Jump to content

User talk:Randy Kryn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For entertainment porpoises only:
"Time: Illusion stirred into gravity"
- Motto of The Salvation Space Force
(new comments on bottom of page please)

If you've never seen...

[edit]

. . .Veiled Christ, a statue in Italy that depicts a knobbly-kneed Christ in the tomb, please give the image two or three clicks. This almost unbelievable 1753 sculpture ("how'd he do that?"), carved from one piece of marble, has one of only two Wikipedia article's which have to prove, with sources, that the artwork was not the work of an alchemist. Step right up, and don't miss the modern looking couch, the two tasseled pillows, or the crown of thorns and other torture things down by the feet. All carved from a single block of marble.

Literally steps away from Veiled Christ sits another "how'd he do that?" sculpture, also carved from a single block of marble (or created by alchemy).

p.s. While writing aloud about impossible statues carved from one piece of rock...who can forget flowers made of glass!

One of life's pleasures

[edit]

Watching Secretariat run his 1973 Triple Crown races in order while knowing three things: 1) Secretariat's trainer and jockey realized after the second race that the horse could run full speed from start to finish. 2) While drastically being held back during the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, Secretariat still holds the fastest time in all three Triple Crown races. 3) Sham - the horse Secretariat trashed like a dancing bear in the Kentucky Derby - still holds the Derby's second fastest time.

Here's the 1973 Kentucky Derby...Secretariat's jockey holds him back...holds him wayyyy back, almost last. Next the Preakness...holds him back... And then: the Belmont..."He is moving like a tre-men-dous machine".

Vandal masterpiece...

[edit]

An IP wedding proposal

[edit]

July 8, 2022: during three edits in three minutes an IP proposes marriage on the same page as the above masterpiece, creating their own. Wikipedians have a romantic side, even the bots, so nobody reverted until I did after two hours with a note saying that it should be enough time, and wished him luck. Does anyone know of an earlier proposal on Wikipedia, especially on such a good page for it and so perfectly played out - he seemingly decides to marry her right there, between two edits. Film scene scenario worthy (Hallmark, are you listening?).

This one time at band camp I vandalized a page

[edit]

The docents ask people: "Find the cat". Letting the coolness of it lead me to break my oath as a Wikipedian, I now self-identify as a vandal. (in other vandal news, in 2023 an IP spent a great deal of time removing all the vowels from several articles. Wh ddn't thnk f tht?).

Always interesting

[edit]
"The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." quoted by User:Kizor in the New York Times
"I think Wikipedia is quite possibly the best invention since the library." a quote by User:Srleffler.

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 deservedly displayed on quite a few as well as having its own article. Just who is making all this noise? Well...

...the size of our stadium

[edit]

Here is Paine Ellsworth's subpage about how many Wikipedians can dance on the head of a pin.

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

Caps or no caps?

[edit]

What do you think?[1] I've seen both in the literature. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, tie goes to the drummer, but the word "symbolism" seems a lowercaser. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the two points converge in 1971? Extrapolate... Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of things converged in 1971! I'd personally uppercase Symbolist and Symbolism as art topics, but probably not enough evidence to make a good case for Wikipedia uppercasing. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anything from 1971 in the United States stand out to you in particular that could lead to such changes in language? Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the year makes the difference in where the two forms converged, just happened to be when it occurred. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Madison

[edit]

Section: Ratification of the Constitution

Main articles: James Madison as Father of the Constitution and Constitutional Convention (United States)

Hi Randy: From your revert on the Madison page, the material appears to duplicate much of the material which is already included in the earlier section of the article which I have listed above. Also, the editor that wrote it appears not to have known about the Wikipedia article on Madison as the Father of the Constitution, which I just linked above. Could you bring back the version which was approved previously, and which is scheduled for TFA in this coming March. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ErnestKrause, did so, but please read my edit summary, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randy: Thanks for that, and I've already started Talk page on his Talk. You are welcome to look in as time allows. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a certain editor's contributions

[edit]

Hi Randy, I don't want to butt heads with you a bunch while we're both actively working on improving articles, and since the conflict appears to be mainly between us directly I felt this may be a better avenue.

I think you're possibly misunderstanding just how badly those articles have been messed up by mass addition of templates and images. Here's one where The entire reason I have been so tenacious is that his preferred target for functionally vandalism was Martian missions, which I'm an WP:SME in. I understand that you seemed to get along with him as an editor (and he is nothing if not extremely courteous), but there were quite a few editors in the ANI coming from various space wikiprojects saying they'd been dealing with his low-quality image additions for years, and these maps are part of that. I respect your perspective on his additions, but you've maintained the same perspective since the start of the ANI and it's very clearly an extreme minority one when it comes to their editing history at this point, and that's something worth considering. Most editors are viewing these contributions to Mars articles as, functionally, vandalism.

Those interactive templates were a favourite of his, but Wikipedia tends to not use those for quite a few reasons and there was a basically a gradient on Martian articles where you could see they'd been left alone; if it was a popular article, other editors had typically already gotten around to removing them. For pages that didn't get much traffic, they tended to stay up. Going around and reverting them doesn't make sense when they're images slapped as their own section in an article, as in addition to everything that's been discussed about accessibility that's clearly not how wikipedia articles are formatted, and for most of those linked maps it simply duplicates information from navboxes (the map of quadrangles was a huge offender here). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I do not think you should be mass-reverting in accessibility breaking navigational images. I think you should consider undoing your own reverts and opening an RfC if you object so strongly, but leaving the article in a state which would negatively impact screen readers and mobile users is a problem. Accessibility concerns probably override content disputes, and the content wasn't removed entirely from the article as it's still (appropriately) contained in the navboxes. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming by, no butting heads occurring (am I not a human being?), just discussion about these long-term (early to mid 2010s) interactive images which have always been interesting and accepted long-term on their pages. This is being discussed elsewhere. As I explained, I did not know Drbogdan created these images, but have enjoyed them for years. The painting image should be discussed where it is now being discussed as well as on the wikiproject visual arts page, and the same with the Mars image and its wikiprojects. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think at both the pages and the XfD you're making a mistake in assuming this is about an image, and not the template itself. I doubt you'll find me objective to including an appropriately positioned and scaled map of Mars, or a high resolution image of the painting. Those don't run up against WP:ACCESSIBILITY, break mobile Wikipedia, or mess up page formatting. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No mistake, the discussions are about the long-term and useful interactive images and of course not just about the image of the painting. You may have been confused about the topic? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Interactive" is the question at hand, not the image themselves. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially: A core part of cleaning up the Mars articles is removing that template from every single page its on. Where the information from the template is needed, a non-page breaking rendering of the information in-line in a way that accords with MOS:ACCESSIBILTIY is called for. You can like the images, sure, but they're breaking accessibility and site functionality, which are pretty separate considerations from a normal content dispute. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIGH. Please discuss on the various talk pages. Interactive images have been used long-term on Wikipedia since at least 2010 (see Declaration of Independence (painting), which was not added by he-who-shall-not-be-named, are there any before that one?) and act as functional tools for readers. Please reconsider your deletion attempts with that in mind, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interactive images have been used long-term on Wikipedia since at least 2010
It feels a bit more fair to phrase it as "Someone has used one every now and then", considering how infrequently used they are. I actually think there may be some conflicting policies here, with perhaps a skew towards favouring your arguments (for non navbox duplicating, synth templates). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The templates you're talking about have been used on Wikipedia since 2013, 2014, maybe earlier. That's what I mean by long-term. I've seen many of them, and often have, if I must confess, clicked. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But they didn't stick in places with more eyes scrutinizing them, which is a bit of a case against the idea that they're "stable" as much as "missed". If they were stable I'd have expected them more front-and-centre on major articles. Remember text can't wrap around that kind of template, which causes serious formatting problems since the template always needs to be its own section, at least visually. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best to center them in their own section so no text sandwiching occurs. The painting template stayed on the paintings page (with non-literally zillions of views), and the Gale Crater page is far from unviewed. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(while trying to avoid litigating the discussions happening elsewhere too much) I think that there's a strong case for an interactive image on the painting, rather than a template, so it doesn't mess with mobile browsing. A centred WP:OR map that duplicates the content below in the navbox will always look abysmal on a page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if it can be done as well and a similar size as the Declaration of Independence painting interactive example. Can you code something like that? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I actually was working on it a bit earlier without much luck. I figured in the absence of me doing it myself my suggestion that we keep the image but not the template looked a little disingenuous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a coder is needed, I would be little help with coding templates. But if they can pull off a similar interactive image that would work all around. Question, do Monobook users have the same problems at mobile? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a coder, so that should be within my skillset. Not necessary time-set, but we'll see. I don't know for sure, I suspect (though won't bother arguing this on the talk pages because it's too much of a guess) that we're looking at a situation where the policies around accessibility would probably rule these types of interactive images out if they were really looked at again closely. Wikipedia is much better about things like screen readers and different devices than we were in 2010, for example. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life imitating art

[edit]

This is a hoot. Remember that typewriter monument we were having fun with? As it turns out, IBM did it first at the 1964 New York World's Fair. Yeah, I was surprised as well. Apparently, there was an IBM Pavilion "...at the edge of the "Pool of Industry" in Flushing Meadows...an immense undertaking that included large moving architectural elements, capped by a giant ovoid Theater designed to resemble the typing element on the recently released IBM Selectric Typewriter, a reference which served to confuse visitors, who were not yet familiar with the new technology." Would you believe it, there's actually a photo! Check out p. 214. The whole pavilion was designed by Eero Saarinen and Charles Eames. Saarinen later designed the John Deere World Headquarters in Moline, Illinois, in the 1960s. O'Keeffe's monumental painting, Sky Above Clouds IV, was originally intended for that building, but it fell through. As if it couldn't get any stranger, it does! At the previous 1939 New York World's Fair (which continued into 1940), IBM had a contemporary art collection setup in a gallery, with an O'Keeffe painting,[2] among many others, representing New York state. I can find no mention of it anywhere except for this lone text citation: "New York, The World's Fair, International Business Machines Gallery of Science and Art, Contemporary Art of the United States: Collection of the International Business Machines, May 1940." The New York Times apparently reported on it as well. IBM purchased the painting for their corporate art collection, but not a word on this anywhere. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, lots of research. The IBM installation is interesting but not quite an accurate rendition of the typewriter tool (looks like all it could type are the uppercased letters MIB). Thanks for the link to the O'Keefe painting, have never seen that simple but nice painting before (which has a good history too). If it ever is written-up as an article Category:Sun in art is a natural fit. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons art galleries and museums are so important to society is because when a work goes into private collections, it is rarely seen or known about, and art critics and writers aren't able to publicize its existence to the wider world. I do have enough to create an article on it at this point, but it's not enough to satisfy me beyond a stub. I don't like to create stubs anymore, preferring to at least meet the DYK threshold limits, even if it isn't submitted to DYK. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: One of the things I like about these O'Keeffe's is how I always have the same reaction when I see the work. This consists of two parts: 1) Nobody ever did that before, and 2) I saw that with my camera. The sunset she depicts isn't as abstract as it appears. I've played around with a telephoto lens and I've produced similar views of the sunset, as odd as that claim might appear. It turns out, that even though O'Keeffe denied it, she approached much of her work from the POV of a photographer. Several art historians have traced her New Mexico and Hawaii series, and have found, for the most part, they are in many ways realistic and true to the place. This is especially true with her New Mexico series. One author put a series of photos next to her works to show how accurate they were. One of the surprising things about O'Keeffe, is that most viewers automatically assume they border on the abstract, surreal, and even fantasy, but they really don't. It took me a while to grasp this, but when I did, it was quite a shock. Basically, she's challenging us to look at the world anew, to see with new eyes. Yes, she very often distorted what actually appeared, and yes, later in life her vision interfered with what she was seeing. But when you realize what she's doing, when you look at the photos of New Mexico–the arroyos, the mesas, even the adobes–and you compare them to what she painted, in many ways she is freeing us from the mundane and allowing us to see for the first time. This is, IMO, the goal of every artist. To reinvent the world for us, and yet, to show us that it has always been right there, in front of us. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Flower
As luck would have it, there's a related 1939 quote from O'Keeffe to fellow artist Russell Vernon Hunter: "It is surprising to me to see how many people separate the objective from the abstract. Objective painting is not good painting unless it is good in the abstract sense. A hill or tree cannot make a good painting just because it is a hill or a tree. It is lines and colors put together so that they say something. For me that is the very basis of painting." Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all quite interesting, thank you. Her most famous work, her flowers, are of course quite realistic representations. Stubs for painting articles is a practical way to place the artwork into mainspace even if you personally don't want to immediately fill it out. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have misinterpreted what I wrote. Does the image of the blue flower up above look realistic to you? Of course not. O'Keeffe plays around with distance here, making the zoomed up perspective give the flower an altogether abstract look. She’s also less interested in the flower itself than the form and V-shaped line, which she applies to other objects in the same way, such as mountain valleys in both Hawaii and New Mexico. There’s an even deeper idea here bordering on philosophy. I have not yet begun to scratch the surface on that approach. O'Keeffe is visualizing a kind of universal form that can be found in all things. How is it that a flower and a mountain can look the same? And what about the human form that emerges from the structure of the plant and the terrain of the earth? Everyone sees it. It cannot be denied. But is it coming from our mind as a projection into the world? Or is it emanating from the painting at a hidden level? Nobody knows. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VPP question

[edit]

The underlying policy neither of us have fully grokked seems to be relavent to our discussions, so I figured I'd ping you about this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policy_on_use_of_interactive_image_maps Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on policy

[edit]

Randy, obviously we have some mild disagreements over the editing history of a specific banned user. I sincerely don't mean this as an aspersion or a shot at you, and I know it's entirely possible you're in the right in some of these discussions and I'm in the wrong. However, given that you seem to have routinely ameliorated the content of a user who was indeffed for said content in the ANI and since, it's perhaps worth considering if your perceptions of appropriate content on Wikipedia are in line with policy at times? Because there's a lot of things we've talked about in the last few days that seem kind of obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that you personally like, and while there's a lot of room for interpretation on how best to deal with that (which may just mean leaving it in the article!) I think it's worth considering that you've been pretty consistently out of step with the community on some of that material. I'm sure I am too, considering how heavy handed I am, and for that I greatly appreciate your input and perspective. But it does feel a little like I'm having to defend the removal of some very obviously low quality content to a degree I'm surprised to see an editor defend in the way you have been (i.e. promotional content, templates that require their own sections in articles, etc.)

Again, not trying to get you to disengage, and I don't mean this as "Hey, you're constantly wrong, why?" because clearly you're not. It just feels like I see you weighing in on policy issues from your personal preferences a fair bit, rather than an understanding of the underlying policy. If I'm out of line here, then I apologize and aspersion aren't my aim here. I think I'm just feeling a little confused at some of your reverts/stances considering how clearly experienced an editor you are, and it feels more appropriate to bring up privately rather than second guessing your stances in an XfD. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any reverts are of long-term items currently under deletion attempts. Please wait for the results before removing the entries, thanks. And please stop equating me with drbogdan or his work, both here and elsewhere. You seem to want to erase his existence and many of his major contributions from Wikipedia, and that is just not how long-time users are treated, even if currently banned (his seriousness at wanting to come back seems genuine but, as mentioned, neither his presence or absence has anything to do with his past creations even though you seem determined to link the two in a negative way). Anyway, maybe have a little more patience and let your deletion attempts play out. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only equating you insofar as you've shown up at every turn, but so have I, so that's not a criticism. There's also a degree to which you seem to have misunderstood the nature of the sanctions and arguments behind them, a couple of times you've implied or explicitly stated you believe the CBAN was heavy handed or unjust, and it seems you're engaging with his historical edits from the perspective of rejecting the legitimacy of the CBAN ("This is not the case here, and "the community' would be better served if it learned not to pile on in the future"). You can believe he was a positive force on Wikipedia, but the community does not, and that especially includes his historical edits, where users had been asking him for years to stop messing up space articles.
ou seem to want to erase his existence and many of his major contributions from Wikipedia
I do want to erase many of his major contributions. Because they're bad, low-quality, and not in a Wikipedia style. He was literally banned from Wikipedia for those edits, it's not unreasonable to undo systematic, long-term low quality editing in an area that was functionally vandalized over a decade. Those big clickable maps are a prime example of garbage that he strewed all over the encyclopaedia, and they unquestionably don't meet the style of formatting or information presentation styles wikipedia uses.
that is just not how long-time users are treated, even if currently banned
Drbogdan's edits aren't entitled to any special treatment owing to his long-term presence. He's not a good editor in temporary time out for bad behaviour, rather his long term presence was determined to be detrimental to Wikipedia, and his behaviour since indicates pretty strongly this isn't going to be a temporary thing. Undoing a lot of that damage is a core part of responding to what he's done on on here that got him banned in the first place. That's why I brought this up here privately; it's already been well beyond determined that his historical edits to these articles was disruptive. If there's a specific reason beyond duration that an edit should stand (as there apparently was with the painting!) then that is worth considering, but when something clearly goes against the established norms in a way that junks up pages I don't see why we're having to adjudicate each individual edit when "longevity" seems like a weak argument to make given the reason for the ban, but I also don't want to edit war with you over this. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating, "And please stop equating me with drbogdan or his work, both here and elsewhere." Yet you keep doing so. My experience with his edits, unlike yours apparently, was very positive, as he updated science and space articles to a degree that they haven't seen since. These two areas of Wikipedia need as many experienced editors involved as possible, and Drbogdan seemed to add quality edits on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. I understand that others working in those fields have found fault with some of his edits, and have removed them, but removing everything he created is not what a ban means. Please stop posting about Drbogdan here, thanks, his good (and alleged bad) work speaks for itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with his edits, unlike yours apparently, was very positive
Right, but with all due respect this opinion is clearly not in line with findings at ANI and general community consensus.
as he updated science and space articles to a degree that they haven't seen since
He was CBANned for this behaviour. I don't think pointing to it as an example of good editing is going to be very effective.
These two areas of Wikipedia need as many experienced editors involved as possible, and Drbogdan seemed to add quality edits on a weekly and sometimes daily basis
People from relavent wikiprojects, in addition to me (who specializes in Martian and Lunar topics) were weighing in that he'd been adding low quality garbage to articles for years. You can disagree, but you're in the extreme minority and we need stronger arguments for the retaining of low quality content than just "It's been there a long time". You can believe he added quality edits, but the community resoundingly does not. That doesn't mean every edit he made needs to be undone, or that all of his edits were bad, but you do need to accept that the community has determined that his edits were low quality and detrimental to the extent he was CBANned over them.
his good work speaks for itself
It does. It's why he's indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. You're absolutely free to your own opinion, and I'll respect your desire to stop talking about this, but you can't just preserve the state of his long term persistent garbage editing because you disagree with the wider community that it was bad. Dealing with a blocked low-quality editor does, in part, mean undoing the damage they've done. You can disagree that it was damage, but the community does not. You don't need to agree with the CBAN, but you do need to respect its outcome, which means not pretending that his style of editing produced high quality articles unless there's a specific, non-longevity argument. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Low quality edits will be removed, but you seem to not credit drbogdan with any good quality edits (whereas I both looked forward to many of them and was interested in what he reported on recent scientific and space research and events). I am not a scientist, and you are, so you have a knowledge-based leg-up in that respect on which of his edits may have been either misguided or incorrect. But wanting to remove his good material as well (referring to the interesting Wikipedia-related chart on one of his user pages) seems to be edging into the personal. Academic disagreements should probably stay off Wikipedia, although major unsourced inaccuracies should of course be removed and hopefully have been. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But wanting to remove his good material as well (referring to the interesting Wikipedia-related chart on one of his user pages) seems to be edging into the personal.
The only reason that was nominated was the line (Overview by Dr. Dennis Bogdan), without that I wouldn't have nominated it. I interpreted it as a continuation of his promotional editing, something which has been going on at practically every Wikipedia related project possible, even (and especially) since his CBAN.
I am not a scientist, and you are, so you have a knowledge-based leg-up in that respect on which of his edits may have been either misguided or incorrect.
He was repeatedly called out for an inability to accurately weigh or verify information while doing this. Literally the first thing that put the editing pattern in question on my radar was WP:PROFRINGE content being added to astrophysics articles, which per the ANI was going on a long time. Readers are less informed for many of his edits, where he was incredibly indiscriminate and added information as soon as it hit the popular press. He routinely skipped sources, his preferred editing style was massive, indiscriminate lists of galleries. Again, he is not a good editor on temporary time out, he's a persistant long-term vandal who was clearly editing in bad faith. He lied, repeatedly, in the ANI about the intentionality of promotional edits, and multiple times insisted he understood the exact issue only to turn around and insist there was no issue and he did nothing wrong.
There isn't an academic disagreement at play, simply an issue with someone editing heavily and carelessly on a topic they're very poorly informed about. Much of what he was doing on pages was messing up the formatting entirely by adding piles of images and his clickable map which duplicated navbox content at every possible turn. It's been taking months to rework these articles so that they're not in a state that you can read them and instantly know who the primary contributor was. That's why I said "Hey, consider policy here", because the formatting of pages is MOS guided and those are pretty unambiguous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that chart were used in mainspace then yes, his name should be removed and the information on it checked. But he created it and kept it in userspace, which is allowed as long as it's Wikipedia related in some aspect (which of course the chart is). Many of those factoids added may not have been adequately sourced and were removed, but not all (is it even a majority?) of his factual edits are in need of removal. I did not experience him as a vandal, but you did and are vocal about that, as is your right. But the chart you wish to see deleted is not vandalism but a personal take on Wikipedia stats, even if it includes the users name. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to that argument and will respect the outcome of the XfD. That said, given his continued linking of Wikipedia as his "profile" post-ban and the lengths he's gone to to preserve that while banned, I still think it fall on the wrong side of WP:PROMO. Maybe I'm wrong. But the absolute mess he made of articles is a lot more cut and dry, as is the idea that he was lying to editors about the intentionality of his promotional edits. Please, just look at that Gale crater article. I've left that one alone for now specifically to be able to point to it as an example of just how bad this situation got before the community stepped in. There's no planet on which we should be preserving that kind of editing here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not his keeper, whatever drbogdan is doing incorrectly is beyond my Wikipedia pay grade (I found a quarter once at a conference) and should be discussed on his talk page. The Gale crater template is up for deletion, so the result will determine the next move on that (unless it can be recoded to affirm its use in mainspace). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a quarter once at a conference
I'll have to remember to tag you as a poorly-paid COI editor if I ever see you editing any articles related to floors, I suppose. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about floors? Was it yours? I'll still keep half as finder's fee. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FLOORCABAL strikes again! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&oldid=1272815931"