User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 5

January 2018 - March 2018

Just a reminder

that FIM is dead, long live SN54129. No-one doubts your perspicacity  :) cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

​
—usernamekiran(talk) 22:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi. I'm afraid I've had to decline your application again, and on the same rationale as my previous decline. We almost never make exceptions to the recommended erquirements for additional use rights and especially not for Autopatrolled because it does not affect a user's editing in any way at all. Additional user rights (even adminship) are also often wrongly regarded as some kind of 'promotion' or reward for good work. They are not, of course, and only allow access to tools which the editors are knowledable enough to use.

Creating list pages composed soley or mainly of red links, is also problematic and such pages run the risk of being deleted. The reason is obvious: until they are populated by blue links they serve no purpose and there is no guarantee that they will ever be populated. I'm sure you mean well, but the correct order of tasks is to create the articles first, and then create the list when the articles, or the vast majority of them exist. I hope this helps. If you need further help, particularly with New Page Review, dont' hesitate to ask me, and I'm also pinging Alex and Tony who also check the PERM pages and may also have a lot of advice to offer. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. I apologise for a delayed reply. Surprisingly I didnt realise you left me this message till I archived my talkpage yesterday. I can understand what you are saying. I am not "collecting hats".
Basically, I requested auto-patrolled because these articles would look like some sort of prank/mischief to reviewer if he saw multiple of them at the same time (10 articles for a town with same name). That is why I was eager to become autopatrolled.

I am not sure about your reference to the list articles though. I mean, you are right; but I am not sure if I created (or planning to create) such articles. As for asking regarding NPR things, your and Tony's name come first to my mind. Regarding technical issues; JJMC, Xaosflux, and Primefac pop up first. And regarding content creation it is Ritchie333. Also, are you going to attend wikimania in South Africa? —usernamekiran(talk) 17:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: erm... you didn't say anything about attending wikimania. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: hmmm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No comment on Wikimania. It's more likely that I would offer to give a talk at a major Wikpedia India meeeting or conference (If I were invited). It's much closer to home - at least Delhi is, where I have been on many occasions for my work in education before I retired. Lovely country, lovely city. lovely people, excellent food - noting like the fake stuff served in the Indian restaurants in the rest of the world. Some of those small restaurants in the back streets of Old Delhi are superb. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Review request

Could you please review Wainui Falls for me? Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: done. The talkpage was showing the page as a redirect, so I purged the cache, and added assessment parameter. Other than that, there were no issues. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That was because I added the wikiprojects before submitting the article. Oops. Thanks for your help. Just nominated this one for DYK. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Usernamekiran. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@Xaosflux: Hi. Sorry for the delayed reply. I understand you. :)
I wish I could see the options though, it would have been interesting. I definitely dont want to be sys-op though; at least not the foreseeable future. It is too much of a responsibility. Thanks for the email. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverting changes on Andrew Feinberg (journalist)

Updating the "employer" section in the info box is in fact a useful change since the subject no longer works for that employer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.68.207.13 (talk)

I have partially corrected the employed status. The remaining one should be done by someone who is familiar with the subject. Please feel free to do it yourself if you have the information, and a reliable source. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 15:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: edits by Sue Spaid

Hi, Usernamekiran, I'm dropping this note here, because per your suggestion, I don't want to pile on at Ms. Spaid's talk page and add more chatter before she has a chance to respond to yesterday's conversation. As I stated there, before ascertaining COI, it was clear to me that she'd added text to multiple articles that was both unencyclopedic and improperly sourced. That she was creating articles about notable people is to her credit, but creating resumes with promotional language is not. This is not a matter of penalizing the editor solely for conflict, but of recognition of a pattern of non-neutral content, which is so often a by-product of COI. Thanks and very best, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You are completely right. :)
And she has gone radio silent again. Sorry for the delayed reply. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and that's quite alright. I'm often away for entire days while commuting and working; today was one such day. This was a tough one, because it didn't involve the standard promotional hack, but a notable professional, writing about other notables who belong to a demographic (female) that's given short-shrift here and in the larger world. There's a thin line on Wikipedia between the legitimate and sometimes passionate work of repairing such inequities, and succumbing to advocacy. Ms. Spaid had been editing on and off for something like eight years, during which time no one had challenged her. A contributor gets awfully comfortable under those circumstances, and it makes the reckoning that much more difficult. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Enwebb. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Pheloconus, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Enwebb (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Enwebb: erm... why did you mark it unreviewed, and marked as reviewed again? :-| —usernamekiran(talk) 20:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My bad! I think I was reviewing the page at the same time as you, and by the time I clicked "review," you had already done so, so it unreviewed it. I then "reviewed" it immediately to correct my mistake. Apologies. Enwebb (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

lol! no need to apologise. It happens. See you around. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Thank You
		Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Undertaker height

Pls stop (Redacted) undertaker is not 6’10 hes 6’7 fix it Jisun Benz (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jisun Benz: Hi. Kindly provide me with a reliable source stating his height as 6'7", ans I will update it. And also, kindly watch the language you use anywhere on wikipedia, and the tone while editing articles. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

RfA

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Autoblocked

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Usernamekiran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

59.94.249.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open or anonymizing proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This block has been set to expire: 04:43, February 18, 2018.

• Blocking administrator: ProcseeBot (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: That wasn't an autoblock, that was a direct block on an IP address. You didn't indicate that it was no longer an open/anonymising proxy, but I assumed that was your claim and investigated. It is indeed no longer an open/anonymising proxy so I lifted the block. Happy editing! Yamla (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! :) —usernamekiran(talk) 00:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

dirty war article

Hi, I didn't erased the box by mistake, but I didn't explain well the reason; The military box contradicts the information on the article; basicly the article explain the word war was used by the Junta as an excuse for the coup in '77; (an unexistant war against an already unactive guerrilla of 300 members) while the target of Operation Condor in Latinamerica was civilians (activists, journalists etc; a genocide of a estimated 30.000* of unarmed people for which the Junta members are now in prison; the main info is already in the Operation Condor box I think)

• estimated, the Junta refused to give the lists of dissapeared to the argentinian justice on the trials

I left a message on the talk page about how should I proceed, but I'm not sure it is what I should do; Just let me know Thanks (Agustin6) —Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Responded on Agustin's talkpage. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!; should I use the 'Undo' option on the History to get the changes back? Agustin6 —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Agustin6: sure. Actually that depends on whether you are using mobile or computer to edit. If you undo my edit, it will restore the previous version (yours). —usernamekiran(talk) 04:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

On a serious note...

Just curious... As to the AN thread on PH, what factors led you to consider that 15 more days than 30 would serve him/the community best?! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Hi. Given his previous history, I felt 30 days would not be enough; but 60 days, or 6 months would be a lot as well. I know 45 days is not a conventional number for a block, but it seemed right. I will email you further about this. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 09:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Keep it. Fight or Dealing with Vandalism. ☺☺ Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 05:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

---

@Siddiqsazzad001: Thank you! It is very much appreciated. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hey, just a heads up if you have a request for something to be revdel'd, check out the page here, and see if there's an admin around to help with the issue. Keeps items that need to be revdel'd a bit more quiet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: hi. Thanks for the link. I usually use the Enterprisey's tool for finding online sys-ops. But this time, I am online from mobile; and the comment was about a fictional person. I mean, if it was about a real person (dead or alive), I would have looked for someone online. I thought it would be best for ANI. Thanks again. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 16:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem! Just best to go that route to try limit the amount of eyes on a edit to be revdel'd since ANI is so heavily viewed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: wow, you are fast! lol

yes, you are right. But checking for an online sys-op by recent edits would be faster, and better call I think. If not that, CAT:REVDEL is the one to go with. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Guestbook

Thanks so much for signing my GB. I love Ireland as well. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Bono: Hi. It is nice to see you back again :)
Are you going to be around? —usernamekiran(talk) 19:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks. I think so. I hope to be back again. But I need to settle down and see what Im gonna do now :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Martin Lake Power Plant

Hello. I noticed you added {{notability}} and {{merge}} templates to the Martin Lake Power Plant article back in June 2017. I've been creating and improving articles about coal plants located in Texas recently and came upon the Martin Lake article. I added text and cited the text with references to the article. I was wondering if you still propose the article should still merge with Luminant or the article can now stand on its own. Thank you. FunksBrother (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@FunksBrother: HI. Thanks for pointing it out. I have removed the tags, as it is in good condition for a stand-alone article. Thanks again. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Post of Y.B. Rowdy

Greetings,

A traveler going north yesterday morning was inquiring where Hog Ranch is. As no such place is mentioned on the map of Arizona, we conclude he must be going to the suburbs of Fort Huachuca - Nogales Advertiser.

This is a statement which is called a territorial paragraph. This is a paragraph of the old days. This is important because it mentions the Hog Ranch. (Where is Hog Ranch Located? Is it real? etc...) Fort Huachuca is a military post where Y.B. Rowdy was stationed. All U.S. Apache Scouts can live and travel at any post in the United States. Fort Bowie, Camp Verde, Fort Huachuca, Fort Grant. Which Hog Ranch was he shot at. There are several Hog Ranches and there are also Hog Ranches. It you aske the Fort Huachuca Museum where the Hog Ranch is, they might know because of this article. It helps in research in the beginning stages of research. The Hog Ranch burned down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swa562 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Post of Y.B. Rowdy

Greetings.

As I think about it your right. But in the old days, it was different. They didn't have computers. Sometimes they would just write a paragraph of who was at a hotel. I couldn't find the source, but I am still working on it. Lost it...

Be advised. I was the first to write about how Rowdy died. I also know his full name when nobody else knew it. I know my Indian Scouts.

This traveler wanted to know where the Hog Ranch was. (naughty, naughty) It tells he was interested in low-class women, whiskey, and such. That's what they did there. It wasn't mentioned on the map. Funny thing when Rowdy died they knew the owner and a family background. The concluded that it must be going towards Fort Huachuca. They knew where it was and they mention the military post.

This puts Fort Huachuca in Arizona in the historical findings. I already requested information on this fact, and they are working on it for me. They knew about Hog Ranch, even the Arizona Historical Society knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swa562 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Swa562: Hi. I had reverted your edit, as they were not in encyclopaedic style. I have requested an edit to be done to improve the stule/layout of entire article. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 00:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Philip W. Nuber

Hey! I'd love to finish off reviewing this article, Philip W. Nuber, but it's 100% copied and pasted from this website. Please make the appropriate fixes so I can review the page. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semmendinger, .mil domains are public domain, so there is no copyright violation. Attribution should be added, though. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Attribution already was given, striking. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Primefac Apologies, then, I get that it's in the public domain but are we allowed to completely C&P off them? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but there's nothing stopping it provided the text is neutral and sourced. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Great news! I'll take the tags off then, appreciate the help (sorry Kiran!) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Semmendinger: Hi. Sorry for a delayed reply. Like Primefac mentioned above, it is not idea, but permitted. I am in the middle of creating a few articles that are related to each-other. Most of them are biographical, and 2-3 are about organisations. Once these articles are in draft mode, I will make some changes in all the articles appropriately. That would change the content of all the articles markedly. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You're good! Apologies for my mistake, your articles look great, I just got concerned if there might be an issue with copyright. Keep on doing your thing! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Semmendinger: lol no. I am partly at fault, as I should not totally rip off from other sites, but I will make the changes with time. Also I just realised, instead of creating a userpage, I created an actual article for Joseph J. Dantone. That was really stupid of me, like on humongous levels. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Philip W. Nuber) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Philip W. Nuber, Usernamekiran!

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

As per the conversation above, this article passes review, but I would like if the "Career in the U.S. Air Force" section was broken up better, or split into a bulleted list so it's easier to read. :)

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

Learn more about page curation.

SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Count Rudolf, brother of Count Reginar II

Hi thanks for the suggestion. Problem with any title which says Count of X, is that it implies X is a county. In this period Counts are not always counts of counties, and this confuses even people accustomed to later medieval norms. Historians often write "Count in" for such people but from what I've seen this is not widely understood and just seen as an error.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Hi. Sorry for a delayed reply. I see your point. Also, sources seem to state the same. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 03:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Full years

Hi. I saw you were moving the presidential elections to truncated years. The MOS now suggests that full years be used throughout Wikipedia pages. So these really should go back to the full year descriptors. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Hi. Unfortunately, I saw your message after I was done with moving the pages as requested at Talk:United States presidential election, 1788–89#Requested move 13 February 2018. So now we have to move these pages again to YYYY-YYYY format? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Also, could you please provide link to that MoS policy? @Amakuru: I know how to revert normal moves, but is there a way to revert round robin moves? Also, if MoS states it explicitly, then we dont need a discussion. But if it is not explicit, we might need a formal discussion. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The pages were recently moved to the full years after an RM, if I'm not mistaken. Since you pinged Amakuru I'll ask him to find the MOS section, I'm not very good at digging in and finding the needle in the haystack that is MOS. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: lol, you are right about MoS. I will try to find it, but I should also try to sleep. I pinged Amakuru for his expertise in technicalities in page moves. I will let you know if I find anything relevant in that ocean of MoS guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! A round robin I just a page swap isn't it, so I imagine that unoing it would simply be a case of performing the round Robin the other way. Just follow the same steps. I'll also have a look for that yyyy mos thing for you but I do also recall that changing a year or two ago.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So the page in question is actually at MOS:DATERANGE, but the case of 1788–89 is in fact permitted, because the two years are consecutive. Something like 1881–83 would not be allowed though. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Amakuru. @Randy Kryn: according to MOS:DATERANGE, current titles are good. Please feel free to share if you have more thoughts on this :) —usernamekiran(talk) 02:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

88inesteen

Hey, I took the liberty to revert your edits to 88inesteen's talk page. Restore them if you wish, but that account is a community banned troll (Nsmutte) whose MO involves harassment of anyone who responds to them in good faith... --bonadea contributions talk 21:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea: oh! So did we have an edit conflict on two different venues? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Scar (The Lion King) and Nala (The Lion King)

I am requesting that you revert the moves you performed and relist Talk:Scar (Disney)#Requested move 18 February 2018 as I do not believe consensus has yet been formed to move these pages. In addition, as I basically stated in the discussion itself, using WP:CONSISTENCY as a reason to perform the move can be both a reason to move the pages, and a reason to not move the pages. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Hi. Before closing the move request, I read all the comments posted in the discussion. The consensus is not simply "vote count" (or "head count"). I also took in mind the rationale provided by all the comments. In my opinion, the rationales provided by supporters were good, and logical in regards to the policies. Hence I saw it fit for the move. I still think the same. Throughout the discussion users Netoholic, and Randy Kryn have made good points; among others. If you still think the move decision was not correct, kindly let me know, and I will present it at Wikipedia:Move review. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• • ... I had to give your statement some thought for a few hours. I've come to the conclusion that though I don't necessarily agree with the rationale behind your close (considering that IMO, the rationales to "support" were also reasons to "oppose"; but yes, you are right, it is not about the "vote count"), I've decided to back off trying to have this discussion relisted or bring the close to WP:MR. Reason being: You obviously saw my long string of comments related to my "oppose" vote. Though this move being completed breaks from the current line of Disney character articles having titles including "(Disney)" as a disambiguator, the close led to a way which all of these titles' disambiguators should probably be titled, and it certainly helps to have consensus back one of them up. So, though there will now be a lot of cleanup work on the future to fix these disambiguators, at least at this point there is a disambiguator pattern that has consensus backing it up. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Steel1943: Hi. Sorry for a delayed reply. Yes, your idea actually is good in a "generalised" sense. But unfortunately, if we tried implement, we will face oppose on at least a few pages, or there wouldn't even be a good argument to begin with. I mean like, "Cinderella". The primary topic/page about the folklore character has article, where as Disney's character is at "Cinderella (Disney character)". Moving this page to "Cinderella (Cinderella)" would not be logical. Similar issues would come regarding Aladdin (disambiguation)#Disney franchise. I dont mean to confuse you, or say that your point of view is incorrect. The problem is not with wikipedia naming guidelines, or wikipedia editors; but the problem lies within the old term: "public".
  I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

PERM

Just as a note, {{withdrawn}} on a PERM request triggers archiving. PERM requests aren't archived for a few days in order for all involved to see the message(s). Primefac (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: yes, I am aware of that :) I just didnt want to miss the opportunity to post the comment the way I did there.
I mean, in any other instances it could be seen non-constructive, or "to nosey" type of edit. I hope nobody is mad at me. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Only the fact that you ended up delaying archiving for almost another 24 hours just so you could "get credit" with a silly comment. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No. I did not want credit for anything. I was just about a comment with silly wording. I am sorry. I will not do it again. Pinky promise. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the day it's not the end of the world. Mostly just wanted to let you know about the withdrawn thing. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

But I am serious. I will not do a similar thing again. Sorry again. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Two minds with but a single thought!

:D bonadea contributions talk 15:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(or, you know, Great minds think alike. Or: Fools seldom differ!) --bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I totally agree! I was going to post a message on your talkpage, but I have been having connectivity problems with my DSL. See you around, and keep up the cheer! :) —usernamekiran(talk) 19:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

La Mancha Negra page

Im Plazmid, I created and came up with the Idea to make the La Mancha Negra page why can I not get recognition for it?

Qoute from Wiki themselves "Hello, Plazmid. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you "STARTED", La Mancha Negra, "

Why cant I keep my name on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plazmid (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Plazmid: Hi. I can understand what you are trying to say. But wikipedia is collaborative project. Every article is started by somebody like you, and me. Then other people contribute, and improve that article in the ways that they are good at. We can simply not include everybody's name in the articles. I hope that answers your question. Please ask me if you have any doubts. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Power~enwiki. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Magsaysay, Dinagat Islands, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, I mis-clicked doing a bulk review of all of that user's page creations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: See you around ;) —usernamekiran(talk) 05:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Help needed regarding article creation block

Hello sir, This is Mehekshaikh. I am manager of Indian actor Rohit KaduDeshmukh. There were many mis creations of the article about which one of his fan informed us on our email. Hence I came up to look into the matter that whether anyone is creating wrong article about Rohit sir with defamatory content. But just now I found of that there is an article creation block on the article Rohit KaduDeshmukh. So you being a reputed contributor on Wikipedia I came to your talk page for asking help. We will be very thankful and glad if you help us removing the recreation block from the article. So that we can create a proper draft of the article and then apply for submission. Awaiting your response in affirmation. Thank you! Mehekshaikh (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Mehekshaikh Mehekshaikh (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mehekshaikh: Hello. Thanks for contacting/initiating the discussion. Actually, you have already answered your own question. You can create either User:Mehekshaikh/Rohit KaduDeshmukh, or Draft:Rohit KaduDeshmukh. You can edit, and save the page as many times as you want. Once you think the draft is ready, you can submit it to "Articles for Submission". An admin will see your draft, and if it meets the guidelines, then admin will publish it as an article (I am not admin by the way). If there are any doubts, please feel free to message me here :) —usernamekiran(talk) 08:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, you should also see WP:BPCOI, and Wikipedia:Your first article. And you must disclose the connection to Rohit KaduDeshmukh on your userpage per WP:BPCOI before you make any edits related/regarding KaduDeshmukh. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Right sir! But when I try doing that it says This page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it. Also being an auto confirmed user, I am not able to create draft. Actually I dunno now how to create draft. Can you pls Help me with that. I am just stuck into all this mess. I will be very thankful if you help me out pls! Mehekshaikh (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Mehekshaikh

@Mehekshaikh: click on: Draft:Rohit KaduDeshmukh to create the draft. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thank you for helping sir. I have created the draft and submitted for review. I hope everything goes fine. By the way, you being page mover and page reviewer, can you help me with the same? Mehekshaikh (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Mehekshaikh

@Mehekshaikh: I would certainly help with that. Once the draft is accepted, and is in article-space; I will be happy to review it :) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Robin Bush

Hello, and thanks for the page move. What now happens to Draft:Robin Bush (historian)? The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen: thanks for pointing out. I will sort that out in 10 to 15 minutes. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen: Hi. I sorted the mess. Thanks for pointing it out though. Somehow I missed it while I was looking for any other errors, as the move had given me a failure message. After checking, I had contacted Andy, special:diff/828701695. May I ask hoe did you come across the draft? It will be useful for me. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I had Robin Bush (historian) on my watchlist during the proposed move, so the names it was moved to are there as well. I also notice that Robin Bush (historian) has been redirected to Robin Bush. That means that the edit history for the historian isn't showing at the new title. Shouldn't those have been swapped? The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen: I just checked the history of both the pages you mentioned, it looks fine to me; or maybe I didnt understand your query? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a complex histmerge. Robin Bush (historian) currently contains the edit history about the historian. Robin Bush contains the edit history of what was alternately a dab and an article about a former US president's daughter. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen: The current page Robin Bush is showing the history of historian's article; Robin Bush (historian) is showing the history of poppy bush's daughter. Technically, this is correct; as we swapped the pages the history was also swapped. So what the history of poppy's daughter was (under plain Robin Bush), is now the history of "historian" page. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen: Even though these pages are different, maybe we should merge history of historian titled page with Pauline Robinson Bush? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have initiated a conversation at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#round robin of Robin Bush. If any, your thoughts/input will be appreciated. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll join in over at that conversation, thanks. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Suzukake Nanchara

This was a most surprising result: whatever else came out of that discussion, it is clear that the proposed title is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject, as even many of the move supporters acknowledge. The discussion cannot be closed as being per COMMONNAME. Wikipedia:Move review requires me to bring this up with you before opening a move review. I hope you'll undo your move before I have to open one. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I merely stated what a lot of editors expressed (regarding common name). No matter what the reasoning behind it is, it is clear that the community wanted the page to be moved. I still support my close, if you think the consensus was in favour of not moving; then please free to open a move review. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're familiar with WP:CONSENSUS, then you know that CONSENSUS is not a show of hands. If the majority supported violating, for example, the BLP policy, you couldn't close in their favour. Regardless, the fact that you closed "per WP:COMMONNAME" shows that you did not give the discussion a close reading, which is a requirement in any close. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Suzukake RM close

Umm... lots of people invoked common sense, even if they didn't directly link the page. Conversely, there definitely was not consensus that "Suzukake Nanchara" was the COMMONNAME, with a number of the "support move" comments (including mine) explicitly stating that COMMONNAME did not apply. A better closing statement would have been "There is a clear consensus in support of the move per CONCISE and other reasons, but no consensus on whether COMMONNAME applies".

There is a popular misconception (which unfortunately influenced a number of commenters there) that COMMONNAME means "Don't use the official name when there is a popular unofficial alternative", but actually both titles are "official" anyway, so even if that were what the policy said it wouldn't even have applied to that discussion.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Still around

I'm still around yes.©Geni (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Geni: I was wondering, do you have experience or knowledge about moving templates? WP:MOVE talks about moving categories, but not templates. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think as long as you leave a redirect nothing should break but I'd ask at Wikipedia:Help desk for a greater degree of certainty.©Geni (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Geni: Actually it is a round-robin move. I think it is like any other page moves. I have moved templates over redirect before. Oh that reminds me, I had initiated to move {{not here}} to {{not around}} as I use it often. I will check the history, and mover's contrib in the same time period. Thanks for your prompt reply :) —usernamekiran(talk) 12:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Geni: So he moved the template as usual, but after moving, replaced the "not here" to "not around". I guess I will do the same. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 12:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu, Amakuru, and BD2412: Hi. I am getting an error/notification to swap the pages manually, for three likely reasons. You are the only guys that I know who are experienced in moving stuff. Your guidance is requested. BD2412 seems to be online. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What are you trying to move? bd2412 T 12:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it - done. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@BD2412: I wanted to do that!
But how did you do it? I would like to know, for the next time. Even though I highly doubt it will be something related to the Corrs. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

An administrator is needed to move a page over an existing title, as this basically deletes the existing title. bd2412 T 13:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@BD2412: a page mover cant do it? I thought round-robin was to be performed here. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. Okay, I've made it a round robin. The edit history for the former redirect is now at Template:TheCorrs. bd2412 T 14:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@BD2412: Erm, no, you got me wrong. I wasnt objecting your method. I surely dont know how it is done. So out of curiosity I asked if it couldnt be done using a round-robin move. I would like to learn how to do it. So, what was the original method that you performed? —usernamekiran(talk) 12:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think an admin would still be required to do it. I moved the pages in each instance without leaving a redirect, so the title from which they were moved would be empty afterwards. bd2412 T 12:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

See User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Primefac: Hi. Sorry for a delayed reply. I use Andy's script since July 8. I thought BD2412 did something other than round-robin/page swap in the first move, and later performed a round-robin move after my comment. Sorry for the confusion. On a completely different note, I dont think this script works for me at all. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Given that you're not an admin, I'm not overly surprised it doesn't work. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: yes, I wasnt overly surprised either; I mean, just a little. I was expecting to see the buttons even if they were not functional for me. It is funny though, I still sometimes admin options on WP:RFR, and WP:AIV. Mostly on AIV. I think it has nothing to do with MusikAnimal's script though. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Leonor Bonilla

Please do not revert the birth year on Leonor Bonilla pages. She was born in 1970. I know, as I am her husband. Let me know how I can prevent inaccurate information on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRBurton23 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• replied on user's talkpage. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for helping format the Patricia Barry filmography page I made! Much appreciated! Is there any chance you could help me format the Amzie Strickland filmography page in the same way, here's is quite extensive and I could use an extra hand in helping it look nicer and less congested. It would help so much, thank you!My Monogram is M (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@My Monogram is M: Hi. Thanks for the thank you. I did it. I will post a message on your talkpage with a few tips in around 20 hours from now, and an automated message in a few minutes. It might be helpful for you. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi from andrewa

G'day Usernamekiran

fascinating user page!

What brought me here is that you seem to have left Talk:Fraser T Smith pointing to itself. Can I help?

While I'm here, you might like to comment on

http://alderspace.pbworks.com/w/page/113970565/The%20Alder%20theory%20on%20the%20JFK%20assassination

and maybe even the supporting pages. It's off-topic for Wikipedia, maybe send me an email. Andrewa (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa: thanks for pointing out about the looped redirect, I fixed it. And also, thanks a lot for the compliment on the userpage. I cant say anything about commenting as of now, but I will surely take a look at it. Thanks again :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Dikilona, Usernamekiran.

Unfortunately Classicwiki has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Why was this page reviewed? It has no citations. Seems to be based on a hoax or TV show.

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

Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Classicwiki: Hi. Twinkle had done it when I CSDed it special:diff/831461101. I was following it up with the admin who declined it. But in the meanwhile, I forgot to unreview it. That was a mistake on my side. I apologise for the inconvenience. Thanks for doing it though. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 05:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Project Tiger Writing Contest

In 2017 – 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India Chapter (WMIN) and user groups from India, are piloting a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program will (a) support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and (b) sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

Phase (a) has been completed, during which active contributors were awarded laptops and internet stipends. Phase (b) will be a contest in which editors will come together and develop a writing contest focused on content gaps. Each month three individual prizes will be awarded to each community based on their contribution for the month. The prizes worth 3,000 INR, 2000 INR, and 1,000 INR, will be awarded to the top contributors for each month. The contest started at March 1, 2018, 0:00, and will end at May 31, 2018, 23:59 (IST). Useful links are as follows:

• Sign up at: Wikipedia:Project Tiger Writing Contest/Participants
• List of the articles can be referred at: Wikipedia:Project Tiger Writing Contest/Topics
• Submit/report your articles/contributions at: https://tools.wmflabs.org/fountain/editathons/project-tiger-2018-en
• For more details, rules, FAQ etc. kindly refer: Wikipedia:Project Tiger Writing Contest

Looking forward your participation, all the best. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) at 22:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

Your closure of RM

@Usernamekiran: would you be willing to review your closure of Talk:FEMA (disambiguation)#Requested move 14 March 2018 please. I don't believe that the situation was "not moved, per consensus", but rather "no consensus for move". More importantly, I've just noticed that while the move discussion was advertised at Talk:Federal Emergency Management Agency#Move discussion in progress, it was not advertised at Talk:Foreign Exchange Management Act. It might therefore merit a notice at the latter talk page, and a relisting. I declare an interest as stating support for the original proposal. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: Hi. Even though my closing statement was the shortest one, and without any explanation; it was not "lack of consensus". At most, I can add explanation to my my closing statement. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but you have the proposer in support who presented evidence, challenged by evidence for an oppose; my support with evidence; and 3 oppose with statements of unevidenced opinion. If evidence is weighed more than opinion, I don't think that's consensus. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: I have updated it, kindly see it and let me know what you think of it :) —usernamekiran(talk) 19:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to do this. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Per this, no, it's not about boasting off through user boxes. My name too wasn't on the list ever. Look, I failed my first self-nommed RfA; And I didn't have any user boxes on my talk page. It's just a good-faith list created by established editors here. I'm not saying you should therefore run for the RfA or not (if you want my view, email me); I'm just saying you shouldn't put too much on that page. Lourdes 02:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Hi. No, I wasnt talking about possible candidates for RfA list. I apologise for the confusion. I was talking about Category:Wikipedia new page reviewers. I thought being part of special:listusers/patroller would automatically add someone to the category. But when I saw I wasnt in the list, I realised one has add the category either manually, or through some userbox; and almost all of the users have userboxes. I replied to Ritchie, and then did this: special:diff/831755352. Sorry for the confusion again. Also, did you change your signature recently? —usernamekiran(talk) 09:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I did (change my signature) recently. Cheers, Lourdes 10:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: see you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 10:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I had to go round the houses to find the link, but I got it in the end and it's this one. At some point I would like to write a script that takes that list and puts on basic AfD, CSD, UAA, AIV and AN3 edits to make up an admin score list - kind of like the web interface Enterprisey wrote but automated. That'll at least give me a list of where to start. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: your idea is interesting, feasible, and useful. And again, sorry for the confusion, I think I have achieved the highest level of confusion yet. I mean, I was aware that I am in the special:listusers/patroller, but I was surprised to see excluded from Category:Wikipedia new page reviewers. I knew the category existed, but I never looked for my own name till now. I always assumed it fetched date from somewhere including the [category] placed on userpage. Like from special:listusers/patroller, or from rights log, or something like that. Again, I apologise for the confusion. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Usernamekiran. You have new messages at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.
Message added 15:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Taylorwalls/sandbox 2

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User:Taylorwalls/sandbox 2, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: nope. Kindly go ahead :)
I had moved it from article-space to the creator's user-space. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

About the POV

Hi, I wanna asked you about how consensus work in the site; if there are 1 or 2 editors who doesn't want to discuss or change anything on an article and nobody else shows up then it's a dead end?

I did discussed on a Talk page article (Domino theory) about POV as the article states that socialism is a threat itself, but whatever reference I bring, mainly from spanish articles (i.e. Página 12 newspaper) is dissmised as left propaganda; And there it started these reverts on any edit I did, from the same user; And the user that left the message on my Talk page can't edit spanish articles.

The not neutral POV of these articles is pretty obvious imo, but if nobody else see them there is nothing else to do? Thanks

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Heyo!

Hey Kiran! I was in the neighborhood (I was on an editing spree) and I thought I'd drop by and say hello. How are you, anything interesting going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VTnav (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Need Help

Hello. I need help in creating the biography for Maureen Baginski. I am new to Wikipedia and do not want my article deleted. I was wondering how I should style the biography of a living person. I understand there is a right and wrong way to do it, but I cannot find everything; I can only find how the opening paragraph should look. Any help would be great. Thank you. DZI (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@DZI: Hi. I saw your draft a few weeks ago, when you commented regadding it on wikiproject women in red. I would lovs to work on it. I will take a look at it again; and i will contact you, say in 36 hours? Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 03:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thanks for getting back to me. That sounds great. I just made a few more changes to it. Please let me know what you think. I will also need to find out how to place a picture of her on the page, so I would greatly appreciate any help with that. Thanks, DZI (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@DZI: Hi. I apologise, I somehow missed you previous comment, and also for not being able to help with the article. 3 days ago, when I was going to take a look at the draft, it was already in the mainspace. I will try to work on it soon. Also, if there are any questions/doubts please feel free to ask me. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 07:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)