Jump to content

User talk:Kleuske

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cruzin for a bruzin (talk | contribs) at 10:27, 21 January 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page.
New messages at the bottom of the page, please. Messages placed elsewhere will be ignored and/or removed.

Kleuske is ©®uźin for a bruzin and will get ©®uiźed on

External Video

AFAIK the External Video format neatly sidesteps the WP:ELNO objection. Correct me if I'm wrong! kencf0618 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kencf0618: "Sidestepping" is not what Wikipedia is about. And no I don't agree, since it's "about the new book of the author" instead of Hegel. Kleuske (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the External Video format is a distinction without a difference, but be that as it may, what new book are you talking about? Dr. Gary B. Sadler is discussing Hegel, not touting his own books. He hasn't published any to date. kencf0618 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Material

Hi, Would it be possible to receive the material from the deleted page Bear(Productivity App) so I can edit the conflicting material please?n thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damienkelly26 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Damienkelly26: See WP:REFUND. Kleuske (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Solar Cars

Kleuske, you deleted my updates in the Wiki page on solar prototypes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prototype_solar-powered_cars But, pls, consider that in this way you re-introduced several inconsistencies. 1. the P-MOB, the FIAT prototype, does not exist in the reality. I even tried to contact the project manager, who was fired 3 year ago. Now, you re-introduced the flake information that the homologation is under consideration. Everyone moving in this field knows that FIAT group rejects any idea of solar mobility or electrical car. 2. you deleted my information regarding the italian situation and, in particular, OndaSolare (Bologna) and Futuro Solare (Sicily) teams, with our 5 cars, including our cars ('Emilia 3') that won 2 competitions and arrive 3 in Belgium. And we are the only EU team at the ASC. 3. in my opinion the technical table about Twente has to be moved away. For instance you can create a specific page. At the moment, it is not in the right position. In this page it is simply requested the list of cars and not all their details. When I noticed that I simply imagined that someone from Twente made a mistake. Anyway, if you really like it, at least, report the technical data of a new model. cheers Cristiano — Preceding unsigned comment added by CiranoTheBest (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CiranoTheBest: A little explanation (in the edit summary) goes a long way. The additions are still unsourced. The talk-page of the article is the appropriate venue to raise issues. Kleuske (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kleuske: You are totally right: data in 'Specifications' are unsourced. Reference dealing with P-MOB homologation was not existing. As said, you can delete both. :-)

राजनीति का सार

Hi Kleuske, you just tagged this as CSD (totally agree), however the link to a foreign wikipedia article does not make sense. Probably a copy/past error. This may be rudimenary dupe of Computational thinking if I trust google translate. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got "politics" from the same source. Never mind. I'm not going to start WW-III over this. Kleuske (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kleuse, Johnson's theory deals with a close correlation between groundwater resources and geoglyph. Of course, one can agree or disagree. On the other hand, as you may have read, the real meaning of the geoglyphs, after almost a century of long cultural debate, is still an open question. You consider Johnson's hypothesis ridicolous. However, I would like to point out that Johnosn's theory has been published in book edited by Helaine Silvermann, who is one of the important experts of Nasca culture. Finally, dear Kleuske, if I can afford to contribute to contribute to Nazca Lines, I would suggest to erase the hypothesis of Danegano, really ridiculous and absurd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier Mosteiro (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read that you saved my contribution. Maybe it was a misunderstanding. Many thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier Mosteiro (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Octocat is a youtube chennel please don't delete it

Please Qwerty 12345688999 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a completely and utterly non-notable, run-of-the-mill YT-channel. Please do not add it again. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for starting an editing war Qwerty 12345688999 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baja Designs

Please let me know which parts of my draft were too promotioney so that I can edit the post to fit the Wikipedia guidelines better. Thanks. Redolive1 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)User:RedOlive1 (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Down and COI

Hi Kleuske, I think this is the first time we have spoke. How are you? What did you add my name back into WP:COI noticeboard, when I was added by the filing editor who is clearly vindictive, probably paid, the evidence from their edit clearly shows and is not showing Good Faith. scope_creep (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: If that's true, then a WP:BOOMERANG will likely fly. Until that time, leave other peoples reports alone and have a little faith in the admins handling it. Kleuske (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your warning

Please see MOS:NC-CN which can justify my edit where I replace People's Republic of China with China (basically the same thing in English). Thanks!--123.161.169.88 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this IP sock of Whaterss has engaged in campaigns of WP:HOUNDing my edits within 12–24 hours of the fact and often attracting initiating an edit war with other IPs. See my last report at WP:ARV. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted materials on the Gay Icon page

Hello,

I'm sorry you feel this way about my add on the Gay Icon page but I do believe that people interested by in this subject might find this book interesting, thus making it a valid addition to the page.

Best regards. KevinDrif (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinDrif: Wikipedia is not intended to draw attention to book. Hence "See this or that book" is tantamount to promoting that and if your edit is nothing but "See this book" it does not add anything to the article and can easily be construed as promotional editing. Hence I reverted. Kleuske (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skinner Dairy page

Thanks for your input on my first edit. How can we correct the title on the page? It is listed as “Skinner Dairy”. The correct spelling is: “Skinners’ Dairy Inc.” I was the third generation owner. thank you. Harlocar (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Harlocar: You need to be autoconfirmed to be able to change the title. I will do that for you. The problem I have is tha it fails common notability checks, especially those for businesses and organisations. Just a heads up. Kleuske (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natron (software)

Hi Kleuske, the Natron's wiki page has been reverted the state it was 2 years back. Could you please tell me which parts should be fixed in order to bring it back as it was ? Thanks a lot. Fabiof17 (User talk:Fabiof17) 12:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabiof17: Source it and do not use Wikipedia as the programs webpage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost. To list all the goodities and niceties, you can use a blog, SourceForge or GitHub. Kleuske (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kleuske: So what procedure should i follow now ? Rebuild the page and remove the unwanted parts?.Fabiof17 (User talk:Fabiof17) 14:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about leaving it alone? Safest procedure by far. Kleuske (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean it shouldn't be modified in any way ? Fabiof17 (User talk:Fabiof17) 14:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. I made a suggestion. It's the second one in this thread:
  1. Source it and do not use Wikipedia as the programs webpage.
  2. Leave it alone.
Kleuske (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I forgot to thank you for reporting that user to ANI. It was definitely an LTA; sadly, I know this user and his habits quite well... oh well. Anyways, I appreciate the ANI report :-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: De nada. I appreciated your lightning response. Kleuske (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, thanks! I try ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a pending changes reviewer

Hi Kleuske! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling, and you consistently view and undo vandalism and disruption to articles. I believe that this user right would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tool. Instead of having you formally request the pending changes reviewer right at WP:PERM, I just went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and either accept them to be published and viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them so that the pending changes are not published.

Keep in mind these things regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

  • The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
  • Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you additional "status" on Wikipedia nor does it changes how you can edit articles (obviously).
  • You'll generally want to accept pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself - especially those that are vandalism or have neutral point of view or BLP issues.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface you're used to, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into any troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the user rights and accepting or reverting pending changes. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, contact me and I'll remove it. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confidence. Kleuske (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it's not really a tool that you can easily nor catastrophically mess up or cause damage with... figured I'd grant you the rights and let you extend your patrolling abilities ;-). You're quite welcome - have fun! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A great, warm welcome!

Your warm welcome, is, itself, -welcome-, from another experienced editor and contributor! Have been making edits and contributions and fighting vandalism for years, from the sidelines. Welcome to my home base! Your nice welcome message makes the community that much more pleasant and disproves those who have argued that Wikipedia is 'elitist'. In fact, it is full of Wikipedians who are committed to accurate, free speech! IlseBecker7 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure. Have fun. Kleuske (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Thais Weiller

Hello Kleuske. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Thais Weiller, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: how is developing two notable games not a sufficient claim of significance? Thank you. SoWhy 15:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: First off, neither of the "notable" games was actually mentioned when I nominated the article. It merely referenced "JoyMasher", which also has no evidence of any notabily (PRODded for that reason). Hence there was no credible claim of notability and a CSD for that reason was reasonable. Second it is a unsourced BLP (which is Verboten) and I'm surprised you did not PRODBLP for that reason (I've done that, in the mean time). Thirdly I did a quick search for "Thais Weiller" and found no evidence of notability whatsoever. Thirdly, I inspected the two games (which were added post nomination) and found them at best marginally notable. So the concern "how is developing two notable games not a sufficient claim of significance?" is a rather pointless one. Kleuske (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concede the first point, although you might have noticed that the article was still in construction when you tagged it one minute after creation, so that was a bit too hasty. Was about to BLP-PROD it when I had to take a call. Regards SoWhy 15:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate when I see things drift by that are worthy of nomination. That may be a bit too hasty, but I'd rather not let things slip through the cracks. User:Brunhildr has been around since 2008, so the DRAFT article space and the sandbox should be familiar concepts. Should JoyMasher be dePRODded, I will AfD it instead, since Google shows the company fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Pretty much the same goes for the game developers mentioned, since I found no evidence of notability. Kleuske (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Population density calcuations

I received a notice on my page that my 'unverifiable' edit to the population density at Westbrook, Connecticut had been removed because it didn't have a source. However, the value was calculated from the other data in the infobox on the population and area. The article shows a population of 6,938 and an area of 21.4 sqmi. 6938/21.4 = 324.2, which is the value I changed the density to; it seems to be a somewhat simple calculation based on already accepted numbers, so I figured it would make sense to add. Do I need to provide the source for the calculation, or find a separate source that identifies the population density directly? I want to continue updating the density values, as a lot of the Connecticut towns are rounded to the nearest 10/mi2 or 5/mi2 which seems like a big difference from the actual values, but I want to go about it properly so they don't just get removed. Phosphorescent Wave (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Phosphorescent Wave: We have templates that do the calculation automatically. If you replace those by manual calculations, the calculations have to be redone every time the population changes (as they tend to). Moreover you have repeatedly removed data from various infoboxes (e.g Westbrook, Connecticut, Middlefield, Connecticut, etc). Now you are removing red links, which is also not a good idea, since Wikipedia depends on red links to grow. See Wikipedia:Red link for details. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and it's greatly appreciated if you follow guidelines, policies and generally accepted practices instead of inventing your own. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kleuske: Okay, I didn't realize there was an automatic calculation, or the redlink thing (I thought they were all dead links). Is there a list of guidelines and rules somewhere so I can check to see if something is wrong or already taken care of before doing it? Phosphorescent Wave (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines. I've placed an extra welcome template on your TP, with a short list of the most important ones. As a general rule, do not engage in large scale changes without gaining concensus (i.e. talk to people). Kleuske (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. There definitely seems to be a lot to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phosphorescent Wave (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it is pretty common sense stuff, given we're trying to build an encyclopedia. Making mistakes is not a big deal, so don't panic. Kleuske (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I managed to undo most of my problematic edits, the earliest few I can't because of some sort of an anti-abuse limit? Thank you again for the help, I'll be sure to check the guidelines before making any big changes from now on. Phosphorescent Wave (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

Also, please remember that Alt-right is under a 1RR restriction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I raised this on your TP, too, but better safe than sorry. You have the issue backward. DoubleHammy's edits are the ones I dispute, since they're lumping all kinds of different "movements" (for a lack of a better word) into one giant wall of text, without proper sources in many cases. Kleuske (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded on my talk page: the point being that you made substantial changes to a controversial article withouy prior discussion -- which, of course, is allowed by WP:BOLD -- but those changes have been disputed, so you need to justify them on the talk page and get a consensus for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... And who exactly disputed them? Inquisitive minds want to know. I've contacted DoubleHammy on more then one occasion, but they have failed to respond. Kleuske (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck it. I have no desire to get myself into that quagmire. Kleuske (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De-implementation

edit undone; it had no promotional context whatsoever but is a new concept in overmedicalization which is a central problem; is linked with deprescribing overdiagnosis overscreening; WP is dying of contributions undone brutally; it prevents new contributors from going on contributing; think twice before you undo Please !Yves.bertin (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yves.bertin: Apart from promoting a concept ("De-implementation is a challenge in tackling ineffective care"), Wikipedia requires secondary sources when editing medical subjects. Brutally or otherwise, I would be neglecting policy if I let that stand. Kleuske (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the edit included references to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choosing_Wisely that also cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs You mistake conceptualisation and promotionYves.bertin (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. De-implementation, as you presented it, is a medical subject and hence the references need to meet WP:MEDRS, which neither references do. Kleuske (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
besides, this comes awfully close to using the article as a WP:SOAPBOX. Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to July 14 that did not included any source. I looked for a source for this date of birth in Collins Nweke and it was unsupported by any source there either.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. That's careless of me. I'll be more careful. Kleuske (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it careless - I figured you just didn't know about the change. You seem to do very good work around here. Please keep it up! Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you Speedy Deleting My Article?

Well, I got a photo, that I created, from Creative Commons. So, if delete my article, does that delete, the photo as well. I liked to know, Kleuske. Kew1119 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting edits on the Slime Rancher Wikipedia place

You keep deleting my edits with the reasoning that info is from a fan run site however all forum links pasted are from the devolpers of this game, Monomi Park. The edits are being done to ensure the section edited remains up to date with recent updates. Please can you either revert the edits you made or tell me why my edits are being rejected. TheLordRutherfordOfNelson (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reject it because Wikia is not a reliable source, since it's user generated content. Wikipedia requires content to be sourced by reliable sources. Moreover the content added can reasonably be qualified as fancruft. Kleuske (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the official forums created by the developers considered fancruft? If you would like I can provide Twitter links from Monomi Park, the devolpers, a reliable source TheLordRutherfordOfNelson (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyadhar Durgekar

Why are you deleting my page ' Vidyadhar Durgekar ? It is like any others author page. My article is published in Science Direct a magazine of repute. My seminar papers are published in other magazines. My book Sale of souls is an important book on land acquisition for the industrial projects and have been referenced in the new land acquisition bills of the government of India. Other paper has been converted the legislation for Port Safety. The editing is in progress. Please dont cancel my deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durgekar (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Durgekar: Notability has not been established (Fails WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR), it's an autobiographical article and hence you have a conflict of interest. More than enough grounds to unceremoniously nominate it for deletion. Kleuske (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep River

Zip06 is not a travel site. It's a news site for the state of Connecticut, featuring news articles written by local journalism company Shore Publishing. Thus, your assertion is false and there is no reason why my edit should have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18B:8280:C3E:491C:5CDB:F732:EF6F (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a couple of hints in the news site
  • It's called ctvisit.com, where ct, presumably stands for Conneticut
  • The site greets it's visitor with the motto "Travel less, experience more" (which is unusual for a news site)
  • It's got menu items "Ideas, Do. Stay. Regions. Seasons" (which is not what I expect from a news site)
  • It's got nice vids of people having a good time, sailing boats etc. (rather atypical for a news site)
So If we apply the Duck hypotheses (If quacks like duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck, we're dealing with a small aquatic member of the family anatidae), I can conclude with a fair amount of certainty that the alleged news site actually a travel site. Kleuske (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<wiping egg off face>
This is a newssite, you are right. But a local news-site still does not establish notability. Kleuske (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LADWP

The page I was editing was intended to reflect the information the Department has on their website. This was requested by the Department. Is there no way that I am able to post a description of the board members? Cmerca96 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmerca96: Well. This is Wikipedia, not a mirror of their website. There's a reason for that. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nixtun Ch'ich'

you want to tag my other page for removal but honestly i think you might as well tag the first page for removal because i prefer the title of my page better in terms of accuracy. thanks. (talk)

I answered on your talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kleuske,

I wanted to write and let you know that the Sean Kelly Gallery updates I just added are not promotional, they are merely informational, so that researchers can have a better idea of our gallery's history and greater access to information about the artists that we represent. I would like to know how I can have my changes re-published. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sknyintern (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sknyintern: You added internationally regarded for its diverse, intellectually driven program and highly regarded roster of artists to the article, which is obviously promotional. The rest of the edition was full of editorializing, such as reputation for diverse, intellectually driven, unconventional exhibitions, increasingly ambitious, museum-quality exhibitions to great critical acclaim, renowned cultural institutions, exceptional contemporary artists. Your user name also indicates that you're working on behalf of someone, which would suggest that you're in no position to gauge the neutrality of your work. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deorprted to USSR

Deported to USSR is included with the 2 million ExpelledThe report Gesamterhebung zur Klärung des Schicksals der deutschen Bevölkerung in den Vertreibungsgebieten, München : Zentralstelle des Kirchl. Suchdienstes, makes this clear Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans#Research by German Church Search Service--Woogie10w (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Woogie10w: I do not doubt your sources, I commented on a faulty translation. Kleuske (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kleuske I appreciate your help.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware

Hi Kleuske, thank you for your work at WP:COIN - I've just oversighted some content you added in regards to ‎Purezza, as it was a touch too much information in regards to the current letter of WP:OUTING. I am certain it was done accidentally, and in good faith.

I definitely don't want to discourage you or anyone else from investigating paid editing, it's something we need to crack down on, but in the future please be mindful not to accidently out an editor.

Per this recent discussion regarding our current policy, I would ask you to make more generic claims publicly, and then contact Arbcom with detailed, private information. If you have any questions, please feel free to get in contact - TNT 💖 19:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagging

Article tags are for encouraging improvement to articles, but in the case of Young there is no improvement to be had (I don't think the sources exist). So your tagging serves only the purpose of MAKING WIKIPEDIA UGLIER and in particular MAKING A BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON UGLIER and not encouraging any useful purpose. There is no actual problem with the article. All material in it is sourced in a way compliant with WP:BLP, which explicitly allows the only primary source there (her curriculum vitae) to source basic factual and undisputed data about the subject (which is all that it is used for). So you are acting like a vandal by making articles worse while not identifying actual problems. Go away and find some other article to tag-war about. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Why not answer on the TP, where stuff like this belongs? You've been around since 2006, you ought to know how things work. If there's no more sources, why is this person notable (WP:BIO)? Kleuske (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because you apparently haven't read even the edit summaries? I already told you to look at WP:PROF for notability rather than WP:BIO. The case for notability there is extremely clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: That's (presumably) referring to 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
So where's the "independent reliable sources" that demonstrate it? If you had something else in mind, please point it out. Just going "WP:POLICY!" in the edit summaries does not suffice. And again, why not answer me on the TP, where this stuff belongs? Inquiring minds want to know. Kleuske (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

discussion copied to Talk:Virginia R. Young, where it belongs, please respond there. Kleuske (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linear algebra talk page

Could you respond on the linear algebra talkpage about why you don't want the linear algebra video in the external links section? I posted the link into the article because an apparent consensus on the talkpage appeared to have formed for its inclusion. JustOneMore (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nizamski rastanak

Hi,

Do you understand that you re added text to Nizamski rastanak cited with sources about different song "stani stani ibar vodo" song?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently forged Bosniak song has another name, "Šehidski rastanak" and compltely different text as per exceptional source used in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand we have edit summaries for a reason? Kleuske (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About polpol reverting.

You dont know well about polpol as i know. If you ask me about everyone i will give you a proper reasons and proof aginst every editing . Rajan singh chauhaan (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. I do know what "unsourced" and "puffery" is, though. Kleuske (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G10

G10 is better for Toi Mapahuku since it directly threatens a person. Regards ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: You're right. I was still on my first coffee. Kleuske (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Widr deleted it as G3. It's a vandalism and attack page then :) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Let's keep it at "general badness". Kleuske (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FDMS in Hong Kong - LGBT culture in Hong Kong

That whole section is very inappropriate from only two sources, one of which was presumably written by the person who added this section, and the other using superfluous descriptive language. Would you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.0.174.187 (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@14.0.174.187: The section was poorly sourced and contentious, hence I removed it. I can't read minds, so I have no info about the person/persons who wrote it. Kleuske (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wentworth Mausoleum

Hi there. Would you please review your tagging of Wentworth Mausoleum, Salisbury Court (Rose Bay), Wentworth Memorial Church, and any others as WP:CFSD. These articles are several of many hundreds that form part of a project to create articles for all places that have state government heritage classification in the Australian state of New South Wales. The source has been clearly attributed under {{NSW-SHR-CC}}. The talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian historic places#New South Wales state heritage items - article generator and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian historic places#NSW State Heritage Register - ready to roll? gives some background to the project. This has already been to the Village Pump several times and reviewed favourably. Please STOP. Rangasyd (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And further, the content is Salisbury Court (Rose Bay) has been created by merging content from this edit of Rose Bay Cottage that is now called Salisbury Court (Rose Bay). So to say that it relies entirely on copyright material is erroneous. Rangasyd (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rangasyd: (e/c) I read your message objecting and stopped already. You could make life a lot easier by explicitly referring to CC-by-SA since "merge with content from NSW SHR" isn't very clear on that. Kleuske (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noted re better CC-by-SA at time of article creation. Please remove CFD tags. Thanks Rangasyd (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't need an edit summary for you to incorrectly delete appropriately-licensed material. There is a clearly labelled attribution section on every page that uses this content - if you can't be bothered to read it, that sloppy editing is on you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: Yay.... Let's make errors as likely as possible, so we can berate any editor who makes one. Including a comment that makes things clear and avoids errors is sooooo 2017, especially if the material is copied verbatim of another website, which is usually totally allowed by Wikipedia rules. I am very glad we have at least one superhuman editor who makes no mistakes at all. Kleuske (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out RE: Sarah Jeong

The IP you reminded, yet again, that a talk page is not a forum, might accuse you of being in a WP:CABAL LOL! Thanks for your effort keeping a difficult talk page on track. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ismat Chughtai

Thanks for undoing the blanking of the above page. An anon IP has done this a couple of times and hence, I have blocked them for 12 hours. Also, the Google doodle for the Indian subcontinent region for today refers to Ismat Chughtai and hence I thought the block would be appropriate. --Gurubrahma (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurubrahma: The block surprised me a little, but I fully approve. Didn't know about the Google doodle, but that obviously aggravates the issue. Kleuske (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sykesem Clarification

Hi, Kleuske!

Could you clarify which link is viewed as spam on the Foot Odour post? I'll be sure to avoid it in the future. Thanks!

--Sykesem (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sykesem: Avoid all of them. For medical subjects (and that includes foot odor) we have even more stringent demands for sources than we usually have. The link I object to, as you indubitably know, is the one you've been inserting into various medial subjects, from "Estrogen dominance", via "Detoxification (alternative medicine)", to "Foot odor". In fact, it appears in each and every edit you made thusfar. If you're getting paid, as I suspect, you have to divulge that fact and your employer, to boot. Kleuske (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To make it perfectly clear, none of the citations you adorned the payload with, meets WP:MEDRS, and the one I checked, did not support your claim. Kleuske (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Network Express

22 August Hello,

  1. could you please advise what is the meaning of the sentence: Quoting his words, “ONE does not aspire to be the largest carrier in the market, just large enough to ..

if you remove the Subject (who? - the company CEO) from the sentence, starting it with "Quoting his", does no more make much sense (HIS of whom?)

  1. company slogans are an important thread on Wikipedia, and were even part of the company info box (however now the field is no more available). What's the reason you completely removed this sentence?
  2. what is the reason you removed the sentence that explains why the Company has selected magenta as colour? It was explained through the sentence related to Sakura the Japanese tree, that you removed. If you needed a further reference, please just add the small box (needs ref)
  3. For more than sixty years, nobody has used that colour in shipping, why does result irrelevant to you to mention the predecessors?
  4. it would be appreciated if you could kindly explain the reason behind you browsed another page created by me (Trinity Court), created in the same way like Ocean Network Express than in just a few weeks reached 250 readers x day, and proposed it straight away for deletion. Instead of inserting the template to try to improve the page, you immediately proposed the removal of it.

Thanks, Goodwillgames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwillgames (talk • contribs) 09:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodwillgames: See WP:MISSION. The color is hardly relevant and serves PR purposes only, the same goes for the Onassis reference. I suspect WP:PAID given your editing history and I seriously doubt (after WP:BEFORE) that the building is notable. Kleuske (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS. As to trinity court, please provide references to show its notability. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting allegation about being paid. I am glad you reviewed my editing history, and I am surprised you came to this conclusion. I contributed to all major maritime Shipping Lines, defunct and those still trading, improving pages from a few sentences, to informative, always supported by sources. Majority have extremely unusual ships, you removed all pictures that were taken by other users and just collated by me in the right page, to explain what's all about. I contributed on architectural, streets and buildings: in London there are just about 100 Art Deco buildings surviving. By adding Trinity Court (that is one of them), there is a possibility the building has more visibility, including becoming part of the Listed building registry. This was mentioned in the article too. Goodwillgames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwillgames (talk • contribs) 09:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why, I provided a reason. Kleuske (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United European Car Carriers

It would be appreciated if you could kindly check this page (never edited by me) MSC Cruises It's an example of what I wanted to achieve with the page United European Car Carriers. The Company fleet with pictures, in line with the majority of the maritime lines' pages on Wikipedia. You stated WP:CATALOG. "Gallery" is a standard Wikipedia section, created on purpose to show items/pictures, related to the topic/article. There are great pictures on Wikicommons, that once added to an article make it more clear. Thanks, Goodwillgames.

@Goodwillgames: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POINT. If you feel strongly, kindly remove it yourself. and for *(&&(*# sake, sign your posts. Kleuske (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English Armada

Hi Kleuske.

It is correct to say that it was a Decisive Victory, that the queen continues on the throne is not a strong argument to affirm that it was not a decisive victory, it is not a game of chess. The battle of 1589 supposed the hegemony of Spain during a decade in a dominant position, and the English Armada ended with the forces very depleted because their fleet was almost completely destroyed. In fact, it is after the Battle of Cartagena de Indias the greatest defeat in the naval military history of England.

And the Spanish defeat a year earlier in 1588 is (I do not understand the why) a decisive victory despite the fact that Felipe II continued to reign and the Spanish naval force was still strong and ready to continue the war without problem, as was demonstrated in 1589.

So I do not consider it an exaggeration. A greeting. JamesOredan (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesOredan: Since nothing was actually decided, calling the victory decisive is misleading, IMHO. However, neither your nor my opinion matters, since your qualification lacks sources. Reverted for that reason. Kleuske (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all in an annoying to say that it was a decisive victory, even if it hurts.

The Battle of 1588 where England won says it was a Decisive Victory, and that of 1589 was very similar, but as it lost the battle England does not put the adjective "Decisive"

I have listened to you and put sources and even then they are not accepted, despite being studies and not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 12:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesOredan: Whoop-di-doo. Now if you advance to a source that actually calls the victory "decisive", you may be on to something. Oh, and the History channel is not exactly a good source. The hint is in "A History Channel Thanksgiving". Kleuske (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wubba Lubba Dub Dub. You are very demanding in matters related to Spain, you decide what sources are good or not based on your subjective opinion despite being recognized sources, such as History.

Not even here in Belgium do we get so involved with the French (hahaha its a joke). Thanks for the "hint", I'll sail if I find something. The English have historically been very good at suppressing and hiding information, especially if it was about defeats of their country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure... It's all a British conspiracy. Kleuske (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should check what the "Black Legend" is. It is not strange that countries omit and hide defeats while extolling and exaggerating victories, and above all they demonize and underestimate the victories of the enemy country.

Historically almost all European powers did. England was the one that used it the most. And I love England, but everyone knows such English ability.

By the way: British =/= English. It is a failure that should not be committed, they are different things dear European neighbor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesOredan: Please stop posting here. Take it to the @^*%& talk-page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheCentralLineLondonUndergroundOnDisks

That's not even alliterative! Why not "Waterloo and City on Wheels", "Bakerloo on Bicycles", "DLR on Discs", "Central on Cylinders", "Piccadilly on Pedals", "Metropolitan on Motors", "Circle on Cogs", "East London on Electrics" .... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: <snigger> You just don't get the same quality of vandals these days... Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lordie, my apologies XD

This is why I shouldn't Wiki first thing in the morning; I somehow thought that you'd introduced that edit to Kangchenjunga and agree that URLs aren't last names! Egg on my face, I'm sorry about that! Now to look in to if I can self-trout... NekoKatsun (nyaa) 13:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Everybody screws up before the obligatory morning coffee/tea... Kleuske (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response

SERIOUSLY, I'M NOT LOUD AND OBNOXIOUS, I'M JUST TRYING TO BE F*CKING REASONABLE BECAUSE SPSHU DESTROYED THIS PAGE'S F*CKING INFOBOX AND AOI KEPT REMOVING MY EDIT REQUESTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M TRYING TO ASK EDITORS TO CHANGE THAT INFOBOX BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND I DON'T GIVE A SH*T IF I'M "THROWING A TEMPER TANTRUM"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU NEED TO CHANGE THAT INFOBOX BACK TO THE WAY I WANTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:< 92.97.113.189 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're shouting, screaming and making demands on my talk-page and you're not throwing a temper tantrum? who'd have thunk it... Kleuske (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Stalag

I can't find any information other than the one I posted on the Stalag Edition, the only websites I can find on it often have the same exact description and are mostly book selling websites -or amazon-, how would I go about editing the page with the Stalag Edition if I can't find a proper source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.215.141 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually a good sign that it isn't notable. Besides, I'm not saying you can't write about it, just don't copy the source verbatim. Kleuske (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why did you contest my page for deletion? Did I not post it properly? Dtrain424 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtrain424: I nominated your userpage since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost. Kleuske (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, Sorry about that, it was just bad wording what I was trying say was it is the chief canticle at vespers in both Some protestant Traditions and In the catholic Church. Also how do you do the wiki page links? TheRoseAndTheOstrichFeather (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRoseAndTheOstrichFeather: It's beyond "bad wording", it's well into competency and editwarring territory. There's plenty of examples of how to link on virtually every page on Wikipedia. See Help:Link for details. It ain't rocket science, after all. Kleuske (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to talk page of topic: Transition ..... was completed

The explanation of previous changes were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor's Axe (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thor's Axe typed out a bunch of obfuscation on the talk page and at the end lied about the language of the sources cited in order to mislead us. He claimed the sources used by historians were in Manchu because most Manchu texts are not available to the public for us to see and it would be a miracle to explain how he somehow got his hands on them. Therefore he can insert any fabrications in their name. The actual sources used by the western historians were written in Chinese and do not support his claims. He is inserting fabrications and hoping people don't check the citations.Opasney (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Opasney: I strongly suggest you take it to the appropriate talk-page and discuss changes there. The present situation can be adequately described as editwarring and may result in a block. Thor's Axe already has an EW-notice and consequences may follow. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of Op is blatantly false and involves personal attack. In no where in the comment was it mentioned that the sources quoted were written in Manchu, instead the wording was "based on materials written in Manchu", which means the materials quoted were in other languages or translated from the original Manchu script. Besides Manchu materials is available to the public. Opasney claims is purely rumour and malicious, and its view extremely insular. An edit war is not desired, but it is important to correct the crucial facts presented, and reverting without being supported by evidence should be completely prohibited. While I made some changes to the text, everything was based on the reliable evidence. As a result the edit shall be valid and constructive. Besides,::@Opasney: you are spreading rumour about me to a third party. This is not only inappropriate but deeply despicable.

@Thor's Axe: You are deep into WP:3RR territory, so throwing around aspersions is a very bad idea. If you keep up this behavior, you are on your way for a block. I remind you, once more, that the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for any proposed changes. Arguments about content belong on the article talk page. Kleuske (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kleuske. Since the 3RR closure, a good discussion has been happening at Talk:Transition from Ming to Qing. I'd appreciate if you could keep an eye there. Even if you (like me) don't know the languages, you could still make sure that the people in the discussion understand Wikipedia's sourcing rules. The person who got blocked is quite new, and can't sign messages properly, but is quite bold with the reverts. My worry is that the problem may continue after their block expires. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They've shown some signs of bending slightly, but also some new problems. I'm keeping a pretty close eye on these pages and am trying to be a peacekeeper here, but there's a bit of a WP:AGF failure going on. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: Yeah... AGF is stretched beyond the breaking point, at the moment. TA is now claiming consensus ("reviewed" it) , where the TP flatly contradicts that. TA is now at 3RR, so I expect he'll be quit the next 24 hours, but I'm willing to place a bet he will start again. I'm wondering if ANI isn't the proper venue, here. WP:IDHT? WP:CIR? WP:RGW? Kleuske (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering they're now at Revert 2 back to their preferred version despite all my gentle attempts to point out to them how they're failing to gain consensus for their edits (I've been trying really hard not to WP:BITE a newbie here) and this on the back of a recent WP:3RR block, I'm sadly beginning to think ANI might be an appropriate venue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's still at it. This time not deleting sources but rather inserting egregious WP:WEASEL content to try and discredit the historians referenced and push his dubious and contested WP:PRIMARY derived position. This is getting ridiculous. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: Yes. I've been following the drama. Perhaps it's time to formally request a block on WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:IDHT//WP:OWN ("you may...") grounds, perhaps adding a sprinkle of WP:CIR. I very much get the impression TA is not used to opposing opinions. The continued use of WP:PRIMARY sources adds to that. In any case, I think you should be commended for patience and Sheer sticktoitiveness. Kleuske (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But I'm reaching the limit of my willingness to push solo, I'll add into the AN/I case that I now prefer a block on those grounds, I've already explicitly asked for third party help too as I'm getting frustrated and am worried about losing objectivity in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my mistake, can you help me?

I understand the COI with my organization, I simply wanted to make a few fact updates to the page as it was out of date, and I had concerns that the incorrect information would misrepresent the station. Since getting our FM frequency we've been trying to get the word out, and we wanted it to be present and well represented on our wiki. Other updates included removing generally incorrect information and adding the bit at the end about what we are now (since there were no recent updates about our current programming).

I made the edits myself not with the intent to mislead or use Wikipedia to advertise our station, but because I was worried that the edits wouldn't be made unless I did them myself. In the edit history the last real updates were made 6 months to a year ago, but they left information out and some inaccuracies in. Such inaccuracies includes the list of on air personalities, the names listed haven't been on air in years and some of are current DJ's are no where to be found.

If you don't want me to make these changes please help me by updating the page yourself, so when people search for our small radio they can find the accurate information they're looking for. And if you're feeling generous, could you also visit our website and add our current Air Schedule/ Line up, so our listeners who use Wikipedia will be able to see what shows we have and when they are? Much appreciated, have a lovely day WTTRHilltopCommunicationLLC102.3 (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipse: why can't I add a known reference?

I am sorry I do not get it. I saw a rather lengthy discussion, which you sent me, much in favor of that reputable reference which I suggested. Yet, the reference was strangely removed with suspicious justification that won't stand. Please enlighten me on what is going on here. Why is not that ellipse talk page openly available? It seems artificially terminated and prematurely archived...83.149.239.125 (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@83.149.239.125: Since you propose the change the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus on the talk page. Discuss it there. Kleuske (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I am NOT proposing any change whatsoever. I just added a worldwide spread reference which you can see on multitude of sites discussing ellipses. Are you kidding me? Or is it me missing something not to be told? Which rule did I violate and why am I being restricted from editing freely as long as I haven't violated any. Please clarify your position or restore my edit if you do not want me complaining. Why do I among all the rest of wiki editors need anyone to approve my edit. Do you need anyone to approve yours? I have been editing for sometime but haven't encountered anything nearly as weird and even crazy...83.149.239.125 (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@83.149.239.125: What, exactly, is unclear about take it to the fucking talkpage? Kleuske (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frits Purperhart.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardia

Hello, there. I see you reverted my edit.

Yes, it obviously is not a country, but it is an entity claiming to be or aspiring to be one. As such, it should be evaluated through that light. I think the language I used clearly shows that it is not a country, but fairly communicates what it currently is.

Do you have any specific suggestions to improve my edit? Simply calling it a group of people who launched a satellite does not exactly cut it. OCHNCaP (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OCHNCaP: Wikipedia is not for "evaluating" stuff. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, we summarize available sources. No more, no less. At this moment it's a group of people who have launched a satellite. That's all it is. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get into a semantic battle over what evaluate means. I sourced everything I added. OCHNCaP (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss the importance of reliable sources instead and how policy forbids "evaluations" AND unsourced claims. Kleuske (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what specific complaints do you have? If you didn't simply blind revert, surely there was something you found contentious.
  • I cited the name (already present in the article) with the Asgardian "constitution."
  • I described Asgardia as a "new country project" (micronation) and mentioned that it calls itself a "space nation." I cited two direct sources affirming they agree with that assessment and I cited The Christian Science Monitor. I included the direct sources and used "new ... project" instead of the diminutive *micro* in an attempt to avoid any overzealous fan misinterpreting me as putting them down.
  • The article already says that Asgardia claims to have sovereign territory in space, but that the claim is dubious. I deleted the repetition and reworded the first part. I added a direct source (showing that they really claim this), then I expaned on why such a claim is legally dubious and cited Business Insider.
  • I mentioned that they claim their "space capital" is the satellite Asgardia-1 and provided a direct source for them making this claim.
  • I took the preexisting mention of Vienna being the administrative centre, preserving the original citation and adding one from the actual company that officially operates out of Vienna in the name of Asgardia
  • I cited the original Asgardia announcement with a direct source. That claim was also already supported by other third party sources I included in the lead.
  • I preserved the original citation for acceptance of the constitution.
  • I took the already existing claim that they intend to seek UN recognition and sourced The Christian Science Monitor.
  • I expanded all existed citations, and templated all of them.
  • I didn't cite every claim that was already present in the lead, but not fixing everything at once shouldn't be an argument against the parts that were improved. Also, per MOS:CITELEAD, I didn't want to overcite the lead since most of the descriptive content belongs in the body.
OCHNCaP (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "constitution" of a fictional "country" is not a reliable source for anything. If it would, any Tom, Dick and Harry could create a website and demand the same. For now i's a group of people with a satellite. Unless you have a reliable source that supports your claim, it's WP:OR. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The constitution is a valid source for what they call themselves.OCHNCaP (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it states in the article right now. If they called themselves "Bob ALMIGHTY", we would not include that in the article as a fact. Now please take it to the talk-page and stop pestering me. Kleuske (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kleuske reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: ). Thank you. Hhkohh (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redesign Records

Sorry. I tried seriously add a relevant music label. You removed it within minutes. I feel like you are not respecting my knowledge. It also looks like that you do not have any knowledge on the house music scene. For me it only shows that you are better at Wikipedia. Why would you else delete a Dutch music label that is relevant to many artists and fans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimentary (talk • contribs) 10:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimentary: I haven't removed anything, but failed to inform you that I moved it to draft namespace. You will find your constribution at Draft:Redesign Records. Sorry for the omission. Kleuske (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I guess I'll become better in the Wikipedia editing over time. Appreciate the help. Is there anything we can do to make the Redesign Records page better than it currently is? I would love to add the discography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimentary —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

@Wikimentary: Add independent reliable sources. Besides... "We?" Who's "We"? Kleuske (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'Evelyn

I'm sorry, I am really trying to update the D'Evelyn page and source it. I need all of the correction I made there so I can post references, but you keep removing them all. Sourcing everything will take some time. I have sourced many items and they disappear too. You are just taking away every single edit. I am doing my best, but getting sources for every athletic win is more difficult than just a couple of seconds. Our page was sorely out of date, so the edits are vast, as will be the sources. Please stop undoing my changes and allow me to update our page so we don't have such outdated info. Thank you. I hope I did this message correctly, you said to go to the bottom of your page, yet there is no way to start a new string. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locococomama (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Locococomama: Achievements for school teams belong on the website of the school, not in an encyclopedia. The same goes for promotional language, lists of extracurricular activities, etc. I strongly suggest you adress those forst and restrict yourself to the things you can source since that's required by Wikipedia policy. You have also not adressed my concerns of a conflict of interest, so I feel obliged to report the goings on at [{WP:COIN|the appropriate noticeboard]]. Kleuske (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donbas Battalion

Good day! Unfortunately, I recently became a member of the war of edits. In this article I have made a big encyclopedic contribution. Could you check the validity of the links I deleted? I am sure you will understand that, unfortunately, the information in these links is an unconfirmed lie and is vandalism over the page. I hope for your understanding. Help to understand the situation. Best wishes, Pa30T (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. The information has been taken from UN reports and the incidents attracted an attention of Ukrainian MPs [1]. --Wiggling Piggy (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pa30T: Take it to the talk-page and discuss it w/o me playing the nanny. Kleuske (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "take it to the &(!&*(@& talk-page" goes for the both of you. Kleuske (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynching - India

Hi,

I noticed that several months ago you disallowed a particular edit related to Cow-vigilantism in India on the Lynching page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lynching&diff=next&oldid=849235136

And that you warned a user to stop:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maestro2016#Lynching

I believe there is a misunderstanding as to how serious the issues are in India. Perhaps you are not from that part of the world, so you have not witnessed it firsthand. You warned Maestro2016 not to post the link as you thought he was making light of a sensitive subject. I disagree because it is actually quite serious, and not making light of the issue at all. What "Cow-vigilantism" means is that there are very conservative/far-right groups who consider the cow as a sacred Hindu animal, and have gone harassing and sometimes outright killing people those who transport cows for meat or who otherwise farm or restrain cows in any way they deem unspiritual. It is not just one or two people who are doing this, but sometimes mobs of a dozen or more unruly people who go around and enact their violence. Quite a few groups who have adopted this ideology, and have brought it about themselves to administer 'punishment' as they see fit. It is bad enough to where national news covers such stories several times a month at times. There are also many top-tier world publications that have addressed the issue, such as:

So you see, 'Cow-vigilante' is not just a made up term or something making fun of lynching. Many people have been killed and mob-lynched as a result of indiscriminate 'cow-protectors' going around and accussing/harassing people, or outright halting cow-transport trucks in the middle of the street and pulling the driver out and killing him. It is quite a serious matter that I believe a link to the original article, not just a minor inclusion under the 'India' subsection of the lynching article. Please reconsider allowing us to re-add the 'see-also' link. Thanks Rush922 (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kleuske. 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kleuske&oldid=879455371"