User talk:A Fellow Editor/Archive 0

[ previous ]     9 April 2013 – 22 November 2017     [ next ]

Archive 0

Welcome!

Hello, Kevjonesin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on [[user talk:Søren1997 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)|my talk page]], or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Søren1997,

Thanks for the links and the encouragement. : }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy Walpurgisnacht!

Today is Walpurgis Night.

"Walpurgis Night (Walpurgisnacht) is a traditional spring festival on 30 April or 1 May in large parts of Central and Northern Europe. It is often celebrated with dancing and with bonfires. It is exactly six months from All Hallows' Eve."

--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy May Day!

It's 1 May so it's May Day. Yea! :  }

"May Day on May 1 is an ancient Northern Hemisphere spring festival and usually a public holiday;[1] it is also a traditional spring holiday in many cultures."

--Kevjonesin (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

WhisperBacks (& other notifications)

You have a new message at Odysseus1479's talk page. And the same to you, with Beltane blessings! —Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a new message at Odysseus1479's talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a new message at Odysseus1479's talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Hoshen

The fact that it is the "largest [LGBT] organization in Israel" with three references establishes notability. But it needs to be expanded, if possible. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed you were giving the page a bit of TLC. Thank you. If you know anyone who'd care to expand it further please pass it on. Other projects are holding my interest. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sanaullah Haq

Hello Kevjonesin! I saw that you did your valuable comment on Articles for deletion/Sanaullah Haq. Despite comparison with the article of Sarabjit Singh, does not the article of Sanaullah Haq returned 0.2 million results? This decides the article to be notable! I know my articles are becoming target of an enmity here, but will continue my work. Just asking you for a review, the article is notable, and documents a current event, and further developments may render the article as notable. Thanking, Faizan -Let's talk! 08:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A Fellow Editor. You have new messages at Faizan Al-Badri's talk page.
Message added 09:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan -Let's talk! 09:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Userpages

Go read the section before yours. DS (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A Fellow Editor. You have new messages at ТимофейЛееСуда's talk page.
Message added 02:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ImageMagick may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks BracketBot! ["Thanks you" to your master as well.] :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikigraphist_abilities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Resources/Wikigraphist_abilities

Hello, A Fellow Editor. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, A Fellow Editor. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salvage

Template:Quantity/sandbox is up for speedy. I don't care but you may want to salvage some of it to paste to the other templates we referred to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Canoe1967. I will check it out. Will likely just copy it to my own user space en masse. --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

After copying/archiving stuff under a "User:Kevjonesin/" prefix I looked into the rationale for the 'speedy' in the first place. It's based on confusion over a "Template:Quantity" page which was deleted in 2005. I'll go ahead and remove the 'speedy', {{db-g8}}, and leave a note on the talk page. This serves as a reminder of pending projects for me. I've had a few of those recently. :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A Fellow Editor. You have new messages at Werieth's talk page.
Message added 22:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Werieth (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Complexity creep in the name of organization

This went from a long mess, to a neat and tidy folded up bit... and is creeping back into a long mess again. Nothing kills neat and simple like trying too hard to be organized ;-) Just a thought. No need to reply... unless it's to praise my profound wisdom and let me know the request has been reverted to the much simpler and slightly less organized single collapse. Of course, if you feel it should stay as it is, I understand. One man's profound wisdom is another man's "good suggestion, but I'm still gonna do it my way...". – JBarta (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi JBarta, Let me explain... no, there is no time. Let me sum up...

At heart, it was a matter of functionality. The single collapse format broke the ToC (Table of Contents) links.

Also, another influence was that it is an extraordinarily long thread and I found it convenient to have the option to open only the sections(s) I wanted to interact with.

While perhaps not as sleek as it was with a single collapse, it's still takes up less page space than many other threads have. Thanks for turning me on to the collapse option. I hadn't learned that markup trick yet. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Returns fist bump!

I'm glad someone caught on that I was being sarcastic. I often find that sarcasm is completely lost upon those who most need to recognize it. El3ctr1csheepz (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got a growing suspicion... it seems to me that Aspberger's/Autism spectrum dynamics run high amongst this community.

Not so surprising if one considers that the wiki is rooted in fairly early web culture and has traditionally required editors to use a form of mark-up language. Tech head communities often include a high percentage of folks who find reading and responding to social cues to be a challenge —if they are even able to recognize that such exist.

I've been thinking upon this a fair bit lately, and am arriving at another suspicion. I think that the wiki has been systemically set up to favor such personalities. Not saying intentionally so, but more in a like-breeds-like fashion. The strong argumentative analytical sharp element has crowded out much of the round-cornered warm fuzzy types and much in between.

I think that this ties in to the low percentage of women involved as active editors. It's simply not a comfy place for most ladies. I recall a discussion amongst roommates in a shared house where it came down to "If we're not going to clean-up more for ourselves, can we at least aspire to create a space where women would be willing to hang out?"

I think the lack of more casual chat environments figures in to all this. Women like to chat. As do many men. And it helps to foster spontaneous creativity. I'm thinking every page would benefit from having a chat board in addition to the formal talk/article_discussion page. Not only allow general conversation about the topic of a page but encourage it. In a separate space from the focused discussions related to implementing content.

I recall reading about how a big company (I think it was Microsoft) at one point replaced all the small cabaret tables in their lunchroom with big long institutional cafeteria benches. Inter-departmental collaboration increased exponentially afterwards.

I feel that systematically encouraging more casual communication would lead to spontaneous improvements to content, fresh links and references arising, editors getting inspired to edit, and a general opportunity to build camaraderie. The present strictures in place seem to —sadly— better encourage/allow_for cold militant bureaucratic authoritarian attitudes than for congenial considerate friendly relationships.

Seems more breakrooms would encourage editors to take more breaks and meet/get-to-know more fellow editors. Many of us tend to be a bit obsessive. I think we need to give thought to incorporating ways to help folks bring themselves down from the clouds and expand their tunnel vision from time to time. IMHO :  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUTIE --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

An aside...

Patrick87, Have you heard the one about the hoarder and the janitor?

>wink<

--Kevjonesin (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand. --Patrick87 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

hoarder=Penyulap, janitor= Patrick87

She wants to hold on to everything indefinitely and you were just trying to clean up.

Made me envision a man with a broom and dust pan being confronted by a persistent hoarder. Which struck me as a funny way to sum up things.

By the way, User:Penyulap is blocked indefinitely here on en:Wikipedia.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explanation. Don't know if i should laugh or cry though.

I noticed the block before and I'm afraid it didn't really surprise me. Good night, --Patrick87 (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

huh, User:Penyulap's block is rather odd actually. As much as she irks me at times, I gotta' say the block looks kinda' fishy. *(cur | prev) 06:44, 17 September 2012‎ JamesBWatson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37 bytes) (-18,618)‎ . . (sockpuppeteer) (undo | thank) sockpuppet investigations casepage ...leads to a "no action" conclusion... Marking as closed with no action taken. --MuZemike 23:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC) ...with no further documentation explaining why action was taken by User:JamesBWatson on 17 September 2012‎. Weird. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC) That’s not a block log entry, but the User page history of a blanking-&-tagging (later reverted by another admin). The current block began with “17:28, 30 July 2012 User:Coren (Talk | contribs) blocked User:Penyulap (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) (Editor not here to create an encyclopedia) ”; over the next few months there was some back-and-forth over talk-page and e-mail access. The socking issue doesn’t appear in the log until “11:40, 4 November 2012 Courcelles (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for User:Penyulap (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) ({{checkuserblock}}: Nothing but trolling on user talk page; abusing multiple accounts) ”.—Odysseus1479 08:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for sharing some details, Odysseus1479. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry Kevjonesin, but I do not want to discuss blocks with you – regardless of whom we are talking about. I have my own opinion about Penyulap but I'm wise enough to keep it to my own and not escalate the already complicated situation with him/her (you always write her? Is Penyulap female?) any further. It might only lead to a further block which I do not want, and it will lead to much frustration for everybody involved in any case. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Right on. That's certainly your prerogative, Patrick87. I was just 'thinking aloud' —so to speak— as it seemed that there were anomalies. As to gender, I guess I assumed because "Penyulap" reminds me of "Penny" —a diminutive of "Penelope".

Inappropriate

This was rather inappropriate and unexpected from you. However, I'm sure you've noted that you're now permanently asked to remain off their talkpage - I'm not sure if you consider such to be a successful Friday or not (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• "I'm sure you've noted that you're now permanently asked to remain off their talkpage"

I have not noted such as I've received no such request. ?

Unless you refer to the edit summary on the diff I linked. I took that to refer to weighing in on comment threads started by others (i.e. {{talk page stalker}}) as TonyTheTiger's #Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! source images was the context to which the summary was attached. Werieth and I also had a previous ongoing thread active at the time so it didn't seem to be a global statement. If it had been meant so I assume he would have communicated such explicitly either on our ongoing thread on his talk-page or in a comment posted to my talk-page.

Ah! I think I may have found what prompted your statement, Bwilkins. When I just edit 'previewed' this thread the "#Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! source images" link failed (it's been recently bot archived and I'd originally tried wikilinking directly). In sorting that out I came across this. Though not explicitly stated per se, yes, I would surmise from the context that the edit summary was meant as a statement/request aimed at me. Hmm, I could swear I've read guidelines which explicitly mention that trying to convey such personal messages through glib edit summaries is poor form and that talk-pages are considered a much more appropriate —and effective— venue.

As to "inappropriate and unexpected from you", well, one's certainly entitled to their opinions. I do actually take the "unexpected" bit as a fairly high complement. Thank you. It implies you've taken the time to look into my general patterns a bit. Did you do the same for Werieth (look into his general patterns a bit)?

I have.

It seems to me that in his self chosen role as an 'enforcer' of policy he's left quite a trail of ruffled feathers —some of them simply butthurt while others seem quite justifiably so ruffled. So I found it quite appropriate to call him out on having —apparently— been evasive. Especially as it seemed to me that core issues of context and consideration —a possible source of much of the ruffling— were the very topics he most wishes to evade.

Bwilkins, I encourage you to continue taking interest and to look into things further. Perhaps someone with diplomatic skills/awareness would be willing to mentor Werieth a bit? Communicating with him seems to have exceeded the limits of my skills at such.

Thanks for taking an interest, Bwilkins.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, Bwilkins, I see via #Bwilkins block of PumpkinSky that you're having your own issues with 'appropriateness'. It really doesn't paint a pretty picture. Leads me to question what your relationship is with Werieth and how you came to comment here in the first place. Sigh... --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

After reading a bit more in detail I see that the 'kerfluffle' surrounding you may not have been as cut-n-dry as originally presented. Still, it does serve to show that Werieth and I weren't the only ones feeling 'pissy' yesterday. Perhaps something was in-the-air, so to speak.

Hope this day blesses the wiki with warm fuzzies and a good dose of considerate common sense. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s.— Bwilkins, yesterday was Thursday. >wink< --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Im just going to drop a little note here. The reason I ended the discussion with you is it seems you lack finesse and tact when having a discussion. I cannot describe how you approach appeared to me as it would be considered a violation of NPA. I have made it a point to disengage to avoid a slip of my tongue which would get me in hot water. You dont seem to understand the point at which you become unhelpful in a discussion. With regards to Bwilkins comment about Friday, you might want to review time zones and UTC. Depending on where one is there can be a major variance in the time/date. Bwilkins and I have little interaction so be careful what kind of implications you sling around. Werieth (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL >snort< :  }

Werieth 'asks' me not to post on his talk-page anymore and then proceeds to drop a 'stalker' comment on mine. Classy, Werieth, classy. Might wanna' check your hair:

p.s.— Good point about time zones in general —not sure how likely it is to apply in this case. But plausible. IMHO, not really what's implied by the wording though.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A Fellow Editor. You have new messages at Avenue X at Cicero's talk page.
Message added 11:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 11:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Graphics Lab

Hi Kevin, I was wondering if you (or anyone else) might want to help me clean up the Graphics Lab? It seems to me that there are lots of problems with the current one, one of which is that it's extremely difficult to edit; There are far too many templates and subtemplates that make up the 4 main pages, such that even correcting a simple spelling error can send you on a wild goose chase to find out which page to edit. So.. I've started a mirror of the Graphics Lab in my userspace, and so far I've only conceded a single template. I've been copying text/links over with the intention of simplifying page construction. My aim so far is to create 4 main pages (Graphics Lab, Illustration workshop, Photography workshop and Map workshop) featuring as few, easy-to-edit templates as possible (so far just a simple sidebar). I think a lot of crud has built up over time that would be better removed. There are a lot of redundant elements and the non-Wikilike layout, I suspect, makes the Graphic Lab a bit of a weird place for people to wander into. Which is why, so far, I've gone for a simple layout that's similar to what you might find anywhere else on Wikipedia.

We might also take the opportunity to collate the 'rules of the graphics lab' that currently exist, such that they are, into one place for easy reference. If you can help me identify all of the subpages that ought to be linked in, or transcribed, to the new pages I'd very much appreciate it. I know that you have lots of energy and enthusiasm, so I thought you'd be the ideal person to approach first. Once we've got the ball rolling it will be much easier for others to contribute, and eventually if everyone's happy perhaps we can copy the new lab over the old one. What say you? Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"correcting a simple spelling error can send you on a wild goose chase to find out which page to edit." —Amen :  }

Here's what has been helping me to get a leg up on the goose: Graphics Lab pages with prefix (Template namespace)

"I think a lot of crud has built up over time" —I tend to agree. But perhaps not in such strong terms. I think I'd prefer 'excess' & 'streamlined' to "crud" & "removed" but I get your point.

Personally, I kinda' like that the lab has a "non-Wikilike layout". It's a different sort of environment from most other parts of the wiki. Let's Toto know that he's no longer in Kansas —so to speak. That said, I am willing to entertain new ideas. It is presently "a bit of a weird place for people to wander into". Quite a bit of stuff slapped together at the top of the page. Lots of room for streamlining I suppose. Collapsing some bits and/or linking detailed info from keywords and brief summaries might help. It's all a bit overwhelming as is. Tries to address graphists and requesters kinda' simultaneously.

Collaboration sounds cool. Advance to a alpha/beta stage and then seek broader input is a good idea. Better chance of getting a horse built instead just a camel designed by committee. The first BBS was created by two guys from a computer club who consciously chose such an approach. One of them had made the realization that a small team could get something done and implemented whereas the larger computer club would likely just discuss the idea ad nauseum.[1]

Humorous (& practical) side note: The duck technique... (3rd bullet point)

Thanks for thinking of me Nagual. Your scheme fits well with things I've been trying to do on-&-off in bits-n-pieces. I've been making some similar efforts on Commons as well. Hmm... that introduces an idea of perhaps giving consideration to some cross site coordination designed in. The formats are currently similar. I've given thought to porting our "Tagged/Eight requests" display format to Commons. Something to consider; however, I remind myself to keep the concepts of 'mission creep' and 'feature bloat' in mind as well.

Anyway, yes, collab sounds good. A nice change of pace. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s.— The new "VisualEditor" may need to be taken into consideration. Have you tried it yet? I've not. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the All pages with prefix link. I thought something like that must be available but I hadn't found it. Here's some proposals (random thoughts, mostly):

• This discussion should be moved to User talk:Nagualdesign/Graphics lab
• Start with a simple, text-only layout and leave the bells and whistles until later
• Copy/paste all of the relevant content from the 'prefix' pages to the 4 main workshop pages, then trim down/templatize (sparingly!) later
• Wikify everything, apply the MoS properly, simplify editability
• The standard ToCs (ie, the arrangement of sections and subsections) should be structured in a way that visitors, be they requesters or graphists, can find the section that relates to them, quickly and easily
• There really is some crud in the current system. Several links are broken or redundant, and some sections haven't been used in a long while
• I had another idea but I'm having trouble putting it into words, so I'm just going to do it now...

Regards, Joe

nagualdesign (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:TOPPOST

Your comment needs to go in chronological order, that's why it was reverted. Your comment was the latest one, so it goes at the bottom, where people expect newer comments. It doesn't go on the top because editors aren't going to look for new comments at the top and it will get overlooked. - Aoidh(talk) 03:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note the "[edit conflict]" prefacing my post. If you are unaware of what an 'edit conflict' is and how the system deals with such please look it up. My entry and KAMiKAZOW's were entered concurrently. It was simply a bit later before I got back to my relevant browser tab and noticed it hadn't completed when I'd previously hit <enter>. I prefer to have the continuity of topic and indentation rather than being rigid about the time stamps.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Being an edit conflict is irrelevant; your comment was made a good half-hour after another editor made their comment, thus yours follows theirs. Nothing atHelp:Edit conflict suggests otherwise in any way. - Aoidh(talk) 04:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WORD --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article'stalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Aoidh (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Aoidh's response after he receives a warning from an admin is to post his own on my page as a tit-4-tat? Interesting. :  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. That is my response to your continued edit-warring after an edit-warring report you were involved in was resolved, and you resumed edit-warring. This notification is something that needs to happen before you can be reported for edit-warring, and if you make another revert at that AfD it's a WP:3RRviolation for which you would be blocked, so it's necessary to inform you of such. - Aoidh (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system)

Please keep your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system) on the merits of the deletion discussion, and don't comment on the nominator. See WP:ADHOM. Monty₈₄₅05:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was relevant as it specifically involved both theWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system) thread, theChakra (operating system) page under discussion and edits made by both of the other editors who'd commented so far on the AfD thread.

p.s.— I think I forgot to sign it though. If so, 'oops, I apologize for that'.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The point of the AfD discussion is to determine whether the article should be deleted on notability grounds. That the edit war occurred has no bearing on answering that question. An editor's edits to the article would only be relevant at AfD if they were doing something to make the subject appear less notable, (such as removing references) which was clearly not the case here.Monty₈₄₅ 05:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there may be an argument to be made that re-arranging where someone's comments were placed might be viewed as "doing something to make the subject appear less notable" but as that was only a portion of the my overall edit war complaint I'll not press the issue. In fact I'll go on to confess to a bit of laziness influencing my decision to note the edit war complaint on the AfD thread. If it had been allowed to remain it would have served to notify User:KAMiKAZOW and User:KvnG of the edit war complaint — which involved User:Aoidh overturning some of their edits — without having to go to their talk pages. Hmm, I suppose I could have noted it on the Chakra talk-page...

But, anyway, at this point I understand why my link to the edit war complaint was removed.

Thanks for your feedback Monty.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I had hoped the comment above would bring an end to this, but apparently it hasn't. kind of comment has no place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system), and it has no place at Talk:Chakra (operating system). That you started an edit-warring report means nothing to the article; especially when you are also guilty of edit warring. Article talk pages are for discussing the article, not editors you disagree with; comment on content, not on the contributor. - Aoidh (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, do not refactor my comments at that AfD again. Moving your comment back leaving my reply changes the meaning which is not permitted. -Aoidh (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

'Please recall that you chose to place your comment there after you moved my 'notes'. Your welcome to move it up under my 'notes' as far as I'm concerned. I considered moving it along when I last restored them. But then decided it would be more respectful to let you decide how to sort out your own comment rather than being assumptive and moving it myself. If nothing else I figured the indent gave some clue as to what it related to.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevance is not "that [I] started an edit-warring report" but rather that said report resulted in you [User:Aoidh] receiving a warning for your multiple reversions on the Chakra page. Reversions which were a direct part of the preceding conversation and involved other editors actively involved in the thread. I feel those editors, as well as any others who may wish to join this thread, have a right to be informed that a warning has been issued so that they may take it into consideration should you choose to continue making unilateral reversions. As I see you just have.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. If you move a comment, you move all of the replies as well, that's not only common sense but also required. Concerning the talk page comments, if someone's editing gets to the level where it warrants discussion, there are appropriate forums for that (WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U,WP:AN3) but the article's talk page is not one of them. The warning was given because you failed to do so, which is required before filing an edit-warring report. That someone else corrected your mistake is not cause for that kind of behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WORD --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you truly believe that your behavior is anything other than inappropriate, wait until you get a response from Monty845 and see what an administrator has to say regarding this material, but continuing to reinsert it after alreadybeing told that it wasn't appropriate elsewhere is not the correct way to go about that. - Aoidh (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

was previously indicated by Monty that the reason you received a generic template warning (i.e. 'slap-on-the-wrist') rather than a block was because of a lack of documentation that you had been warned/informed that your behaviour was viewed as edit warring. I concede that—for the most part—this was not directly relevant to the AfD discussion.

However, I strongly feel that it is relevant tothread on the talk-page which discusses the multiple reversions which formed the core of the complaint. I was not the only editor affected. I feel that anyone else who finds themselves feeling bullied by you, User:Aoidh, should have documentation of the edit warring complaint readily available so as to avoid future ambibuity as to whether you are aware of WP:3RR.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sections devoted to editor's behavior are not what article talk pages are for. Apparently you missed what I said above, but there are appropriate venues for what you're talking about; an article's talk page has not, is not, and will never be one of them. That you feel "bullied" whenever someone disagrees with you is your problem, and does not give you cause to disregard very basic concepts on Wikipedia (and looking at your talk page history, it seems odd that everyone you interact with is the problem, never you or your consistent incivility). As I've already said, you are more than welcome to start a discussion at WP:ANI or open a WP:RFC/U, but "feeling bullied" is not cause for your behavior or your edits. You shouldn't cite awareness ofWP:3RR when you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of whatWP:3RR means; citing WP:3RR at WP:AN3 when my edits where nowhere close to such is indicative of these straws you're grasping at. I concede I was edit warring, but I am not alone in that regard as you have not only edit warred, but continued to do so after reporting me for that very same thing. The talk page comment is nothing short of inappropriate and has no purpose towards improving the article; it does not belong there. - Aoidh (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently I was not clear enough earlier, per WP:NPA, you are expected to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Furthermore, that someone was edit warring is in no way a judgement on the merits of their position. You can be 100% right as a matter of policy, and still receive sanctions for edit warring. If you really think Aoidh's conduct requires further discussion, Aoidh is right, the proper place for it would be WP:AN/I orWP:RFC/U, but I don't think that should be necessary at this point. Otherwise, you really need to drop the WP:Stick. Monty₈₄₅ 14:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)~~

Expunged annoyance

From:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kevjonesin#Perhaps_combine_Breaking_the_Set_.26_Abby_Martin_articles.3F

Followed:

There is discussion about the draft's status at Draft_talk:Abby_Martin#Additional_coverage

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Expunged bits:

Considering the fact that "Beingsshepherd" has been attacking Martin for as a "warmonger" (probably one of the most absurd allegations on the face of the planet) his input is most assuredly not needed. The guy acts like an agent provocateur. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's rich, coming from an informer of the U.S. Ministry of Truth.

Re Martin's (indefensible, Fox News-like) jingoism: if any fair-minded readers are interested in evidence, then I strongly suggest you take a look at this damning video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osfvzwjtitk from 4:34 onwards. Plus I have exchanged (and can evidence) Tweets with Martin, confirming her rejection being deemed anti-war (unlike my politically-consistent self: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showuser=7552). Beingsshepherd (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

• I posted a link so that anyone who might be following/have an interest in this overall thread might be made aware of ongoing developments. I then copied the same to the preceding primary subsection above as I wasn't sure of how the notification algorithm would handle changes to this subsection.

Viriditas, please consider whether it was really necessary to comment on your dispute with Beingsshepherd here on my page. It was 'after-the-fact' in relation to my having already posted the link and has—somewhat predictably—drawn in an irate tit-for-tat post from Beingsshepherd.

Viriditas and Beingsshepherd, if y'all feel a need to continue your squabble, I'd appreciate it if you do so elsewhere.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well; but I believe that you should take some responsibility, in protecting your invited guests, from unprovoked attacks. Beingsshepherd (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Uh, I thought I just did. e.g. "Viriditas, please consider whether it was really necessary to comment on your dispute with Beingsshepherd here on my page.", etc. --Kevjonesin (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm how long a grace period should a moderator be afforded, before one's allowed to defend their own reputation? Beingsshepherd (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Kevjonesin (talk)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar

Template:Infobox Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A Fellow Editor. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

December 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Randall Munroe, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Rollback Reply

I appreciate your response and comments, as they were VERY insightful. Having obtained the privilege in the distant past, and not having conflicts that have redirected me to further investigation, I obviously error-ed in its use. As a consequence, I have read your comments and delved into the WP:Rollback articles and WP:Reverting, and found information on the Rollback (AGF) functionality that is more in tone with what I was attempting to accomplish. I appreciate your patience in this regard, as it was not my intention to create a disagreement or antagonism. My comment on "bug" still stands though: when attempting to use the standard rollack, I received a parser error which did not allow me to provide an edit summary, and thus explain the revert. While, this may continue to be an error on my part (for the use of the Rollback without summary), I just want to make it clear, that attempts to include edit summary explanations was attempted. Regardless, this is not a justification of an obvious problem on my part. Thank you for your counsel. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome.

To be clear, it was not just the lack of explanation which I took exception to but the general approach of reverting others en masse rather than making targeted edits addressing specific points. The folk wisdom "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. As I see it, applying a tool or method which saves one editor's time but costs another's doesn't really net any gains on a community level. Depending on how much is left to rebuild it may well produce a loss. Of course if one's dealing with overt vandalism this disparity actually becomes an advantage. Hmm, now "look before you shoot" comes to mind ...

This conversation keeps bringing old adages outta' me ... we keep this up and I'm gonna; hafta' get a wig and a rocking chair to speak forth from ...

Thank you for your patient courteous consideration, Zeorymer. :  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

Thanks for the kind words on the Abby Martin issue. I feel passionate about the fact that Wikipedia is working so well in so many areas, and when I was innocently trying to find out some information on a topic of public interest, I was obviously dismayed that anyone would not want Wikipedia to be the source. I could see where it was going in the discussion however, so for the sake of my emotional sanity I made my comments and then "unfollowed" the discussion. Things are evolving and eventually Wikipedians will find the right center on the general policy. LaurentianShield (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've actually been in very similar circumstances myself a few times and empathize with your sentiments. I sometimes get the feeling that some editors get so caught up in the game of editing—dropping rule acronyms like Magic Cards—that they lose sight of creating a shared body of reference material. If the article had been about someone more common you'd probably have been less likely to look them up in the first place, right? Personally, I think that a reasonable expectation of accuracy and threshold of notability may well be achieved by means other than just mass media links and such. In most cases, I prefer a stub with a few external links to no article at all.

Speaking of which ... I noticed someone has started a Breaking the Set article.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"If the article had been about someone more common you'd probably have been less likely to look them up in the first place, right?" Exactly, and as a Wikipedia partisan I want to find out on Wikipedia, not IMDB (not that I really have anything against IMDB). "In most cases, I prefer a stub with a few external links to no article at all." I also could not agree more. Just get it started. We're trying to learn things and help other people learn things, so just get the ball rolling with a few basic facts. LaurentianShield (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Amen. I'm finding some inertia still going on the talk page of the article-now-redirect page. And just messaged User:Viriditas who was mentioned as having started a fresh attempt at an Abby Martin article in a sandbox in his user space. Note that a stub Breaking the Set page has been started as well.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are some links I've collected of discussion surrounding the Abby Martin article. Mostly 'historical' references and possible article collaborators or otherwise interested parties. Feel free to add to it and/or open it's talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kevjonesin/sandbox/Abby_Martin_Discussion
--Kevjonesin (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• (The current proposed version for review is located atWikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Abby_Martin.
  

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion about the draft's status at Draft_talk:Abby_Martin#Additional_coverage

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps combine Breaking the Set & Abby Martin articles?

Leaned back and took a stretch—was gonna' restart a PBS vid I'd paused earlier—and it occurred to me that it might be wise to put our efforts into a single Breaking the Set (BtS) article with a subsection on Abby Martin. Much of Ms. Martin's broader notability seems to stem from her position as host of the show. And this would bring together a larger pool of references. And perhaps benefit—by proxy—from some of RT's general notability. Which brings to mind the further option of inserting researched BtS/Abby Martin material as a new subsection in the RT (TV network) article—perhaps as an interim measure. As a reader of the encyclopedia, I'm not too picky as to where I find the information I'm looking for as long as it's there and there are appropriate redirect titles to receive my search terms that lead me to it. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, from a Wikipedia POV, I think that's a really bad idea. There aren't enough secondary sources about just the show itself. There are, OTOH, enough sources about Abby that talk about her, her background, her artwork, her role in Occupy, Media Roots, Project Censored (both the radio show and film), 99%, and the show. I think an article about just the show will end up getting deleted and redirected back to RT, with a small paragraph about the show in the parent RT article, while an article about her biography will be maintained. Just because several editors screwed up her biography doesn't mean someone can't get it right. Viriditas (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

'Just because several editors screwed up her biography...' Gosh, I hope that's not a reference to me? My short-lived Abby Martin Wikipedia biography was deleted, because after some protest from and discussion with other editors, it was decided that she was too obscure a figure for the encyclopedia's inclusion (yes, I cited those more minor RT presenters, whose bios are accepted). That was however, some time ago (last year); and I gather that she's conducted many interviews with high-profile politicians since. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abby_MartinBeingsshepherd (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

What does her high profile interviews have to do with finding good sources to support the existence of her biography? In any case, I wasn't referring to you. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Because imo, it increases the likelihood of her being mentioned by citable mainstream media. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/putin-fights-war-of-images-and-propaganda-with-russia-today-channel-a-916162.html Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

I don't see what that link has to do with your point. Anyway, I added it yesterday. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

' Abby Martin, the woman with the sledgehammer, recently had her new colleague [' legendary talk show host Larry '] King as a guest on her own show. ' Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Gotcha. Thanks for pointing that out. Speaking of which, Martin told Ventura in the Buzzfeed interview (IIRC) that King accused her of being biased. Any idea if that was the show where he made that accusation? Hopefully I got that right. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to be: https://www.facebook.com/BreakingTheSet/posts/539057419489050

Btw, perhaps you're familiar with this; I've only just found it through Google: ' Abby Martin Banned on Wikipedia! ' http://dissentingdemocrat.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/abby-martin-banned-on-wikipedia/ Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

The current proposed version for review is located atWikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Abby_Martin.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion about the draft's status at Draft_talk:Abby_Martin#Additional_coverage

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Note 2014-01-29

[2] inspired [3]

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Note 2014-02-18: Edit summary (optional)?

en.m.wikipedia.org interface may be giving undesirable impression/emphasis ...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7lJyjbktG2oZDd1RURyOHNDSms/edit?usp=sharing

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2014 (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 (☎) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dang, that looks good ... Thanks 7&6=thirteen.

'Random-act-of-kindness' or did I do something in particular to attract such a tasty treat?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested for consensus

Please comment over at Draft talk:Abby Martin. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

---

---

---

Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014

Today's motto...

→ True friends stab you in the front. === June ===

Nominate one today!

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gröûp X (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to X (band)

X (American band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to X (band)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of captive orcas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

NewAmerican.com

I hope I'm not offending your beliefs, but the John Birch Society publication shouldn't be used for such factual statements. In virtually every case where they may be correct there will be a better source. Like the flashing star on the hat! Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

By all means, if you have a better source at hand which covers the same info, feel free to insert it as a replacement and remove the 'The New American' reference. I'll confess I was unaware of the publication's John Birch Society association. However, the content of the specific article appears sound regardless of the possibility of 'tin-foil hats' elsewhere. Suggestion: Dougweller, as it's you who has chosen to object to the source (but not presumably the content), perhaps it might be apropos for you to take on the task of finding a replacement. Cheers! --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I spent some time searching and when I found probably the best source realised it was already in that paragraph. I've added it to the first sentence also, but Philip S. Foner covers the entire history. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 cool!

... ... ... bonus trivia 4 U: Thums Up

:  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am involved

To explain and answer you question see this RfC -- PBS (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Notepad ++ system

Hi. I'm glad to see someone eventually noticed that page. :) To compare the Notepad++ syntax I posted with the WikEd software, you're going to find that WikEd comes out ahead in most regards. This is because it's a browser plugin, using the power of your browser to drive previewing and linking. The offering in my userspace is -for now, at least- nothing but a set of rules for syntax highlighting in an existing code-oriented text editor. The two big advantages my system offers is that it enables off-line editing, and saving drafts to your computer, as it uses a piece of standalone software (Notepad++) as it's base. The WikEd system runs in your browser, requires internet connectivity to work, and doesn't allow you to save.

If you're looking for the most powerful editing system, WikEd is going to be your choice. However, if you prefer to be able to work offline and save your drafts locally, Notepad++ with the language extension I created will serve you well. Note that a lot of the features on my page are potential future features, not current features. Right now, it only does syntax highlighting, although I've worked it so that this also accounts for some of the basic formatting (bold text appears bold, links are bold and colored, headings are larger and a different font, etc). However, there's nothing stopping you from using both. I do. I hope that answers your questions, and if you have any more just let me know. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, Thanks for responding (to link). Led me to snoop around a bit. Found Wikipedia:Text editor support. You may want to link to your stuff there. Noticed highlight code for vim there. Wonder if anyone is working on similar for (GUI based) *nix editors like gedit and geany? --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. I've updated the list, not only with my page, but with an external link to a full plugin for editing mediawiki (I just discovered this, and I'm going to download and test it soon, to see if I can incorporate my syntax highlighting into it). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent heads up about a merge discussion

File:Pie.jpeg

Jim Derby (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Patrol

I was notified, probably as creator of the page, that you'd 'patrolled' BlueMountain Capital. Seeing no trace on the page history or Talk there I'm guessing nothing too wrong was found and finding no result for wiki:patrol I was left wondering about the process, if you'd care to enlighten. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Swliv: Ha! Hi, Funny enough I recall having once been the one asking someone pretty much the same question ... and ironically I just (minutes ago on another's talk page edit mode hatnote of all places) discovered that it's so common there's even a template for answering it: {{subst:Whydidyoudothat}} ... which renders as a new section titled "Explaining" ...

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. Kevjonesin (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Swliv 'Patrol' discussion continued

• p.s.— There seems to be some unnecessary obscurity. Or maybe not enough obscurity ... Does it really serve any purpose to notify folks? Other than leading to questions like you've asked here, has anything actionable or substantially informative been conveyed? Personally, I'd go for skipping the personal notifications and having a publicly viewable automated note dropped into the relevant page's edit history instead. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing the patrol work, the explaining and the reflection. I was lazy; if I'd gone to Wikipedia:Patrol or WP:Patrol instead of my 'wiki' link-try above I'd have probably found the 'new pages' intro. I agree that an auto-note to the edit history would be a good addition. I don't mind the notification to the article creator -- as it happened it was just fleeting and not easily traceable. (Somehow I got here.) All's probably pretty much fine as is; I like to poke around/learn-test the ways. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

ECESR

[Kev Note: Discussion continued from User_talk:DragonflySixtyseven#ECESR_deletion --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)]

The article as it was did not make any assertions of notability aside from "it exists". It had been around nearly a month, plenty of time for someone to expand it. Just as I could have added a deletion tag to it and left it for another admin, you could have added an "major edits in progress" tag.

Also, if it was — as you said — "copy/pasted from an About page with rough English", then that's copyvio and it has to be deleted. You're more than welcome to write a fresh article about it, though. I look forward to reading it. DS (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• @DragonflySixtyseven: As to ECESR, FWIW, my comments on your page weren't intended to imply you did anything wrong or violated any 'WikiLaws' or such. I was hoping to court empathy, not necessarily to drop chastisement. Regarding "that's copyvio and it has to be deleted", perhaps the offending text might have been replaced rather than the whole article removed ... as shown in the screenshot I linked in my initial message on your page. In retrospect ('hindsight's 20/20' and all that), it seems there might have been room for a bit more finesse. And in the future, please give some consideration to the 'turn signals' idea as a good faith courtesy.

I was unaware of a "major edits in progress" tag. It sounds useful though, so glad I broached the subject. An opportunity for me to apply "turn signals" on my part. What's the template? ({{major edits in progress}} doesn't render)

On the template topic ... if you glance up at the preceding few comments (here on my talk page) you'll see I found the {{subst:whydidyoudothat}} template I found on your talk page handy. Timely. Thanks.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

p.s.— Is there anyway to get the edit history and such from the deleted Ecesr page? If I start it fresh under ECESR I'd like to notify previous editors and check for links and such. ... Or perhaps it might be easier to simply restore the previous stub with its associated records and let me continue from where I left off? --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that's template:Inuse. And I'll check. DS (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's see. Edits by: user:Mostafty, plus two other users who added a references tag (although the only reference provided is ECESR's own site) and an 'uncategorized' tag. So we can ignore that. And Mostafty's five edits were: creating the content that you already had, adding the reference to ECESR's own site, moving the reference around, adding boldface, and adding more boldface. Just start from scratch, okay? DS (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

'kay --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: The seedling has been planted (i.e. ECESR). Care to patrol it? --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User name curiosity

Thanks for patrolling, and thanks for asking! My username is the first track on Norwegian black metal band Dimmu Borgir's 2nd album, Stormblåst. It translates to "All light has faded away." <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Sugar Hill Suite

[Regards User talk:DISEman#Oops? --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)]

Check now (thanks for looking) DISEman (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Pasted content

Your recent editing history at Depraved-heart murder shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. This warning has been placed in regards to your recent 'See also' section wikilink removals. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MdCriminalAttorney (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Tit-for-tat, copy/paste (via [4]). Classy. User:MdCriminalAttorney, in the future please don't sign my name to your entries as you did above. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to give you due credit for the text. This edit warning certainly applies to your conduct as well. It would not have been me to appropriate to just switch your name for mine. I would not want to be accused of plagiarism.

I feel you are trying to bully me into consenting to your referring to pending cases in an article about a principal of law, which is completely inappropriate. Looking at the page edit history, it has been a long line of you battling with other editors in order to advance your goal of connecting the Freddie Gray case to the depraved heart article. Why can't you just wait for the case to conclude before putting this stuff in? I am not defending the officer's conduct in this case, but they are cloaked with a presumption of innocence until a conviction, as every person charges with a crime is. If the officers plead guilty to a lesser charge, were convicted of only lesser charges, or acquitted, were you planning on going back and undoing these links/edits yourself? Because at that point, the links/edits would be factually incorrect. If someone is convicted of 2nd degree murder, there will eventually be an appellate opinion discussing the facts and law of the case. You could then write a whole article about that opinion.MdCriminalAttorney (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• @MdCriminalAttorney: I feel you side-stepped an on going discussion amongst multiple editors, plunging in like a new religion. And may be overindulging in imagining motivations for me beyond what I've stated. Note that while I've argued against removal of all traces of the Gray case I've also argued against inclusion beyond a brief mention and eventually as a practical matter have conceded that now that there is another case example in the 'Well-known cases' section it's probably best to leave the Gray case out of the main body of the article. However, I'm frustrated by your failure to grasp that 'See also' links do not act as references for an article. They serve a different purpose. Hence they have a section separate from those of 'Notes' and 'References'. 'External links' are also judged under different criteria and have their own section and are not seen as somehow backwards citing the body of the article. They are different things.

As to your copy/paste entry above, the original characters I placed on your talk page were:

{{subst:uw-3rr|Depraved-heart murder|This warning has been placed in regards to your recent 'See also' section wikilink removals. --~~~~}}

... the 'magic of the wiki' did the rest. If, as suggested, you decide take some more time to better familiarize yourself with the medium and the culture of Wikipedia you'll likely pick up a few 'spells' yourself. To start you off here's the grimoire page relevant to my example above: Template:Uw-3rr.

Oh, and please restore the citation you removed without explanation.[5] It links to information directly relevant to the content of the Wiki article. That the linked Vox article also touches upon the Gray case in addition to content explicitly explaining the subject 'depraved-heart murder' is no reason to exorcise it. You've accused me of being on some sort of crusade on behalf of the Freddie Gray case, might not a third-party get the impression at this point that you yourself are on some sort of crusade to white-wash away any trace of it?

Alas, conflict seems to lead to polarization which seems to lead ... to ... ? My feet are certainly made of clay, and frustration with process doesn't always leave me at my best. Good night, MdCriminalAttorney. Perhaps we can find a path to some sort of inclusive consensus at another time. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop the bloody nonsense?

It would be appreciated if you do - Cwobeel (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

'Ditto'.[6][7]

User:Cwobeel, I do not trust you. Please do not post anymore to my talk page unless explicitly invited—by me—to do so. Effective immediately. --Kevjonesin (talk)

p.s.— And do not under any circumstances refactor anymore of my entries on other talk pages without my express permission. If you wish to request such permission, do not post here, {{ping}} me from your own—or from a relevant article talk page. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Synagogue

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Synagogue. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kev,

If you saw my latest post on the talk page there, you will see that I am throwing in the towel. If you want to pick it up from there, welcome. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter May (disambiguation)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter May (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of largest cities in the European Union by population within city limits

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of largest cities in the European Union by population within city limits. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Herbert Hope Risley

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Herbert Hope Risley. Legobot (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Soka Gakkai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Soka Gakkai. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bad Girls Club

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bad Girls Club. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Providence (religious movement)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Providence (religious movement). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gospel of Mark

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gospel of Mark. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wardrobe malfunction

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wardrobe malfunction. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schizoaffective disorder

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schizoaffective disorder. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Major League Baseball postseason teams

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Major League Baseball postseason teams. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: being to awesmoe

• lulz, u awwsum 2 --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Snow close listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Snow close. Since you had some involvement with the Snow close redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 08:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genesis P-Orridge

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genesis P-Orridge. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Karbala

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Karbala. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)

If you don't like something, please present your position on the Talk page.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you might avail yourself of this as an opportunity to lead by example. i.e. Please elaborate as to what specifically you wish to address and why it is of concern to you. Tnx, --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your explanation~on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50). Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"I'm still waiting for your explanation" ... Explanation of what? It would be much easier to assist you if you would elaborate as to what specifically you wish to address and why it is of concern to you. If you would prefer to do so on Talk: Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50) rather than here—here, where you chose to initiate communication (rather than pinging me from elsewhere)—by all means feel free to lead by example and start a thread there explicitly addressing what has caught your interest and why.

[I'm both not psychic and not feeling particularly well today; if you're not just trying to express some sort of controlling territorial dominance behavior and instead actually have some genuine question about edits I've made you're going to need to express yourself with words and ask informed/informative questions. Maybe include links to relative diffs, etc. Otherwise, please pardon me and move on to other things.] --Kevjonesin (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. It's your task to explain you are right, not here.Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• <sigh> --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christianity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christianity. Legobot (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sugar Mama (song)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sugar Mama (song). Legobot (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of LibreOffice Wiki Publisher Test

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Omni, 'twas intended to go to my sandbox. I'm trying to figure out usage of LibreOffice's mediawiki extension. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox religious biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox religious biography. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mahavira

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mahavira. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's 1500 metres

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's 1500 metres. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

My userpage

I'm wondering why a previous incarnation of my userpage is in your sandbox, and have been wondering for a while. You've probably left Wikipedia, though. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I most likely liked some aspect of your formatting and copied it as a reference. I've done similar with various sized source snippets from others' pages; probably grabbed yours en masse out of convenience. If you offer me a link to the specific sandbox page in question I'll give it a closer look. As to whether I've "probably left Wikipedia" ... clicking on the link to my contribution history might offer some indication of my recent level of involvement. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

p.s.— oops, forgot to ping: I dream of horses --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 23:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of films considered the best

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of films considered the best. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 Stanley Cup Finals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 Stanley Cup Finals. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abby Tomlinson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abby Tomlinson. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sia Furler

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sia Furler. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:NHL 15

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:NHL 15. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kevjonesin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Etherpad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etherpad

https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Test-Pad_001

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting

Another note to self:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samwalton9#Syntax_highlighting https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot/Syntax_highlighter

Firework GIF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuochi_d%27artificio.gif

--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I see you reverted my edit to the above mentioned image on Commons. I am wondering if we are on the same page: did you take the picture yourself? Because my own understand of authorship is that it is generated by the creator of an image and is not changed as the result of any derivative works based on that image. Please clear up for me where our pages are not lining up. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444, I created the image file myself in GIMP (I've probably even got the working .xcf file on an old hard drive somewhere). I took a public domain image as a starting base image and then digitally altered image characteristics and added notation relevant to a talk page thread in which it was used to further discussion aimed at developing other images for mainspace display.

Basically, as I see it, the public domain image I started with was a 'raw ingredient' in this context which I then seasoned and garnished to bring about something else cooked by me to serve a specific purpose. Hence, for-better-or-worse, the credit/blame for the resultant file belongs to me (I certainly wouldn't want to blame YuryKirienko for my shoddy/hasty freehand annotation arrows; thankfully I've since learned better methods, even when working quickly in drafts).

To put it another way ... Would the author of:

... be the Campbell Soup Company or Andy Warhol?

[Obviously, an annotated image created to further a discussion about improving some marine biology articles isn't likely to get lauded as 'fine art' anytime soon, but I think the general logic still applies.]

As a matter of custom and courtesy I did note on the Commons file page that I'd used another file from Commons in creating the file I uploaded via a 'derived from' template and the link provided with such takes one to a page noting YuryKirienko's contribution. If Yury would like me to explicitly add his name alongside the 'derived from' filename link I'm happy to do so, but as he gifted the image to the public domain rather than using some sort of CC-attribute license I'm guessing he's not particularly concerned about it. That's just me speculating on his behalf though; as Yuri's tagged above he should receive a notification and is welcome to comment for himself.

Now in looking back at the image history for commons:File:Opened scallop shell.jpg what I do see Yury might have cause to take umbrage with is the fact that graphists (including me, sadly) from the Wikipedia and Commons Photography Workshops radically cropped and altered his original image file and then uploaded the results overtop as replacements in clear violation of COM:OVERWRITE. The official guidelines and the habits-and-culture of the Photography labs have diverged over time in this respect and I've been giving thought lately to ways we might adapt both to better preserve a file page originator's composition and to accommodate pragmatic workflow at the Photography Workshops – as the present system—or lack thereof—leads at times to conflict and confusion.

Anyway, KDS4444, thanks for asking for my thoughts on this and I hope my reply doesn't feel too lengthy; I felt inspired to be thorough and speak to detail.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

p.s.-- Here's the actual image YuryKirienko entered into the public domain via Wikimedia Commons:

• commons/archive/a/a8/20130529234912!Opened_scallop_shell.jpg

... and here's the one I did ...

• commons/9/94/Opened_scallop_shell_%28with_arrows%29.png

While there certainly are obvious similarities, I think if one views them side by side significant differences should also become readily apparent. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Hi folks! A public domain is a public domain, so I think that everybody's free to do everything he wants with free pictures. -- YuryKirienko (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Yury --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

All excellent points! Let me make a counter argument: the Campbell's soup can is "authored" by Warhol because it is a derivative work-- which is, it contains new creative content and is not simply a reiteration of a soup can. Along with this, the fact that an image is in the public domain does not give a person the rights to claim that he or she is in fact the author when someone else created the original work-- there may not be a lawsuit on the horizon, but authorship doesn't vanish when a work is placed in the public domain. I am not sure I believe that adding notation to an image constitutes new, original, creative input: I think it represents only writing letters and arrows on another image. I guess my point is that by claiming you are the author, you imply that you "created" the work (i.e., the creative part of it, the choice of lighting, the choice of angle, the choice of subject, the choice of color tones, etc., even if you did not consciously make any of these choices) whereas the only choices you did make were with regard to where to place the letters (difficult to argue that this is creative) or how to place the arrows (same problem). I, too, care rather passionately about this subject, and I want to get it hashed out at least for myself so that, if it turns out I did in fact make a mistake, I won't repeat it! Your thoughts on the above?? KDS4444 (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I left a note at the Village Pump on Commons explaining the confusion we are having over this and inviting others to have a look at it and help us figure out what the answer is. Am hoping someone will be along soon to offer their insights! KDS4444 (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

KDS4444, I'm a bit dumbfounded as the reasons you give to rule out my authorship are in large part reasons I feel actually establish my authorship. Did you compare the image I made in GIMP with the image YuryKirienko uploaded as I suggested?

p.s.-- Here's the actual image YuryKirienko entered into the public domain via Wikimedia Commons:

• commons/archive/a/a8/20130529234912!Opened_scallop_shell.jpg

... and here's the one I did ...

• commons/9/94/Opened_scallop_shell_%28with_arrows%29.png

While there certainly are obvious similarities, I think if one views them side by side significant differences should also become readily apparent. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My version clearly "contains new creative content and is not simply a reiteration" as evidenced by means of comparing "the creative part of it, the choice of lighting, the choice of angle, the choice of subject, the choice of color tones, etc.". Compared to Yury's photo file my creation has been cropped, rotated, the background has been both dimmed and blurred, color and contrast levels have been pushed to exaggerate detail, and then to top it off I added annotation indicating points off reference in red lines and letters. Jeez man, have you even been looking at stuff I've been citing – the file histories on Commons, the scallop article talk page discussion where my image is used, specific image links, official Commons guidelines, and such? Have you looked at Yury's photo next to my GIMP image?
[Compare the photo Yury posted and claims authorship of, not the cropped and altered digital image by User:Centpacrr that currently stands in its place (in violation of Commons guidelines). If you're feeling particularly thorough and want to look more into how File:Opened scallop shell.jpg's messy upload history came about feel free to have a poke around in the Wikipedia Photography Workshop's June 2013 archive and read the comments accompanying the file's edit request. And please note that even compared to Centpacrr's version there are additions and alterations performed by me evident in the image I put in place at File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png.

KDS4444, I've put a good bit of effort into laying the situation out in detail here with links, visual aids, and my own thoughts at some length. I'm left feeling that you've not been putting comparable effort into following up on the references I've presented. Please pardon me if I'm starting to come off as pissy, but I find it quite frustrating to have come here and found you attempting to cite the very details which distinguish Yury's photo from my GIMP creation as somehow evidential of their similarity. It implies a failure on your part to effectively explore the provenance I've painstakingly presented. Perhaps in the future it may help if you'd make more of an effort to provide specific links as citations along with the elements of your 'counter arguments' — such may help better establish whether apples-to-apples comparisons have been made, among other things.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Kev, please don't become angry. I am sorry that I have not been thoroughly attentive, and yes, you have put more into this interaction than I have, though this is only because I am very busy with a number of other things at the moment and dividing my time between then appropriately can sometimes be difficult for me. Please understand that I am trying to take this issue very seriously, and will henceforth be making an effort to be more present and thorough here for you. You have clearly given this a great deal of thought and have moved carefully through the process. Let me see if I am able to respond in kind. It's no fun dancing with a partner who is on the phone or responding to emails, and no one learns anything that way either. So let us try to dance. You have my attention, and I do not want to turn out to have been a jerk here to you.

Okay, then. There is a lot to respond to. Let's see if I can hold the A.D.D. in check (!). I have now compared the original photo taken by Yuri with the one you ended up producing with the annotations (you may or may not recall that I myself was the editor with whom you interacted in attempting to figure out what all those scallop organs were back in the talk page! It was me!! Me! And I thought we did a pretty good job of figuring them all out, and your annotations to the image certainly helped us do that). I can see that you cropped it and enhanced the colors, and then added the annotations (of course). The other changes you made are more subtle, but I do not disagree with your claim to have made them, all of them.

And so, we now stand on a point, comparing the two, where we ask ourselves, "Is the second image a derivative work with sufficient new creative content to warrant a new copyright claim and a new claim of authorship?" The Wikipedia article on the subject states, "A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”." It also says, "A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. " and it says, "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." Another thing I am looking at there is the degree to which the second/ derivative work is somehow "transformative" of the first-- does it take the earlier work and genuinely transform it in ways that are not merely technical and that demonstrate the creative personality of the person who makes the second work? I am still not certain your changes to Yuri's image qualify on those grounds.

As a counterpoint regarding paying attention to what the other has written, you never responded to my comment regarding the Campbell's soup can, which you and I both agree belongs to Warhol but don't seem to agree on why. Since the can is a subject you brought up, and on which I feel I have a pretty firm footing for explaining why it is a derivative work entitled to its own authorship which is different from your own claim of new authorship for the scallop, perhaps we can continue to use that as out framework for comparison? Maybe the answer lies that way (or maybe it does not-- what do you think?).

It doesn't look like anyone from Commons has decided to drop in, but there is still time. Let's be sure we don't generate too large of a wall of text before they get here :-) Okay? Am looking forward to hearing back from you. Let's keep this friendly. I like you, Kev. KDS4444 (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure the following is much use, but copying from commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Authorship_of_a_modified_public_domain_file--_who_gets_to_claim_it.3F where this question also was opened.

BEGIN COPY

Derivative work cannot attract any new copyright if the original work has fallen into the public domain. Wikicology (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikicology: that sounds wrong, as anything like a general principle. A photo of a PD sculpture is a derivative work, but is copyrightable in its own right. (I will copy your & my remarks to the linked talk page where they were requested.) - Jmabel ! talk 15:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

END COPY

-- Jmabel | Talk 16:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Link to discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkingfax (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • but since that section is likely to be archived, here's a permalink to the presumably relevant state. - Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am sorry you feel this way. I guess our conversation is over. KDS4444 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ya' think? I'd hoped the big bright 'closed discussion' notices preceding your comment would indicate that furthering Commons policy discussion here (as has been done below) might be unwelcome ... Saddens me to have felt reduced to using snark to get that the point across ... I feel such probably reflects poorly on both of us. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Closed conversations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kev, you closed our discussion before I was done with the topic. Please forgive me for creating a new section heading and continuing with some more thoughts/ questions. If you do not wish for this conversation to take place on your talk page, I would be fine if you moved it to, say, the talk page of the .png file that was the subject of our previous discussion (that talk page currently does not exist).

I have two remaining significant concerns. The first is that from what you have said, volunteers in the graphics lab routinely take public domain works, modify them in ways that are technical and not transformative, and then claim authorship to the new (not genuinely derivative) works. Is this so? If it is, then the graphics lab volunteers probably need to have a refresher in copyright and claims to authorship of public domain works, 'cause that ain't so! Please clarify for me on that one. I am a graphic artist myself, and have donated several images to Commons, but my works are .svg files that I either create de novo or are so far from any other work to raise copyright or authorship questions. Fill me in.

The second point may seem like just a "point" in the sense of being "pointy" or simply "making a point", but please bear with me because at the root of the point is a fundamental meaning of authorship and the public domain that I am trying to figure out and maybe even draft some guidelines for that Commons can use broadly. The image of the scallop as it now stands mentions Yuri as the "original author" and you as the author of the "derivative work". I still have a problem with the second part of that— the bullet I want one of us to bite is the one that either means your name gets removed from the "author" field altogether (because your revision, though time-consuming and complicated, does not seem to represent significant original new creative content to me) or means that the work really is a thing that is entitled to its own copyright and therefore really is a "derivative" work (and I bite the bullet and shut the hell up!). I don't feel like we have come to an agreement on that point— from what I have been able to suss out from others' comments, your changes don't look like they rise to the level of new creative copyrightable content (PLEASE DON'T TAKE THAT TO MEAN THAT I DO NOT APPRECIATE THEM OR THAT THEY ARE NOT IMPORTANT BECAUSE I DO AND THEY ARE!!!!). If you are reading the same things that I am, then you cannot claim any authorship to the revised image, even as a derivative work, because it is not a derivative work, it is essentially a copy of a pre-existing work.

That all sounds like I am demanding that you swallow your pride and take your name off the file. Heck, it isn't my file, why should I care? I care only because I want to know how all this is supposed to work and what the correct outcome really should be. I will tell you that I, too, have spent hours of my time making changes to someone else's freely licensed work on Commons and then uploaded that work and reluctantly named the original author as the author of the work I had created (like this one and its friends)... Except that I didn't create it, really, I just modified it. Still, it felt wrong, and I wanted to name myself as author of at least my changes to it! But when I sat down and went over everything, I had to admit that even though I had make lots of changes and improvements, I had not created a transformative, new work. I had only improved and modified an existing one. No authorship for me. And it felt wrong, but I think it was right, and I want to know for sure. That is why I am, er, picking on you! (Which I do not mean to do! Smack me with something! I might be a dick! I am trying to figure things out and making an ass of myself! But what is the answer???). Anyhow, putting that aside, and taking in all that we have talked about and that others have added, what do you think now about the authorship of the revised image? Please let me know. I will check back with you soon. KDS4444 (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

(See this page which I am putting together to help people assess authorship on Commons. How is it that there is not yet a page that discusses this basic concept yet?? But apparently there is not, and someone should write one, and I figure it might as well be me and anyone else I can lasso into contributing to it— suckers.) KDS4444 (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Kev, you closed our discussion before I was done with the topic. Please forgive me for creating a new section heading and continuing with some more thoughts/ questions. If you do not wish for this conversation to take place on your talk page, I would be fine if you moved it to, say, the talk page of the .png file that was the subject of our previous discussion (that talk page currently does not exist)."

Dude! I already offered you the opportunity to do so yourself! Read the message I already left on your talkpage and follow the link to the paragraph I directed your attention to. I explicitly suggest someone other than me (like perhaps YOU) might take responsibility for transcribing this stuff to a more appropriate venue (like, maybe discuss Commons policy on Commons; radical idea, I know, right?). You've offered no reply to my message on your own talkpage regarding such, yet you've chosen to come here to my page and drop a bunch of stuff regarding discussions I clearly no longer wish to play host to! Please get a clue. Go to to commons:File_talk:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png and initiate the page by transcribing stuff from precedings here and offer relevant links to parallel discussions that you already have going elsewhere on Commons and then I'll be happy to continue discussing Commons policy (on Commons). It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to request that we discuss edits we both made to a filepage on Commons on the discussion page of that file on Commons. The reason the discussion page link there is [now 'was'] still a 'red link' is because you haven't bothered to start a discussion there yet; instead you've tried to use my personal en.Wikipedia talkpage to host a Commons conference! Jeez, maybe you have some phobia regarding the color red ... Contrary to custom, I'm going to go initiate the discussion page there with a dummy edit ... Perhaps it'll be easier for you if someone else 'breaks the ice' ... --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

p.s.-- Please note, FWIW, that before coming here and finding that you'd chosen against my wishes to reinitiate further Commons policy discussion on my page here, I offered a much more polite reply to your comment on Jmabel's page. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, for my part, I do realize now in hindsight that I probably should have 'nipped things in the bud' and insisted on carrying on discussion on Commons from the start rather than acquiescing to respond here (hence perhaps giving implied consent). Hopefully by this point it's been a learning experience for both of us. May our newfound wisdom guide us to greater elegance. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nissan Caravan reverts

Greetings, sir! An RFC has been opened asking about your proposed edit to Nissan_Caravan. Would you please explain your reasons for reverting the removal which the RFC was opened for? Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your consistent refusal to respond to any of the things I say is becoming extremely rude. Your deliberate misinterpretation of my using an example of a useful hatnote is equally offensive. I will wait a couple more days for you to begin acting in good faith, to actually discuss instead of just stonewalling and then I shall have to go to a higher instance.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Associated links for those who might wish to form their own opinions

Article talkpage threads

• Talk:Dodge_Caravan#Dab_tags
• Talk:Nissan_Caravan#Useless_dab_tags
• RFC on disambiguation hatnotes for 'Caravan' named vehicles

Relevant article edits

Nissan:

times, dates, edits, summaries

02:57, 6 January 2016 , DAB hatnote in place at least a year+ ago [11] edit summary: NA 13 January 2017, User:Mr.choppers removes longstanding DAB hatnote [12] edit summary: (these distinguish tags are seriously not necessary.) 02:01, 14 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin restores hatnote [13] edit summary: (Undid revision 759905683 by Mr.choppers (talk) -- please explain reason for objecting to name disambiguation on talk page) 18:12, 16 January 2017, User:Regushee switched to a different template (presumably in response to talkpage dialog) [14] edit summary: [no summary] 03:12, 19 January 2017, User:Mr.choppers removes Regushee's version [15] edit summary: ("see also" tag used incorrectly. Dodge Caravan is unrelated.) 15:33, 20 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin restores hatnote [16] edit summary: (Undid revision 760823211 by Mr.choppers (talk) -- no consensus on talkpage; 2 of 3 editors discussing the topic support disambiguation) 16:39, 20 January 2017, User:Mr.choppers removes hatnote [17] edit summary: (Undid revision 761088881 by Kevjonesin (talk) "See also" tag is absolutely completely erroneous here. It is meant for related things.) 16:29, 24 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin implements hatnote in a manner comparable to an instance presented on talkpage as an acceptable example by User:Mr.choppers [18] edit summary: (→‎top: applied Template:About disambuation hatnote as per suggestion on talkpage RFC) 00:42, 25 January 2017, User:Regushee adds wikilink [19] edit summary: [no summary] 09:28, 25 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin modifies phrasing [20] edit summary: (→‎top: streamlined hatnote phrasing) 09:49, 25 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin adds wikilink [21] edit summary: (→‎top: wikilink) 09:51, 25 January 2017 , User:Mr.choppers removes hatnote [22] edit summary: (rm senseless tags. No such suggestion was made. Please stop pretending to misread me.) 10:05, 25 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin restores hatnote [23] edit summary: (Undid revision 761907903 by Mr.choppers (talk) -- an RFC is currently underway as to whether to 'keep' or 'remove'; having something in place to either 'keep' or 'remove' seems self-evident) 10:30, 25 January 2017, User:Mr.choppers removes hatnote [24] edit summary: (Undid revision 761909416 by Kevjonesin (talk) Please respond to my concerns. No suggestion to add this tag was made. Adding Cessna is patently absurd.)

Dodge:

times, dates, edits, summaries

18:10, 12 January 2016, DAB hatnote already in place (so at least for a year+) [25] 15:05, 13 January 2017, User:Mr.choppers removes it [26] edit summary: (silly; remove) 01:49, 14 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin undoes removal [27] edit summary: (Undid revision 759905950 by Mr.choppers (talk) -- please elaborate on talk page as to why name disambiguation might be considered 'silly') 18:12, 16 January 2017, User:Regushee changes hatnote template (presumably in response to Mr.choppers having directed his argument at one point to specific choice of hatnote)[28] edit summary: [no summary] 03:12, 19 January 2017, User:Mr.choppers removes Regushee's version [29] edit summary: (rm tags for unrelated articles) 15:34, 20 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin undoes removal (I appear to have conflated User:Regushee's edit with discussion, oops) [30] edit summary: (Undid revision 760823236 by Mr.choppers (talk) -- no consensus on talkpage; 2 of 3 editors discussing the topic support disambiguation) 16:40, 20 January 2017, User:Mr.choppers removes hatnote [31] edit summary: (Undid revision 761088974 by Kevjonesin (talk) "See also" tag is used in error. And is not under discussion.) 10:46, 22 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin undoes removal [32] edit summary: (Undid revision 761097730 by Mr.choppers (talk) - perhaps replace with a different DAB hatnote rather than just removing) 09:38, 25 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin adapts with alternate template [33] edit summary: (→‎top: changed dab hatnote as per suggestion on Nissan Caravan RFC) 09:50, 25 January 2017, User:Kevjonesin adds wikilink [34] edit summary: (→‎top: wikilink) 09:52, 25 January 2017, User:Mr.choppers removes hatnote [35] edit summary: (please see talk page)

--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Post new entries below preceding ones, please.

Thanks. :  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Etherpad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etherpad

https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Test-Pad_001

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting

Another note to self:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samwalton9#Syntax_highlighting https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot/Syntax_highlighter

Firework GIF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuochi_d%27artificio.gif

--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Creed etc

Thanks for your kind words.

You might like to look at User:Andrewa/creed and wp:The Parable of the Ants, or even my latest (and much riskier) attempt at wisdom, User:Andrewa/How not to rant. Comments about any of them always appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

PS or even wp:correct. In recent discussions (and even as a background to much of the ANI stuff) it may be the most important... I'd prefer that to be the creed, but hope they're both useful. Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Dodge Caravan merger

I've created a merger discussion on the Dodge Caravan talk page and would like your input. Reattacollector (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll give it a look tomorrow (I'm getting ready to log off and sleep). In the mean time, please examine the material I linked at User_talk:NeilN. "G'night", --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

/ Transition stuff >

Old talkpage heading, etc.

• Markup preserved within {{Void}} in edit mode.

--A Fellow Editor/Kevjonesin (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Old userpage heading, etc.

• Markup preserved within {{Void}} in edit mode.

--A Fellow Editor/Kevjonesin (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)