User talk:Randy Kryn

For entertainment porpoises only:

My nom for Best Vandal Edit in the categories of...

• Best Romantic edit, Edit per topic, Edit per user name, Language, Language placement, User Name placement, and Single-Edit user.

This one is always interesting...

See and listen to Wikipedia edits as they occur. Designed by Stephen LaPorte and Mahmoud Hashemi of hatnote.com, the link was copied from a user page, don't remember where, but it deservedly is on quite a few.

...as is this

If you click on the first link of a page, and then click on the first link on that page, and so on, before too long you get to the psychology article. An odd fact that can be explained six ways to Sunday, and all of them right. I don't recall where I first read that, does someone know who discovered it? Thanks.

I just tested this on the first two Random articles from the sidebar link, and it's absolutely true! (12 hops and 15 hops) This is truly amazing. EEng 05:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you know

• Saverland v Newton.

Perhaps my best geek edit

A five cushion bank shot: italicizing the Star Trek and Buffy the Vampire Slayer links on Wikipedia's Klingon language page.

************************************************

Photo

Hi,

I have a photo of my dad, but I can't figure out how to add it to his page.

Dan O'Keefe — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanOKeefe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Picasso

Hi Randy, you might want to comment here: [1], thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-0

I invite you to the ongoing RFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Steamboat Bill, Jr.

As you suggest, WP:FILM alerted here. And thank you for adding the WP:COMMONSENSE perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Randy Kryn!!
	Hi Randy Kryn, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will drink (or something) to your health, many times. Randy Kryn 15:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. Soham321 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated, thank you Soham321, and the same to you and yours. Randy Kryn 22:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Randy Kryn!

Happy New Year!

Randy Kryn,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks Davey2010, and the same to you and yours. Nice fireworks, in 2117 we should be able to leave real fireworks on talk pages (which will be called 'firewords' patent pending). Randy Kryn 14:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw your recent edit

at Revolutionary‎ and would like to draw you into the discussion about who belongs (and who does not) on the list of notable revolutionaries and see what thoughts you have. ABC order is another discussion for another day. Carptrash (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Carptrash, but no, I don't know the names or have much attention on a page like that. The main people in the American Revolution, all of them should make such a list. But the ones I removed, Dr. King, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Bayard Rustin, simply do not fit the term, and I explained my reasoning for removing King on the talk page., and may as well copy it here too. Back in a minute and will copy it right below this reply. Randy Kryn 23:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• The original note starts here, which I also copied from another talk page: (copied and slightly edited from another talk page) No, Dr. King or his colleagues should not be formally listed as revolutionaries. Although their movement has been called the 'Second American Revolution' the movement was doing nothing more than dialoguing with the nation to obtain the principals and guarantees already existing in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The revolution had already occurred, the nation's laws and people just hadn't caught up to it yet. King, Bevel, and the rest put words and actions into reminding the public, the courts, and the politicians what those constitutional guarantees were, and asked them to get about the business of implementing them. Which they did. Randy Kryn 15:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC) (recopied, Randy Kryn 23:23 January 2017 (UTC)

why remove justia link from lead in to case (Bauer)

why remove justia link from lead in to case (Bauer) ? -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi PraeceptorIP. Sorry, I don't know which edit you're referring to. I was probably doing an italics run on case law, let me know if I made a mistake, thanks. Randy Kryn 19:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell, Jn. 4, 2017. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see, there was an outside link in the first mention of an article, so I took that out. The first mention is probably the worse place for an outside link, which are usually listed in External links, as they are likely to get pulled eventually. When I do edit runs I very seldom find an outside link in the first mention, and have removed a few of them. Don't know if there's a policy or guideline on it, but I've seen so few of them that either other editors pull them as well or they just don't get outside-linked very often. Randy Kryn 21:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Could you tell me how to italicize the title? 2. It is helpful to the reader of a case to get the link at the beginning of the Article. Some case write-ups do that. So I would like to put that cite back in there, perhaps to the whole case cite ( [www.whatever xx U.S. xx (xx)] ) or else as a <r e f> footnote. Thanks, Randy. - PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Or do both, and add it to External links as well. Easy to italicize most titles, the code and the simple term italic title (with parenthesis around it) will do it. Look at the code at the beginning of most italicized articles. Today I began a case law italics run back in the 1700s and am up to 1870, and found a lot of case law pages not italicized (as well as first mentions and other in-page italics fixes). Learning and making mental maps seem to be the main personal benefits of italic runs, which I do to professionalize the encyclopedia and give stylized encyclopedic respect to the topics of the entries being italicized. Randy Kryn 01:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Randy. I don't understand how to italicize title. I went to Bauer and looked at the EDIT, which starts with the Infobox. I couldn't find any italic title in the Editing Area. I gather from what you said that it is somewhere, perhaps in the Infobox, but I couldn't find it. Could you please spell this out in more detail for me? In particular, how do you CREATE an article with an italic heading, say when you click on a red (no such page) reference in another WP article or after searching for a case title and reaching an invitation to create a page with that name (in red)? - PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, italics is a grueling business (smiley face here). Check out the code on Corbett v Corbett, the top coding is the italics code. Pages will not have them when created, just add that code. There are other pages which will have a mixed italics-and non-italics, their title can be partially italicized, check out the code on the page List of games in Star Trek, for example. Thanks for your persistence and interest. Randy Kryn 17:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sesame template

About the Sesame Street nav template:

• I think it would be a good idea to make a group for "Amusement parks and rides," since there are four articles under that category.
• I also think the Comics group should be taken off, since only one article remains there. The comic strip article can go under Related.

I know you're not an admin or anything, but you've been making some reasonable updates to the template so I thought I'd ask you what you think. RightFoalPowerWire (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, and thanks. I like your user page. The comic strip idea makes sense in Related as long as it's the first or second item. I'm biased, so not the editor to ask on the other, and I dislike it when I find commercial links in templates. I know the rides are related, in a way, but each individual product in their promotion-line (dolls, mugs, beach towels, etc.) could eventually have a page and would we have to include all of those? Good meeting you. Randy Kryn 19:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

italic title

You can italic just about every one of these if you want to. Category:United States patent case law - PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Momma always said italics are like a box of choc-o-lates. Randy Kryn 01:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Did them, and that led to a good tangent on distributing the List of pioneers in computer science page. PraeceptorIP, from checking the history of many patent case law pages I can see you've spent a productive time adding to Wikipedia's collection on the topic. Nice work. Randy Kryn 18:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy. It's probably not a good idea, however, to italicise case as in Peninsular Button-Fastener Case. It would maybe be better to say: Peninsular Button-Fastener Case or case. Cheers. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hollerith

His name appears in multiple WP articles. Those linked from the article have additional content, Hollerith related details not contained in the Hollerith article. As best I can tell, you are linking to text that is but a one or two line summary - text that provides NO additional info for the reader. Why send the reader on a useless link? 73.71.159.231 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Lists like this are regularly linked to See also sections on articles. They are of great interest to many readers, and provide a map to the subject, this one to the subject of pioneers in computing. The majority of these kind of lists I've seen give only brief summaries of the topics and individuals, yet they give a wide and interesting overview, and since they are on all of the pages of the articles listed will bring more readers to each individual article. Researchers investigating the pioneers of computing may reach the page through several means, and one of the main ones is from the See also sections. Make sense? Thanks for asking, that doesn't happen as often as you'd think. Randy Kryn 19:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notice

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Chicago 7 on Timeline of 1960s counterculture

Hey Randy, wondering if you might have time to review and perhaps add a few entries on Chicago (8 and) 7 to the timeline. I see you set up the template. Or simply share thoughts, as I know your have a lot of on your WP plate. Thanks and Best Wishes! Learner001 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I am all for discussion, and I'm completely willing to discuss the "confines" or date scope of this subject. It's completely open for discourse! I have struggled with it myself, as it is not really academically defined, as to dates. But I thought the concept of noting events well in advance would spare the reader long explanations further down the list. As you know, any suggestions are always welcome. Note: CFCF seems to be motivated by recent politics and has some sort of personal issue with the "1984" book entry; he keeps reverting. He's been blocked many times, so for that editor to tag the entire page as non-neutral is a simply a disruptive nuisance in my view. PLEASE let me know if you think the page is biased in any way. The goal should be to "walk" people through the crazy era, with hopefully well-cited and truly notable events every step of the way. Thoughts? Best Wishes! Learner001 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I love the deep-timeline, as long as it stays in context. I was serious about adding the constitution and bill of rights, then maybe the results of the civil war on the constitution and bill of rights. I really haven't spent enough time on the page to make a map in my mind of the overall flow, so I can't comment on neutrality or bias, and will read it again at some point with that question in mind. You not thinking it's biased is a good indication that it isn't. Did the editor explain why he or she thought it was biased? Randy Kryn 00:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, those documents certainly came into play later in the era, didn't they?:) I'm open, so let's improve the page! On the other issue, that "editor" is a "slash and burn" type who never discusses anything. He has no interest in consensus about anything, unless he's about to be (or is) blocked again, at which point he suddenly becomes very friendly.

Will get back to it sometime soon, I'm surprised that thirty or so editors aren't working on the page. Will continue discussion there at some point about the early documents, which were directly used and studied in the Civil Rights Movement and other freedoms explored and enhanced in the 1960s. Quite the page to focus on, nice work. Randy Kryn 15:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion

Please support or oppose foreign wikilink inclusion at the RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit of a message for you

Hi! It's been a while. Something on this page caught my I. I've always been interested in computers (since 1962, when I first saw one in the flesh, anyway). So I added Herman Hollerith to my watch page just to keep track of where that valuable list of computing pioneers has a pointer. Hope you are doing well. — Neonorage, (talk to Phil) 23:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Neonorange, good to hear from you. Doing well, hopefully you too. Computer innovations have interested me as well, especially speed and material advances. They apparently computed the math and logistics for the manned moon missions on an etch-a-sketch and a checkers board (or something). More soon. Randy Kryn 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject Zoo mailing list

Hello! You are receiving this message because you have added yourself as a member of the Wikiproject Zoo. This is the first such message, however we hope that this can be used to coordinate editing and development of articles later down the road. If you wish to opt out of further messages remove yourself from the mailing list here , and if consider yourself not active within the project, please remove yourself from member list here. For Wikiproject Zoo general discussions and suggestions, please use the project talk page. (Delivered: 16:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC))

When did Alice Paul move to London?

Hi Randy, I note that you are one of the more involved of the recent editors on the Alice Paul page, so I thought I would bring the following to your attention in the hope that you might be able to resolve it.

The section headed "Early work in British woman suffrage" starts "In 1907, after completing her master's degree at the University of Pennsylvania, Paul moved to England where she eventually became deeply involved with the British women's suffrage movement...

"Then the second paragraph begins "In 1906, Paul moved to London..."

Any chance you could take a look at it?

Thanks -- Mwanner | Talk 19:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mwanner. Britannica has her in England in 1906 but doesn't mention London (Britannica's internet site is overridden with ads, one reason I don't like going there or click on most links). I don't own or have any books on her at present, so I can be of limited help. It's a good question though, and one that might be answered by asking on Paul's article talk page. I usually do a quick check of a user page when someone posts here, and what a beautiful picture of the island on yours (I've uploaded it to my pics, thanks for sharing it, that's an island that looks like it'd be nice to hang out on for an afternoon). An odd connection, I know someone who has the piano which was in Paul's nursing home and which she used. A nice relic of an amazing person and life. Randy Kryn 19:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

TFD of interest

N.B.: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_3#Template:Zoos_of_Washington.2C_D.C.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleophus J. LaRue Jr.

Would you be open to create a biography article on Cleophus J. LaRue Jr., a proponent of black preaching. - Ample references and notability is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.197.45 (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I haven't created an article in a long time, not my thing on Wikipedia, although I'd be happy to have a look at it once someone else puts up a page. Lots of books authored by the subject, it seems that someone should do an article on him at some point, and maybe someone reading this will work on the suggestion. Please link it here if one is began, thanks. Randy Kryn 04:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion wanted

Hi Randy. I'd like our opinion. I wrote the below in part of a discussion. Your thoughts?

PR benefits? It's rather a question of reliability and neutral point of view We don't have to reinvent the wheel. Mainstream news organizations have strict, enforced ethical practices manuals. The New York Times and NPR have publically available ethical practice guides on their websites. Other U.S. news organizations also have ethical practices guides—some publically available, some not. It's a question of 'content'—is it free of COI influenced articles to the best of our ability. The reputation of Wikipedia is primary. Reduce the reputation of Wikipedia enough and the problem of undisclosed-paid-COI editing will go away—it won't be worth paying to put an article into this encyclopedia. We protect editors from outing or other harassment to build the encyclopedia, not because it's the right thing to do, but because we have decided it's the only way to build the encyclopedia. We have a code of ethics that prevents outing—that is enforceable. We should have a code of ethics that prevents enabling undisclosed-paid-COI editing—that is enforceable. Especially for admins. (I'm sorry to have to write this using an explicitly U.S. example, but that's what I know.)

The context is a discussion on undisclosed-paid-conflict-of-interest editing; more specifically this section.

On another note: have you seen John Lewis on television lately. He looks ten years younger. Trump and Trumpism has really energized him—I think he could shoot lightning bolts from his fingers when he speaks, a man to make that walk across the Selma bridge so many years ago. — User:Neonorange (Phil) 03:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Neonorange, that discussion is one of those novel sized discussions which would take over an hour to wrap my head around, and I'm participated in too many other Wikipedia politics questions to add more. But the paragraph you left makes sense, and anyone hiding a paid position or paid assignment to edit Wikipedia should be horsewhipped, or at least horsed. I've had thoughts about one editor, but can do no more than speculate. As for John Lewis, there's a renaming discussion going on at his page now, with the end result seeming to be settling around adding the descriptor '(civil rights leader)' after his name. I knew that Trump's win (which I predicted long before he won his party's nomination, the nomination itself was 100% obvious when he announced) would also energize old and new generations of both activists and supporters. John Lewis has been at the forefront of some of that, along with Warren, who, if Clinton had chosen her, would be vice president now. Randy Kryn 03:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I left a note at the discussion. I Think the civil rights leader is the role, an on-going role for which is most noteworthy. Your suggestion is a good one. Going for John Lewis is an overreach—it just excites the parochial instincts of some. — User:Neonorange (Phil) 05:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the test should be Which is the most vandalized of the John Lewis articles? Neonorange (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"SOP"

I'm so sorry! When I cited "site-wide SOP", that particular initialism stands for "standard operating procedure"; I wasn't referring to WP:SOP (which I didn't even know existed). By "standard operating procedure" I was essentially saying that I see an unwritten standard of not italicizing initialisms, so I was editing in accordance with that standard. I'll keep an eye on WT:ABBR#italicization of acronyms/initialisms for otherwise italicized titles, and I concur that it's odd this has never before been addressed. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, now both of us have newly learned about WP:SOP, an interesting read. I've noticed the opposite, that the initials are italicized. And who knows if it's been addressed, there are so many regs around here it may be tucked away somewhere. If anyone reading this can help clarify please go to the link above for the discussion. Nice work on bringing this question up. Randy Kryn 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. I've just seen the message you left on my talk page. Thank you for the words of encouragement. If all senior Wikipedia editors had your attitude, I'm sure it would be a much better place. Before I joined, I read about new editors having edits reverted for no real reason, and sadly I have found this to be the case. I understand why the page I created was deleted, but some of the other reverts have no explanation. Anyway, thank you for your advice and kind words. Chocolatebareater (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That's cool, you're very welcome. Those who stick around learn and share quite a bit. Circumstances and learning curves play into people's time here. Probably the best thing to do is "talk" with the editors about their reverts, which they likely should have addressed in more detail in their edit summary. That way, every time it happens you learn a bit more about the longstanding editing traditions around here which, and even though they are often heatedly discussed and at times resistant to positive change, seem to be keeping the overall ship running smoothly. And don't worry, it gets better. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 19:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Orange (word)

Hello, Randy Kryn. You recently removed many italics from Orange (word). But MOS:WORDSASWORDS directs, "Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction)." The MOS also allows for use of quotation marks instead "when italics could cause confusion", but counsels not to "switch back and forth between the styles in the same material". Since your edits, bold face, quotation marks (in the lead and 'Etymology' section), and italics (in the 'Rhyme' section) are all used to set of orange, while italics are used for non-English cognates in 'Etymology' (e.g. melarancio) and for near-rhyming words (e.g. hinge). I think it was better before. Cnilep (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker): see related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Words as words. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, I didn't know that about italics on 'words'. Will look at the linked discussion later. Randy Kryn 14:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Brief note

Just a brief note to let you know that last evening I added the "Lincoln outline" article to the "Lincoln sidebar" template, and that, since its now included in both templates on the "Abraham Lincoln" article, I have removed the "outline" hatnote from the page. Didn't want you to think that someone simply removed it for no reason. Have you seen the "Bibliography of ..." articles that exist for a half-dozen or so presidents? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy, appreciated. I've seen some of the bibliography's but probably not all of them. I haven't worked up a US presidential template in a long time, and there are many to go from the 19th century, plus Harding (unless some have been done I'm not aware of). Maybe I'll do one or so at some point soon, they are a learning curve on both the subject and the "map-making" of the Wikipedia articles on the subject, but your note here has my attention back on possibly proceeding. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 22:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Saints

You are badly misreading MOS:SAINTS. It does NOT say we should never use "St" in titles, indeed it basically says the opposite, except for biographies. Several of these changes will have to be reversed, for example in the titles of works of art. It says (my bold): " "Saint" should never under any circumstance be shortened to "St." in article titles about the person in question, ..." and "Cities and other entities follow common English-language usage in reliable sources--see St. Louis but Saint Petersburg." Nor does it say anywhere that all references in text should use "Saint". In fact it doesn't say that much, so please don't brandish it as justification for things it doesn't say. Sources for works of art & many other things are in fact highly likely to use abbreviations, just as buildings do. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, and thanks. If I changed titles of works of art then of course those should be reverted, can't recall any offhand but you're right. As for others, I've attempted to follow the Saints guideline, and if you could give a couple of examples where you think I've been off-track that would help, or discuss them on the page and ping me. 'Saint' in text should, as I read it, be 'Saint' and not 'St.' when referring to the person, as that follows the 'title' guideline which should translate into the text as well. Many pages have a mix now, so it's either 'Saint' or 'St.' and the choice would seem to fall towards 'Saint'. Maybe a discussion on the guideline page itself would clear that up, let other editors weigh in, and further set the guideline standard. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 13:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would it say "in article titles" if it means "in article titles and text"? It is pretty unusual for repeated references in RS not to go to an abbreviation in my experience, and we should do the same. Obviously the first mention in bios should also be "Saint". Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There're at least two points of view, and I'll stop editing 'Saint' or 'St.', I was on quite a roll there, with some thanks if I recall, and will go to other things until this is resolved in a guideline discussion. But where? There seem to be ten thousand guideline/policy pages here, and I wonder if anyone is watching and participating in most of them. Seem to be niches, and there are some I dislike entering (I always find good pages on articles for deletion, for example, and help to save a couple every time I look, which isn't often. Saddest place on Wikipedia, or tied). Can you suggest taking this question somewhere? Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I realize that the Beheading of St John the Baptist article is not his biography, but MOS:SAINTS doesn't use the word "biography", and does NOT limit it to such by saying '"Saint" should never under any circumstance be shortened to "St." in biography article titles'. Instead it has the "in article titles about the person in question" wording. MOS:SAINTS also says: 'If the word "saint" is included in an article name, the standard formula is to keep it unabbreviated except when referring to a name with typical abbrevation (such as the city of St Louis, United States)'. However, it seems to me that the article should probably be moved to Beheading of John the Baptist per the first sentence of MOS:SAINTS: 'Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint", if such a title is available and the saint is the primary topic for that name.' Thoughts? Or do we all need to discuss this further at WP:NCCL (or somewhere)? Mojoworker (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point on the John the Baptist page. I'd like to discuss the in-text use as well, as almost all the Saint and related pages I've edited have mixed use of 'Saint' and 'St.' within the same page when referring to the person and not a church or other use, which I've been changing to 'Saint' throughout. WP:NCCL is a new one on me. Thanks for your clarification. Randy Kryn 01:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Beheading of St John the Baptist is essentially about the feasts, relics, art etc, with very little about the "person in question". The 2nd bit you quote seems again to refer to the biographies of saints; elsewhere I think RSs should be our guide. The policy could probably do with clarification, though I would not support much more prescriptiveness. Lots of WP policies are often taken to say more than they actually do. Obviously internal consistency should be the Ideal in articles. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Have brought the question to the WP:NCCL talkpage. Yes, internal text consistency should be uniform, and 'Saint' and 'St.' have been used almost at random in article page text and even in the same paragraphs and sentences. This probably ought to be clarified as either one or the other when referring to individual people. Randy Kryn 13:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Reconstruction

Hey Randy. In this edit I think you misread the term Second Reconstruction as Black Reconstruction. I wanted to restore this edit if that was the case. I've never encountered the term Black Reconstruction to describe the Civil Rights Movement. However, the term Second Reconstruction is one of the most used terms to denote the CRM. Mitchumch (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's one I never heard anyone from the movement use or refer to as a descriptor of their actions. What is being reconstructed? Certainly it is not a common enough descriptor to be one of the three boldfaced names of the Civil Rights Movement. Randy Kryn 17:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you saying you've never heard of Black Reconstruction and/or Second Reconstruction being used? Mitchumch (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not to any degree of notability, but apparently it was used even at the time. The people I knew well never used it to my memory, and Bruce H. says it's an inside baseball academia term but is used extensively enough, so, personal preference aside, I'll revert my edit. Nice work lately, by the way, glad you are here. Randy Kryn 18:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The term is credited to the 1955 book The Strange Career of Jim Crow by C. Vann Woodward. Consequently, the term has been in circulation since that time. I agree with Bruce that its use is largely an academic affair. Look at Google Ngram for its use since the 1950s.

My objection was to it being used as one of the three main boldfaced names for the movement. Would be nice if the article were formerly named Civil Rights Movement, as you are encouraging. The n-grams are not uniform for the movement, as it goes by several names, including our use on the page. Thanks for your attention to detail. Randy Kryn 18:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll place the term in the note. According to "Separate section usage" in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section guideline:

"Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves."

I would like to create an "Etymology" or "Name" section, but am using the note as a standby. Mitchumch (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If only...

...I hadn't yet chosen a Wikipedia name. Randy Kryn 19:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Family of William Shakespeare

Template:Family of William Shakespeare has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Opera hat (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC notification

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Alice}}, {{Peter_Pan}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

Seeing and listening to Wikipedia edits as they occur. copied from Randy Kryn to WP:The end of Wikipedia 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I picked it up from some user page, but have seen it on quite a few. A nice link to spread around. Randy Kryn 20:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I honored WP:Copying within Wikipedia, as required. I think it is a way to wile away the hours... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Chess variants navbox

I most certainly thank you very much for your work there today, even if the 104 notifications I got from it were rather surprising. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Double sharp, looks like I missed this one when I was notified of the note below. You're welcome, and the note appreciated. I don't remember what those edits were about, but getting 104 notifications means you've contributed immensely to the topic (whatever it was), so thank you very much. Nice work. Randy Kryn 02:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Article for deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Thomas. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This American Life edits

Thanks for these. I'm shocked that I didn't do it myself years ago. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome. A pleasure and learning experience on several levels to go on italic runs, where I came across those pages. Randy Kryn 23:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, much appreciated. Randy Kryn 13:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind message on my talkpage. Have a nice day :-) Blaue Max (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

5th Dimension

I removed this section because it was saved prematurely. It's currently in my Sandbox and will be reposted later today. deisenbe (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just gave a thanks because it look good and your commentary about the proposed addition was spot on. Nice work. Randy Kryn 14:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It's back up. I'd appreciate an expression of support there. deisenbe (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

CRM

Hey Randy. For "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) in popular culture", that wikilink now is in the " In popular culture" section. Therefore, I removed it from "See also" section. For the Harlem riot of 1964, it was part of the CRM. Please listen to:

• "Remembering the Harlem Riot of 1964". The Brian Lehrer Show. July 16, 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2017.

If you want more, then listen to:

• "Who Speaks for Harlem?". The NYPR Archive Collections. July 26, 1964. Retrieved 31 May 2017.

I am integrating all the content following the "Civil Rights Act of 1968" section into the "Key events" section. Afterwards, I will start to create sections and subsections that provide structure to that content. The main article hasn't changed since 2006. It is in dire need of structure. Mitchumch (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been a mess but I've hesitated to work on it because of the amount of change the page needs and knowing how much of the timeline and information about James Bevel's overall role which has not been worked into it. Someone else should do that and add to what I have included, but as yet nobody else has added the information in my papers on Bevel into it or the SCLC page. And no, riots in Harlem had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Movement, or they are so tangential - as are many of the events covered on the page - it takes a major stretch to include it. Why other editors can't understand or draw the straight lines which connect the main actions of King, SCLC, Bevel, a few others in the Nashville Student Movement, the Mississippi activists, and just a handful of other events to everything proposed and accomplished in the Civil Rights Movement (i.e. the three major civil rights acts in 1964, 1965, and 1968) has puzzled me. The timeline is direct, seeable, and easily explained, and I don't know why the page meanders over so many tangential topics to try to explain and otherwise define the clearly thought-out and acted upon strategies which obtained the results sought: the end of legal and quasi-legal segregation in the United States. Randy Kryn 20:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Randy, you and I aren't doing the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have a thesis you want to present on Wikipedia based on your paper "James L. Bevel, The Strategist of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement", 1984 paper with 1988 addendum, printed in We Shall Overcome, Volume II edited by David Garrow, New York: Carlson Publishing Co., 1989. I want to summarize all the academic literature of the CRM - monographs, journal articles, thesis, dissertations, and conference papers. Harlem is part of the body of academic literature on the CRM. As well as, other cities throughout the US - north, south, east, and west.

It does not take a stretch to include the Harlem riots in the main article. NAACP and CORE offices were also outside the southern United States - including Harlem.

Did you listen to the two broadcast I linked? Mitchumch (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice to get the page right without tangential events. I listened to the first link and there is nothing related to the successful organized Civil Rights Movement within it, it's a report about a six-day riot over a shooting incident. My two main published papers contain much information which isn't presented within Wikipedia's main movement pages, the King page, and our SCLC page, and as they are included in the academic literature then they, too, as well as other work on Bevel's role, could be mentioned further in those articles. There is a relevant quote from one of Taylor Branch's books - "He confronted Bevel, who had been a mentor to Jackson and Young, as a genius who flummoxed his own heart. “You don’t like to work on anything that isn’t your own idea,” said King. “Bevel, I think you owe me one.” - which explains, probably without Branch knowing the importance of what he confirmed, the airtight closeness of the King-Bevel team that actually agreed on what the major accomplishments of the movement would be and how they would accomplish them. King saying to Bevel in 1968 "I think you owe me one" gives voice and definition to what had come before. Randy Kryn 21:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand your thesis. But, you are not understanding the point of Wikipedia. Your definition of a tangential event seems to be any event that is tangential to your thesis. The main article is not dedicated to advance your thesis.

I know you don't mean any harm Randy, but you're trying to achieve in Wikipedia what was not achieved through academic channels. And you have marginalized work of other scholars whose work is widely cited and accepted in the mainstream of this social movement. Would you accept that treatment if the shoe was on the other foot? Mitchumch (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

? Untrue, and my work here has shown that. I've never marginalized other scholars, and of course the full academic history should be presented on the page, which is all I'm saying as well. Yet the 1964 Harlem riots, and other acts counter to nonviolence, which was the core and backbone of the Civil Rights Movement, certainly seem tangential. Some historians may believe violence and disruptive anger was part of the movement, but in actuality those actions either harmed or were ignored by the movement strategists and organizers who were successful on a year-by-year basis. Your work on the page and others is fine and well documented, but by including what on other articles could be called fringe theories (the Harlem riots? Seriously, how are they part of the movement?) you may be diluting the meaning, essence, and direct factual events of what the Civil Rights Movement set out to do and what it accomplished. Randy Kryn 00:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding why I moved the Harlem riots into the "Key events" section. There is no body of literature that states the riot was a campaign planned by some individual or organization. However, it was a key event during the CRM. No different than Birmingham riot of 1963 in Birmingham. The Harlem riot is considered a catalyst of the riots that followed - all 550 plus riots until 1970. You can't remove that event from the article. It is regularly written about in overview histories of the CRM. Mitchumch (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed it once, you put it back, which is what started this discussion and your assessment of my motives. Your premise is that the Harlem riot and other riots are "key events" in the Civil Rights Movement while I suggest that in Wikipedia terms the riots are tangential even if sourced, are not even close to being key events, and are unrelated as they were not organized or participated in by movement leaders and policy makers. The CRM and its continual and uncompromising use of nonviolence to address seemingly insurmountable social errors is one thing, hooliganism is another. Giving excess weight to sources which mash those two diametrically opposed concepts together under the term 'Civil Rights Movement' assures that the article has no central theme or definition, assumes that the nation somehow lurched towards the three Civil Rights Acts, and implies to the readers that the surrounding national dialogue and eventual acceptance that legal segregation should and must end was brought about by something other than the purposeful use and calculated precision of sustained nonviolence. Randy Kryn 11:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is WP:Reliable sources. Also, I will change the "Key events" section heading to "History". Like I said earlier, I will be adding sections and subsections to that entire section. Are you also okay with my removal of "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) in popular culture" from the "See also" section? That wikilink is now in the "In popular culture" section.

Also, which sections within "History" are tangential events? Mitchumch (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The move is fine, thanks. The sections on the riots all seem tangential except for the King assassination events. Of course sources are the priority and the way Wikipedia determines notability, yet we could probably find dozens of sources saying that the CRM was organized as a nonviolent movement. This then makes the sources at odds with one another because rioting people are not nonviolent and the rioters were not participants in the CRM or acting under any CRM principal or goal. So how are the riots directly related enough to warrant entire sections on the article, given that defining sources label the movement nonviolent? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think there has been some miscommunication. You are correct that the rioters were not participants in the CRM. However, the underlying causes of the riots were something CRM participants had to contend with - CORE and NAACP were in Harlem/NYC. Excluding riots that occurred between 1963-70 is not possible since they were a major event during the CRM.

To respond to the "entire sections" point, I am not seeking to make the riots separate sections. I am trying to merge all the content following the "History" section into it. Until then, the sectioning of the "History" section should be regarded as temporary. Mitchumch (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

89th Academy Awards Presenters table

This is just a friendly reminder, that just because there is no "consensus" as to whose names to include on a table or list doesn't mean that your edit is the default one to which everything must revert, particularly if your edit if radically different from convention. Greggens (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

new image for Buckminster Fuller Dome Home

Hello, we are trying to add this image to the Buckminster Fuller Dome Home page. Piratecinema (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Fuller pages could use all the images we can muster! Randy Kryn (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

'60 Counterculture Timeline/Meth

Hey Randy, I disagree with your edit that speed was not associated with the counterculture. I will find good sources before re-posting. We can discuss if you still disagree. Hey, don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember, and it wasn't pretty :) :) Best Wishes Always! Learner001 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Learner001. Well, maybe it was around but so were lots of other things which aren't highlighted with a section on the page. For the second item in the article to be one of dubious connection (even with sources) to the counter-culture concept seems to give it more weight in the topic than it actually had. The counter-culture was involved in many things, and if speed is one of them maybe it should be highlighted in the run-up section as one of many more. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss Memorial

Please don't add Dr. Seuss Memorial to Dr. Seuss-related articles. It's already in the {{Dr._Seuss}} navigation box, directly below. Per WP:SEEALSO, "as a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." TJRC (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello TJRC. I'll give you my reasoning and see if you might revert back. "As a general rule" means there are exceptions to the rule. In this case most if not all of the Dr. Seuss template are collapsed, so any content can only be seen if the reader deliberately opens it, which may be rare. So the access to the link to the Dr. Seuss National Memorial is pretty much hidden. It's tucked away in there for only the discerning, determined, or lucky to find. Is the Dr. Seuss National Memorial pretty important to unaware Seuss fans or other readers who don't know about it? I'd argue 'yep', it's really neat to find. A few minutes after I learned about it I started sharing it in obviously related articles, which were missing a nice direct "hey, pointing this out to you" link. This was easily accomplished by linking it within the 'See also' sections. So if the exception to the rule counts too, per the words "general rule" (which allow for probably a large percentage of edits to fall into it given the softness of the words) I'd submit that informing Dr. Seuss fans that an entire Dr. Seuss National Memorial is up and running complete with statues and green space, to let them know about that, I'd ask you to consider if that counts as an exception to a "general rule". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

How does it differ from all the other articles in that template to justify not being covered by the general rule? TJRC (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I put the links on the pages I did because there are statues of those characters as a key part of the National Memorial. A directly related-to-the-page connection. As for the other items on the template, a good point. Of course the books and media productions directly related to the pages probably already exist on the page anyway. And the 'Related' items should be directly involved, such as is fulfilled in these additions by the existence of the statues at the site. The best way to probably do this may be to write a brief sentence that a "statue of (fill in the blank) is a feature of the Dr. Seuss National Memorial...etc." and pop those in an appropriate place in the text itself and not on 'See also'. Does that sound okay? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you're looking at this the wrong way around. Wikilinking is supposed to serve the article; the article is not there as a medium into which to insert wikilinks. If the article naturally refers to the memorial, it should be mentioned; and that mention should be wikilinked. But a reference to the memorial should not be inserted as a vehicle to add a wikilink to it. An editor's enthusiasm for a particular topic, such as the Seuss Memorial, does not mean that the topic should be introduced into tangentially-related articles for the purpose of inserting links to draw reader to the linked article.

If the article doesn't naturally require the reference to the memorial, it should be left out. If you still think there should be a wikilink to the memorial, the See also section is the place that that goes; except in cases like here, where a collection of similarly-related articles is set out in the navbox. Then you rely on the navbox.

In short, there's nothing broken here to fix. The Seuss articles already have links to the memorial article, at the appropriate level of prominence. TJRC (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing tangential about it, there are statues of each of the characters that the link was posted on as part of the National Memorial. How many notable statues of, for example, The Lorax, exist? Only one as far as I know, the one at the Dr. Seuss National Memorial. Linking the Lorax statue to the Lorax page is a natural link. It just needs more of a descriptor than the name of the Memorial, and should mention the individual statue itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I disagree on that, but now we're just getting into matters of opinion, not Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and my opinion is no more elevated that yours. If you were to add it to or create an "In popular culture" section with an appropriate citation to an WP:RS (in particular, note the requirement that the source be an independent third party), and indicating its importance to the subject, I would likely not revert. The reliable third-party sourcing is important, though. A cite to, for example, the memorial's own web page, or to a blog by someone who visited there, would not be sufficient. If the presence of the statue really is notable, surely it would have been noted in such a source. If it hasn't been, that's a pretty good sign that it shouldn't be included. The principle behind WP:OR is that Wikipedia is the not the place for first-publishing information. TJRC (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi TJRC. I realized about an hour ago that "of course, the language of the guideline is out-of-date" in the 'See also' guideline that tells editors that if something is on a template then you can remove it from the 'See also' section. It's outdated because a sad kind-of-new fact about Wikipedia is that half the readers don't see the templates. They don't get them on lots of mobile devices, and so miss out on a Wikipedia artform which provides maps of the site to knowledgeable readers and researchers. Since half the people piping-in the site are doing so on these tech carry-around devices that remove templates from the page, that 'See also' guideline language outdated, and can probably just be updated. Then a well written sentence about the statues at the Dr. Seuss Memorial should be able to be added to the 'See also' sections of the appropriate pages, so the mobile readers get a chance to know about the Monument and the statues too. Make sense? I haven't looked for more sources that the Memorial exists, I tend not to click on random links, but I'd think if it doesn't exist someone would have called Wikipedia on a 2005 long-term hoax article by now. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

p.s., I started a guideline language change discussion on the layout 'See also' guideline talk page, here. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Guardian Angel of Portugal

Hi Randy, why did you change the year here: [2]? Did you find the year 1917 in Lucia's Memoirs? – JohnnyWiki (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the book. It's 1916. – JohnnyWiki (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

JohnnyWiki, I forgot this was here, and am just getting back to it. Looking at it, my thinking seems to have been that the text was of course talking about the 1917 apparitions, because I'd never really consciously known about, or put into my mental map of the event, a group of 1916 apparitions of angels. Thanks for pointing it out, and for correcting it. My apologies that it was on the page for so long. That's what's really nice about collab projects, things may fade off a factual point occasionally, but as time goes by a good editor will come by, find it, and fix it. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And also, when I made the change of the year, the sentence read "In her Memoirs, Sister Lúcia of Fátima tells that, between April and October, 1916, during the Apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima, an angel appeared three times to the three children, inviting them to the praying and penitence", and, knowing that the Lady of Fatima events were from 1917, thought that 1916 was a mistake, and changed it. I see that now the sentence reads 'before' instead of 'during', so that's what misled me along with my non-knowledge of those 'sightings'. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Jr.

An editor has violated WP:RM protocol at Chris Columbus, Jr. and has been reverted. As you are involved in a discussion over a similar issue at Talk:Buffalo Bill Jr., you may wish to be aware. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Lawrence of Rome has been nominated for discussion

Category:Lawrence of Rome, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. You are being notified because you took place in the recent RM on Saint Lawrence. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

AfD for public artwork

Hey, curious if you have any opinion on the possible deletion of the Benito Juárez (Martinez) article. No worries if not interested! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Statues and other public artworks, especially those of historical figures, seem to be notable by their existence and municipal interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment. Anyone is welcome to join!

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Issues

I saw you added two links to {{Francesca da Rimini}}, but you only added the template to one of those links. Why? Also, I was looking for a response over at WT:CLN

Hi Tony, thanks for the reminder, an oversight and added it. I'll look at the CLN comments, I know you alerted me but I'd put it off and forgot about it. There are so many political threads and nooks and crannies here that I hesitate to go to those for days at a time, and that particular thread is being discussed (or was) by just three or four editors and has turned into a maze of sub-threads, so I was avoiding it and forgot to get back. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Camille Claudel

Fascinating article. Its written a bit informally, with some editorialising here and there. It has a great story yes. Ceoil (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil, hi, it seems Claudel is one of those unknown stories in English, she's much more known in France and Europe. One of the most compelling art stories in the last couple of hundred years, along with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and a few other events. I found at least one youtube talk about her in English, and it showed many more of her works than I remember seeing in Commons, but looked at her Commons page only once a while back. The Wikipedia page probably needs a gallery, which I'll get to within a day if nobody else tosses one up first. If Commons doesn't have all her artwork, it seems like a good artist and topic to get collection-completion on. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and would be delighted to see a gallery. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead if you'd like, and maybe I'll nudge it around a bit. Or I could put in about twenty minutes now. I only learned of her two months ago, she's a story of some magnitude. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

And I was wrong, Commons seems to have the works I saw in the documentary. One of her masterpieces there was done when she was 17 and before she met Rodin. That should be on the page itself, and I'll see if I can pop it in. Will have to focus on the gallery tomorrow, so please start if you feel it's one you'd want to play with. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong again, I mistook another image for her sculpture at age 17, and in a quick check I don't think Commons has it. Glad my attention is back on her. Seems many of the Commons images lack names and descriptors, and even found a couple of year mistakes in there. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries, and its late here. night. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Haven't felt the "pull" as yet to get back to this. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Enjoy the bursts of humor In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!, and there is always seriousness implied (well, maybe not always). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your kind 'Paris' words

Hello, and thanks again for your kind words. Out of curiousity: how did you come across my work, and why me in particular? I was not alone in my endeavours ; ) You just taught me a lesson, though: editing wikipedia is often a tedious struggle, but a show of appreciation makes it seem all worthwhile; I will try from here on to extend the same to remarkable contributors. Thank you! TP ✎ ✓ 08:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ThePromenader, and you're quite welcome. Became aware of your work after seeing your edits on the Paris page history, and reading your user page. Yes, you and others (I thanked one other awhile back) have helped to shape and guide the English reader's knowledge and appreciation of Paris, and for this you are to be commended. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Musical instruments in art

I could see there being Category:Sculptures of musical instruments, as a subcategory of Category:Musical instruments in art and Category:Musical sculptures. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

If you can see into the future you are a Wikiclairvoyant, which is cool. Will get back to all of this in the a.m. But yes, good idea. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh!, and Category:Paintings of musical instruments. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

That would kind of take up the whole category, so maybe just the statues category and not the paintings (i.e. 'Dogs in art' compared to the more boring 'Paintings of dogs in art') which would take some of the energy out of it as well as for brevity. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Bill Hicks navigational template

WP:EXISTING states that red links are allowed only when it is very likely they will be developed into articles. Yes, it is possible that someone might create them at some point in the future, but it's not likely to happen anytime soon (especially since they are not recently created works), and the inclusion of these links violates WP:EXISTING. The red links should be removed, unless you can explain how it is very likely they will be developed into articles. Thank you. -- (Radiphus) 13:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's Bill Hicks, so it's very likely pages will be written at some point (Wikipedia has no deadlines). Maybe a few can be taken out, but that is a judgment call about which ones to keep and which to delete, so please be selective and careful when removing any and not just a wholesale red-link clearing. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Which ones would you say should be kept? -- (Radiphus) 16:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Radiphus. I couldn't say, not being versed on Bill Hicks' career. Maybe a note on the talk page of his article would get a good response from more knowledgeable editors. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. Since you had some involvement with the The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, don't mind if I do. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding_new_article_links.2C_only_Top-importance_Christianity_articles

Please become aware of long WP:CON on adding links to this template. See Adding_new_article_links.2C_only_Top-importance_Christianity_articles on the take page. tahc ^chat 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Memorials to Martin Luther King Jr.

Randy: I believe it was good that there was a spin of this section from the main article: "Memorials and eponymous places and buildings". Although, the link is only a "See also" on the main article and I thought it should have a lead-in or at least linked to Memorials to Martin Luther King Jr., in the Main Article. What do you think? Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kierzek, sounds good, seems like you have a clear picture in your mind about where you'd like to take it. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of something similar to how it is done in the JFK main article, but do not have time to do it at the moment. Kierzek (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kierzek. There is no time on Wikipedia, it goes on and on, like in a Star Trek transporter. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

• As EEng says, for those who are playing along at home: this has come about because I've made the far-out claim that Saint Joseph (as "Joseph") should be on the Christianity sidebar and footer templates. The discussion, limited to three editors, [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list#Formal nomination: Joseph seems to have gained consensus]] (can't link because of the coding, but you get the idea) while the disputing editor claims that no consensus can be found and seems to have closed the discussion. Alas, Joseph has found no room at the inn on the templates and list, at least in the sole opinion of one editor. Please have a look if you care to weigh-in or look-in. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS:TITLES merge

This has been flagged for merging since 2014, without objection. If you have an issue to raise, the discussion is already open at WT:MOS#Merger of scattered and redundant material to MOS:TITLES.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

italics and name

I saw your temporary note on the Ash Wednesday talk page. There were a number of Eliot's poems first published as books/booklets/pamphlets and thus deserve the italics but they were then collected. The standard practice in Eliot literature is that they use the quotation marks. Exceptions are The Waste Land and Four Quartets due to the length of the poems. I've seen the titles of the poems comprising 4Q done both ways. Thanks for the effort you put in. WikiParker (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. After you reverted and put up a note I quickly looked into it more and saw the book included more than the one poem. Thanks for your vigilance on the Eliot pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Why?

Why did my user page get 545 views on November 22? It's not like I shot JFK or anything (at least on purpose, accidently dropped the rifle three times after eating a sloppy jelly donut from the commissary while having lunch with Lee, a bit of bad luck there). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Randy Kryn. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Randy - Thank you so so much for the kind note!! I can't tell you how much it means to me. Seriously. Encouragement means the world. (Obv. feel free to delete this note here.) Tlinse (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. This is a good place to edit and enjoy the process, so (to coin a phrase) the bumps in the road even out in a rainstorm (well, I'd better uncoin that phrase, not a very good one). I'd better think of deleting most of this page soon. Good to meet you, enjoy the virtual travels. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Help on Template:Nuclear weapons limitation treaty

Greetings. I've posted my query on the WikiProject:Military History talk page, but I thought just maybe I'd learn more by reaching out individually. Thanks in advance for any advice you might lend. I came across this template while familiarizing myself with topics as they relate to the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize article. If, by chance, you could offer further advice on improving that article as well, I'd greatly appreciate it. As you might guess, I'm learning by doing. Litjade (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Will take a look, thanks for thinking of me. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Hello. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Poppy.Computer Tour. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Itsbydesign (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Your edits I reverted are sourced on the links to the tour and in other links, so yes, editors do not own pages. I didn't create the page, nor add the infobox image, which was pre-tour, so your new poster image seems like a good addition. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years update. The only edit which stuck from the templater was the new infobox image, which is a good one and makes this attempted scolding all worthwhile. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Gotham Controversial Moves

Hello. Just so you know, I have removed the requests for The Last Laugh and Mommy's Little Monster, seeing that they were not the only subjects with those titles. I will be adding more episode move requests, however, because of the recent moves, so keep a lookout if you wish. Thank you. JE98 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Randy Kryn!!


Hi Randy Kryn, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and I wish you the best as well. Nice card. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move discussions

As you have participated in previous discussions on closely related topics, please see the ongoing requested move discussions at Talk:Oxford Book of Carols, Talk:New Oxford Book of Carols, and Talk:Anglican Missal. Cheers, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Randy Kryn. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 1,721 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Zoo - newsletter No.2 -2017

Newsletter Nr 2, 2017-12-30, for WikiProject Zoo Wikiproject Zoo wish you a Happy New Year 2018 The activity within the project has been rather low this year, and therefore we want to tell you that any kind of help to develop the project further next year will be extremely valued, like meking some of the red links blue, and participating any categorizing or whatever you want! Participation: This is the second newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoo, to everyone who added yourself as a member of the Wikiproject Zoo. This is the second such message, however we hope that this can be used to coordinate editing and development of articles later down the road. If you wish to opt out of further messages remove yourself from the mailing list here , and if consider yourself not active within the project, please remove yourself from member list here. For Wikiproject Zoo general discussions and suggestions, please use the project talk page. Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Cheers from your WikiProject Zoo coordinator Dan Koehl. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Please change your approach with the new year

I wish you a happy and editorially satisfactory 2018. To that end, I have to encourage you to rethink some things. It's not really plausible to me that it's enjoyable for you to get embroiled in doomed style and article titles disputes again and gain, which you seem to pick based primarily by how unlikely they are to succeed.

What Tony1 said here was not a compliment at all, and you're badly missing the point. It's getting alarming, the frequency (and ferocity) with which you oppose or support something based on nothing but one or more of the following:

• Lack of understanding of the proposal (hint: ask for clarification)
• Uncertainty of your own views about the proposal, its effects, or its basis (hint: the proper comment is neutral, or comment, not oppose or support)
• A purely "I [don't] like it" standpoint – whatever best matches your personal PoV-laden sense of traditionalism. [Hint: use policy- or source-based reasoning, not personal opinion.]

The last of these is particularly disruptive and of especial concern. You're bringing to Wikipedia a subjective, external concern rooted in personal convictions, and are completely outspoken about this behing your intent. That is not going to end well; it's exactly what got Darkfrog topic banned from a particular style-and-titles topic and then from all of MoS, and that wasn't the first time it's happened. You're using this individual sense of righteousness to directly oppose the WP:P&G and their application to your hand-selected articles or categories. This makes these antics a multi-pronged policy problem, of language preservationism activism and treating WP as a battleground, to "right great wrongs" and proselytize your vision of the Truth.

Your participation in WP style and titles matters has mostly been an annoying drain on others' editorial time, all because you're fixating on a handful of style nit-picks, imagine the worst about most any propositions involving style (and seemingly about those proposing them), and will not accept that consensus isn't with you no matter how many times you get the same answer (e.g., your 6+ months of tendentious resistance against MOS:JR at RM after RM). Multiple unnecessary, predicable RfCs have been started simply to deal with FUD you've wrongfully injected into routine discussions. This really, really needs to come to a close. There has to be something more productive for you to do around here.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not too long before writing this SMcClandish directly addressed my concern about the names of chess moves by taking it off the table at the RfC which had caused his itch. Instead of thanking me for inspiring him to do this he seems to want to complain about my editing style and other things he is holding a wiki-grudge about. He seems to have placed a few burrs under his saddle and is claiming that I put them there. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ad hominem aspersions, and discretionary sanctions

Most importantly, your continual ad hominem personalization of style disputes (e.g., finger-pointing at partiuclar editors like me and Dicklyon, maybe also EEng – I've lost track – because you have a personality-based axe to grind with them [hint: address propositions on their own merits]) is absolutely against ArbCom discretionary sanctions (WP:AC/DS) rulings, and for that reason I'm making sure that you're fully aware of them:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

PS: I don't like AC/DS being applied to MoS (or to much of anything), and I hate this menacing-looking temlate, which I've been trying to get changed or dispensed with since ca. 2015. However, ArbCom presently requires that it be delivered to regular editors of any page subject to AC/DS. It's weird that you have not already received this yet, a long time ago.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For those playing at home, as EEng says (problem with EEng? EEng can often run rings around your logic just by standing still), SMc is miffed and taking it out on me here because I've been advocating that things be called by their real names. He "lost" at The Player's Championship, he planned on changing the most iconic name in sports, The Open Championship but hopefully has dropped that one after The Player's Championship stuck to its real name, he may or may not be miffed that I've pointed out that he wants to lower-case all the chess moves, like King's Gambit, which have been upper-cased for centuries, and I've tried to reason with him on his talk page (a link to one of my edits there, they're tucked nice and unsnug into the page history) that although he is a fine policy lawyer and writer, and is probably the only one who knows what's in MOS because he is constantly tinkering with it, he has a blind-spot in not realizing that an encyclopedia should use real names. When an encyclopedia, for example, calls King's Gambit king's gambit, it loses credibility, and advocating that those type of moves occur actually hurts the project. Some of us are working to correct the public perception that Wikipedia is inaccurate because of our "anyone can edit" policy. Wanting to change the name of The Open Championship sure isn't making the task of gaining Wikipedia as much credibility as it can any easier. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Christmas lights cheerfully decorate a large template

Update: SMcClandish wrote a few hours ago, just before coming here to give me a good but not-very-insightful going over, that he's changed his mind on lower-casing the chess moves. So that's one good thing coming from a good faith discussion, and instead of thanking me for pointing out this exception he comes by to award me a template and to rant about his misconceptions of intent (not to mention giving me a chance to give SMcC a lesson in recognizing satire). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You've established a habit now, a pattern that looks like "you were arguably wrong about two capitalization RMs back when, so I'm going to try to poison every capitals argument you make by referring irrelevantly to them over and over and over again in hyperbolic arguments to emotion, to make it all about questioning your judgement". These are the matches you're most likely to light yourself on fire with, for reasons that the huge ugly template up there makes very clear. Just to lead you very directly to it: "avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages". At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded [3]. This is the last time I'll try to dissuade you. I'll make it detailed and clear, not curt and pissy. If you want to blow it off again as "running off to my talk page to put up a you're-a-bad-editor lecture", that's on you. If I can put up with and read every word of two "you and your lower-casing brings Wikipedia into ill repute" screeds from you (including a three-paragraph one), you can handle one long post from me. I'll even box it th detailed part.
(Aside: the "WP loses credibility when it doesn't capitalize or use 'The' in the way I like" premise is easily disproven by the fact that various RS do not do it, including for all the cases you care about, yet they remain RS and they would not if they were in ill repute – reputability is the defining characteristic of a reliable source, per WP:RS. QED. What really happens is Randy doesn't like it and some people who like to write that specialist way don't like it, though only a tiny handful of them could possibly be unaware that different publishers have different style standards; meanwhile no one else in the world GaF, and we care on WP only because permitting weird exceptions without very stringent sourcing that backs them up inspires constant editorial warfare about style trivia.)

Back to the issues I'm using user talk for:

"EEng can often run rings around your logic just by standing still" (which may be true) is more WP:BATTLEGROUND nonsense. No, EEng and I are not going to come put on a gladiatorial display for your amusement, and it's not any other form of contest. Some of us take this project seriously, and you manufacturing "never give up, never surrender" pseudo-disputes about style (why? to keep yourself entertained?), is negatively impacting other editors, a massive time-sink. Making yet more extraneous accusations after it's already been explained to you why that's a bad idea and why the old history you're dredging up has no relation to the present RfC at all, is a really bad sign. Even worse is the fact that you're still pursuing this "traditionalism" and "respect" and "true names" angle to push over-capitalization, after multiple editors have explained to you repeatedly why we do not and cannot do it – that the entire point of MOS:CAPS is to not do it. If you think two RMs (among hundreds) went your preferred way did so for reasons that had anything to do with that philosophy, you're sadly mistaken; they did because the sourcing for their capitalization was (marginally) within the "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" range. Definitely not the case with nine men's morris, etc. And the entire approach is wrongheaded; you want to capitalize on the basis of "capitalize if 50.00001% of specialized sources do it", when our approach is "do not capitalize anything unless about 95% of all sources do it". Next, everything you've been writing suggests you're laboring under the fantasy that I have a secret plot against those consensus discussions' results; the fact is that I do not. And you know I don't, since I spelled this out very clearly here. We both know you read it, because you actually got angry that I did so [4]. You even felt the need to claim credit, when it was IHTS who inspired the clarification (note who I was replying to – not you). Your doing that is particularly damning, indicating this is some kind of personal glory game to you – you're crowing that your WP:WIN in arm-wrestling me into a concession (it's not one, it's an observation about topical scope) isn't being recognized. Yet it's all just imaginary, as is me nefariously manipulating the discussion (I was simply giving enough of a damn to point you to the discussion with a convenience link, but you leapt directly into assuming bad faith). Anyway, those RMs about chess openings and the golf tournament were decided, the closes seem reasonable, and we've moved on. Well, I've moved on, and you clearly have not. The link you just provided to a previous post by you at my talk page? It's an impassioned argument for "the Civil Rights Movement" in glorious capitals – a style most sources do not use, and which WP doesn't either (just go look at the article). There's only one editor here not letting go of old RMs and similar discussions, and it's clearly not me. See also months of your re-re-re-litigation of MOS:JR on a page-by-page basis. This is exactly why we have a WP:NOTGETTINGIT behavioral guideline. Even your entire rationale, if you can call it that, for opposing nine men's morris, etc., being lowercase is "SMcCandlish was wrong about The Players's Championship", dwelling on unrelated stuff in the past, ignoring the substance of the discussion you're "participating in" (read: derailing for no reason with ad hominem bullshit). You're projecting negative inventions of your own imagination onto me and acting in a "style warrior" manner on the basis of your constructed straw man apparition, not on what I'm actually saying.

Same goes for your approach to Dicklyon, Tony1, and others. The one thing in common? It's always about style matters. This is not a fluke, it's a provable pattern of unconstructive, tendentious, ad hominem behavior in a single WP:AC/DS-covered area, for which the DS were explicitly authorized for the single and only reason of stopping exactly that kind of behavior. This is what topic bans are made for, and it's the remedy WP:AE usually applies, and certainly did the last time someone took this approach to style disputes (eventually an indef block that lasted a year, because the party in question wouldn't stop re-re-re-litigating, another pattern you share). If I actually wanted that result, we'd already be at AE now. I took the time to write all this in hopes of avoiding that.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Instead of going point by point over this, most of which you probably perceive as the opposite of the intent I had in working with the issues, I'll discuss the most recent one, which triggered you into not accurately reading what I wrote. My concern that you wanted to lower-case all of the chess moves with an end-around RfC initially aimed at lower-casing all the Morris games caused me to bring up my objection, and you quickly took chess terminology off the table and then criticized me for not biolocating into the future to see that you'd done so. When I thanked you for taking it off the table, you even turned that into some kind of battleground, failing to recognize that you had addressed my legitimate concern and that I was telling you I appreciated the response. Addressing concerns is how it is done on Wikipedia, but by not realizing that I was thanking you, you kept a defensive under-attack mode. Another editor in that same RfC also tried to clarify the intent of the proposal, and, after you politely answered their concerns, they wanted more clarification, you went to their talk-page and gave them a bad-editor lecture and the same kind of large template that you placed here (which I've happily decorated for Russian Christmas). An intent to silence what you perceive as your opposition with wiki-legal threats - a gaming thing you've picked up somewhere - may again be a blind spot in your editing style. The other editor who had asked for clarification, when you did the same I-could-silence-you-with-Wiki-rules thing on their talk page, just deleted your threats with an edit summary telling you to fuck off. I've kept this conversation going in hopes that, in addition to you realizing that I have no problem with Dicklyon or Tony or EEng (Dicklyon and I have spared in the past, and wrested out a couple of major name changes, but I certainly like the fellow. Tony, I've actually never had much inter-reaction with. And EEng, no, never any problems), but my point concerning you recently planning to change the name of possibly the most iconic name in sports, which I have brought up quite a few times, I do think it shows that you do have a blind spot. So my present purpose for continuing this long conversation over your talk page and mine, and not quickly ending it, is to focus on that blind spot. Why? Because you are one of the people that have built Wikipedia into what it is today, and you continue to do so on a day-by-day basis. That is so admirable and beneficial to the project that it is worth taking the time to address concerns that others can see in you. So I ask, what was your thinking and motivation in recently wanting to change The Open Championship to Open Championship (golf)? Because therein lies the blind spot, and maybe by talking about it you can nudge it open a little bit. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I just realized that the incorrect accusations about who I have problems with not only deserves a longer answer but also gives me a chance to talk about them. Do you know who I have problems with? The one-and-only editor I have problems with is woodensuperman. He and I have more what's-best-for-Wikipedia discussions to come. Yet in the midst of that I've grown to like that fellow. He and I have vastly differing viewpoints on a few issues, but when he does something I also like, it's nice to see his artwork.

As for the others, Tony, EEng, and Dicklyon, the first is easy. I have never had any problems Tony, he and I have never really clashed to my memory, although we are on opposite sides of some things, and to my memory have never had much inter-action at all. EEng, for those playing at home, is unique in Wikipedia. A master at working on policy with both a dedication and sense of humor, while at the same time hosting a user page which is like going to a good museum (and takes about as long to get through - I now realize I've never really given it the time it deserves). Anyway, EEng's and my conversations have been few, brief, and to the point. I keep his talk page, which is legendary in some corners of Wikipedia, on my watchlist, but really only read his page when I see one of the rare but not uncommon (to coin a phrase) times that an administrator will step in to sanction EEng in some form or other. So I wander over when I see a particular kind of edit summary, and if it is an air-bombardment met with his and the other visiting editors humorous but intelligent counter-points, then I may chime in. He's one of Wikipedia's treasures - as are all of these editors including SMcClandish, and we're lucky to have them here. When I was kind of mean initially, telling SMcClandish my feelings about comparing his and EEng's work, the limited viewpoint I was writing from at that moment was that SMcClandish is a master of policy while EEng not only does that just as well but does it while operating an interesting, entertaining, and educational user and talk pages. And those time when, believe it or not, the user and talk page have to be defended (but defended kind of like Neo at the end of the first Matrix) from actual Wikipedia administrators who have a wiki-legal-rule or two to either go after EEng himself - usually for something educationally clever that he's put in an edit summary or some such nonsense - or to try to take a few hatchets to his two creations, other admins and editors protect his work. If they ever really convict him of something it'd be like the Salem witch trials, Wikipedia style. Wikipedia doesn't censor comes to mind.

Then there's Dicklyon! You gotta love him. Here's a guy so addicted to Wikipedia that, when he had to get out for awhile in order to do some other stuff, he knew it was going to be hard leaving. So he Wiki-suicided himself in the most humorous and drawn out way. Nobody would permi-ban him, although he kept breaking rules, and so he finally had to throw a few sockpuppets at them and dance them around in order to get kicked-off the site. I knew he'd be back. Anyway, no, I like Dicklyon very much. In being his adversary in some drawn out but both-of-us-seeing-as-necessary guideline discussions (an aside, is any closer ever going to use the exception clause in an RM? I've never seen a closer use it although it's there as big-as-life near the top of every guideline page) it's been fun to get to know him just a little on talk pages. I first met him in a drawn out discussion about lower-casing the article name 'African-American Civil Rights Movement' to 'African-American civil rights movement'. We and others ended up fighting like dogs, and he called me a liar so many times that, in the old days of Wikipedia, I would have asked him to "meet me at dawn, sir, and bring your second". I haven't read those discussions in years, but both of us got banned for changing things over and over again or something, I'm not really sure of the exact situation but I'm sure it was my fault. I had never come into the back hallways and dens of Wikipedia where policies and the naming-of-names and all the wheels and gears of the place are being built in dozens of locations. So I didn't really know the rules. I didn't choose to enter the back hallways and swimming pools, I had to come into them because a group of editors wanted to demote the "Civil Rights Movement" to the "civil rights movement". "Come on!" was my response, as Poppy would say it in her rare and now actually imitated-for-YouTube-clicks cover of "Want U Back", I just wailed away on that one, not knowing which rule was which and really not caring. And myself and others managed to save it, we saved the upper-case Civil Rights Movement, until they knocked the stuffing out of it a few months ago. Knowing the rules, I made a fairly good case to save it that time but knew it would have to be as an exception to the guideline. But back on subject. Conversing with and watching Dicklyon in action throughout the years, during the comma wars (I'll address my stand on the comma wars in the next paragraph, for it too has been severely criticized), happily seeing him here again after his absence, and witnessing his determination and dedication to set Wikipedia his way, I've enjoyed his work. I think we've had some nice although brief conversations on his talk page. Yet again, as with the scoundrel woodensuperman, the few times we've worked together it's quite enjoyable to engage in topic-discourse with him and not against him. So no, I've really never had any bad feelings or problems with Dicklyon, only with some of his viewpoints and actions, which is not the same thing. For those who may not know, Dicklyon is also a computer hero - he invented the laser mouse. As a Wikipedian he's one of the best I've seen. I gave someone money who agreed to buy him a beer for me back in August, although it was Canadian money, with those weird windows.

The comma wars. The entire time I was just protecting the name Martin Luther King, Jr. They knew that. It's Dr. King's real name, the name that he used on public presentations - on his books, on his tombstone. Tangential things like that. But lots of editors wanted to take the comma away from ", Jr." everywhere on Wikipedia. At first a few editors opposed them, it was more than a few if I recall right but usually only one or two besides me on each RM, and they were picking off the low-hanging fruit and honing the discussion. Some of us resisted, but several editors dropped away, one-by-one. The comma-hunters got almost every comma they came for, and the next-to-last ones were all on articles about Dr. King. All his pages, picking off a library at first, then going to get his King Center and burial place, and finally his page itself and that of his National memorial. Literally, this is how it went down, they knew I would stick around until we got to the King pages, and they kept them for next-to-last. The duration of those overall comma-war requested moves and policy discussions could be described as almost entirely the fault of the people getting rid of those commas, because they wouldn't take the requested moves to the King pages even though I repeatedly asked them to. I don't know why, but that extended the thing. Finally, when I thought the commas wars had ended, the group came back and tried to remove the ", Jr." from works of art. Films, television shows, albums, things like that. So some of us got back into those discussions, and this time, like electronic dioramas, the way that names used to look is now preserved on Wikipedia in the form of fictional ", Jr." titles and characters in films, books, and television shows. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not ignoring you. I let this sit for a couple of days, then had written a long (too long) response, and lost it in a browser crash, so I'll start again and just give the précis: I take what you say at face value about how you feel about various parties. This doesn't change the fact that you're pursuing all of these matters from an unabashed perspective of "demotion" (the opposite of which is of course promotion, highlighting the NPoV problem), "respect" (more non-neutrality), traditionalism and "defense" of "true" and "real" names (more PoV, and a WP:TRUTH policy problem, on multiple levels), and other intense prescriptivism, couched in terms of WP:WINNING: "fighting like dogs", "hunters", etc. (WP:BATTLEGROUND), and "saving" articles from style you don't like (WP:GREATWRONGS). It's all against WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, and it can't end well. I repeat that it's exactly the same sort of pattern exhibited by the last person topic-banned from MoS. The fact that you're still pursuing every single one of these angles, even after it's explained why this is a problem and where its going to lead is a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue. This agenda pushing has to stop or it will inevitably lead to a topic ban. This is predictable with near-100% certainty.

On various side points: You didn't thank me for clarifying anything, you crowed about having forced me to clarify something, which wasn't even true. And the other person who got the {{Ds/alert}} template (the wording and appearance of which I is completely controlled by ArbCom) didn't simply ask for a clarification or make a point but, like you, went into a finger-pointing ad hominem tirade of aspersion-casting about me. Please do as I and EEng and others have done (I had the same issues when I arrived, and gave it up around 2010, then as recently as two years ago I had to moderate for something like three weeks between EEng and someone else, but he doesn't do that any more; Dicklyon similarly changed his approach markedly after his enforced break): Give up your peccadilloes when you log in here, and recognize that MoS's value isn't in being "correct" (there is no correct on any style matter about which reliable sources are not consistent); it's in being comparatively stable, simple, and consistent, thereby putting out and preventing the relighting of editorial disputation fires, and giving readers something that seems like it all came from a single publication instead of being a totally random assortment of Web pages. Remember that zero editors agree with every single line item in these guidelines, and zero such line item has 100% buy-in from all editors. This is not true just of MoS, but of all policies, guidelines, and procedures, in every area of human endeavor, not just on WP. Learn to let it go.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks? I gave a Christmas truce offer to you, so battleground is dissolved and resolved either way (where that battleground go?), but with no answer before you wrote the above. The way you do battleground is you don't think you battleground, but read the stuff you write and accuse me of doing or intending to do, almost all of it so incorrect that it must be a mirror thing, and you battleground up and down the hills. I've tried to get you to lighten up, and there, kind sir, you yourself can take a cue from EEng, who seems to be a favorite topic of this thread. So I hope you and yours had a happy holidays, and have a great 2018 both personally and on Wikipedia, where you do so much good, appreciated by many. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You can be angry with me for perceived battlegrounding if you want. What I'm wondering is whether any of the substance of this is getting through. Either you're going to continue with a campaign-for-truth-and-justice PoV in style discussions, knowing full well how that's eventually going to end up, or you're going to take the advice and stop doing that. I can't make up your mind for you. I also wish you well, which is why I've bothered. The convenient, simple thing to do would be so say nothing, or even to subtly encourage with goading arguments, to lead you further down the path. Not how I operate. That said, I have no idea what you think I'm accusing you of doing that you're not doing. I'm not accusing you of anything; I'm pointing out your own clearly stated rationales and how they [fail to] align with policies like NPOV and NOT, and (lately at RM) WP:CONSISTENCY and other criteria – whatever stands in the way of your opposition to lower-case, to avoidance of disused punctuation, or to whatever other MoS line-item it is that you're taking anti-consensus, "resistance" stance on. WP has no need of a rebel base, as there is no Darth Vader here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not angry with you, not at all. You have been the only one throwing around accusations and threats for quite awhile now, and can't seem to stop. Why would you think I'm angry at you? And I have no idea what you are talking about. When issues are brought up, or an RM or RfC I'm interested in is in progress, I'll make my position known. Are you still mad about that golf thing? And now you think that I think you are Darth Vader? I'm going to tip-toe backwards into the bushes now, and check in on EEngs medical problem. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• And to think I wasted $20 on a copay to ask my doctor why my ears have been burning. EEng 22:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• As long as it's only your ears burning. And aren't I supposed to be having problems with you or something? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ayyye!

How's it going? I got around to the much anticipated article, entitled "Poppy unreleased discography". I advise you to check it out and clean up after all of my errors. I'm SURE I placed some covers in the original content section, or perhaps vice versa. Some of the material added is pretty old stuff. Like I said, 'love compiling music and 'love Poppy but I'm no super-fan.

ALSO, we knew it was a possibility beforehand, but there's always the chance that someone believes the article isn't notable. And thus will vote to remove the article via "speedy deletion". OR not. But I definitely have to keep that in mind. If the article does well and remains public, I will have to link it to the [[Poppy (singer)}|Poppy]] and Poppy discography pages.

I'm also sure there's typos or strange wordings within the article, but it was just a quick creation. If it were to stick around, it'd obviously be polished. But it's a start. So check it out! If you're a Poppy fan, then you've gotta love all the juicy trivial info packed into this article! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello AlexanderHovanec, and nice work on the page. I have no idea about covers or non-covers, but it looks like other editors have already begun working on the page. It's a good resource for the topic, and provides a fuller list of recordings that readers and researchers will find useful. It looks like it took quite a lot of work, and I commend you for your abilities and diligence. I'll keep track of the page, and it should stick around (the notability would be in the singer and her present and past public persona). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated best wishes for a happy 2018

^{The Fox Hunt (1893) by Winslow Homer, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.}
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you BoringHistoryGuy, 2018 is a fine year, and may the birds chase the foxes away throughout. And not very belated, as Sunday was Old New Years. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And as good Wikipedians, BoringHistoryGuy, this exchange added to Wikipedia by inspiring the redirect Old New Years (to Old New Year). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Very nice (and kind). In defense of my tardiness, I was in the midst of expanding an article on Charles Grafly.

Obsessive, I am. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on the Grafly article. I'm pretty happy with it. Carptrash has Grafly's daughter's biography, so he may be able to add more personal info.

Looking over the past year of edits, we've worked on about a dozen articles together. Here's to more in the new year. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, though hard to imagine that I'll find anything that you have missed. But a reference for sure. Almost for sure. Carptrash (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Among the barely belated New Years greetings more work gets done. There is nothing like Wikipedia, and when the world realizes it just a little bit more ("hey guys, you know that thing we've been taken for granted like it was a lightbulb or a sidewalk?") there'll be no holding back on Wikipedians being given the Nobel Peace Prize. Elsewhere I've estimated 2024, give or take a couple of years. Congratulations on Charles Grafly, I've learned a lot from a quick skim, and will read it in-depth at some point soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad we've introduced ourselves. And I'm sure that we'll be running into each other this year. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And good to formally meet you BoringHistoryGuy, although I guess editors who hang out in some of the same corners of Wikipedia get to "know" the other editors there. I go in and out of different topics, doing mostly minor edits except when I don't, and find your name in many of them. It's nice seeing some of the articles and templates polished up in the last years, and I've been around long enough to see the changes over the years and to see close-up how the professionalism and uniqueness of this thing, this multi-country encyclopedia, has made it into one of the most amazing things humans have done in the last century. I like to say that people accept Wikipedia now just like they do light bulbs, or sidewalks. That's the experience I've had talking to people about Wikipedia, they've never thought about the fact that humans built the thing. It's just "always there". It got that way in 17 years. In only 17 years this structure was built, on the faith of a few people who thought that they would do an experiment, give people free reign (up to a point), and tell them "Go forth, and build encyclopedias for every culture in the world - here are a few pillars to build things around, and if we thought them out right, they should do the trick" to see if it worked. It worked. Thanks for getting me to ramble, because it's to say thank you for being one of the people who are giving the world this treasure. It's so much of a treasure that it's now taken for granted and used like switching on a light. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your very kind words. I do get a good deal of satisfaction out of contributing to Wikipedia. I tend to glom onto a subject, research the hell out of it, and write about what I've found. @Carptrash: who's an old buddy, kids me about commandeering articles (which I do), but not to erase what others have written, just to expand (and sometimes greatly expand) the article. I'll be on the lookout for your name in the Revision histories. Best wishes, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So what would you say was the word for someone who makes 47 (carpmath) uninterrupted edits in an article? Words involving mental health need not apply.Carptrash (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Obsessive. As are we each (to varying degrees). == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Or 'productive', or 'interested', or 'checkitout!' Betcha a dollar to a donut (which are worth about three now) that those articles are much better off for it. Do you take requests? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

BHG does have the Midas Touch, what he touches will turn to gold. Carptrash (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, but no I don't do requests (feels too much like work). I'll plod along filling in a list or doing something nominal, and then get inspired to do a deep dive or tackle something complex. What @Carptrash: doesn't mention is that the articles I've spent the most time on are often ones that he's begun (sometimes a decade earlier). == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm exactly that same way, if it starts to feel like work here I'm off to something else. I do a lot of italic runs, and that takes me deep into many topics and side roads of the topics, and every once in awhile I'll bump into something and stick around for awhile. Thought I'd ask, worth a try, but I do know what you mean. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)