes discursive practices in conflict and how it is represented through editing and discussion within controversial Wikipedia articles about on-going wars and international conflicts. To explore this, we would formally like to request a semi-structured research interview regarding your perspectives on contributor relationships, motivations for participation and collaboration practices.

As an experienced and knowledgeable member of the Wikipedia community and a proactive editor in articles of our interest, your contribution would be highly valuable to this project. Please let me know if you have any questions and I hope to hear back from you.

Best regards and thank you in advance.

Etchubykalo (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!Edit

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Country Winners
  • Diversity winner
  • High quality contributors
  • Gender-gap fillers
  • Page improvers
  • Wikidata Translators
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Kudzu1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FresnoGrizzlies2019Logo.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:FresnoGrizzlies2019Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FresnoGrizzliesLogoCap2019.pngEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:FresnoGrizzliesLogoCap2019.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Kudzu1".