User talk:Kku/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Happy Earth day!

Happy Earth Day!

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Earth day on the behalf of WikiProject Environment and WikiProject Ecology.

When man tries to fight nature, he invariably loses. Nature invariably wins. It is only when man is wise enough to live with nature that he really gets anywhere.

--Elmer T. Peterson

Sent by Path slopu (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Environment and its related projects. © Copyleft 2020

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you! I cannot but realize just how much Earth there is around me. -- Kku (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Plastic Pollution Coalition for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plastic Pollution Coalition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Pollution Coalition until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Barbara Casini for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbara Casini is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Casini until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vmavanti (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you know of any sources in English that talk about her?
Vmavanti (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ruud Jacobs moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ruud Jacobs, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

oh, wow. zealousness roams the wp again. -- Kku (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Südwestdeutsche Medien Holding moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Südwestdeutsche Medien Holding, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The patrolling workforce appears to have increased lately. Where are all the writers? What happened to them? I am very concerned. -- Kku (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Climate and energy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate and energy, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate and energy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruud Jacobs (January 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Allmusic, Discogs and PRweb are not reliable sources
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kku! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Information creation

Hi a few weeks ago you created Information creation as a disambiguation page. I’m a bit puzzled by it. First, we don’t have disambiguation pages with only two elements, and second it’s not clear to me why “information creation” could mean “information retrieval”. So I’m not really seeing the purpose of the page at all. Am I missing something? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I will try to be of help. Your first point is merely and entirely formal and I will not argue with that. If there exist two homonyms which are used in a markedly different sense, they must be disambiguated, however you do it. As to the second point: In general usage, and especially so in marketing blurb, "information retrieval" from hitherto untapped sources, especially in an automated way, is gladly confused with "creation of new information". Examples of this can also be found on WP prior to the article in question (see Informetrics). In other contexts, people talk about information creation in the sense "we are publishing new insights" (on a webpage, etc.). This is clearly a different thing, because somebody uses their creativity to produce sth. qualitatively new, i.e. new content. Of course, we are close to a twilight zone here, but a) I am not in a position to argue for or against conservation of information at this point and b) the problem already starts with the ubiquitous confusion between data (or content) and information. See e.g. DIKW pyramid. So at the level of "information production" we are already fighting against the consequences of unclear higher concepts. Hope my motivation becomes clearer now. -- Kku (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Südwestdeutsche Medien Holding

Hello, Kku. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Südwestdeutsche Medien Holding".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Sound Attenuators. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeking feedback

Hi! In the past, you commented on the Communication theory page, and now I've written a replacement article (discussion at Talk:communication_theory#Proposed_replacement). I'm eager for feedback on the overhaul -- I put the new article in my sandbox.Kaylea Champion (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I like the idea of trying to "rehome" what's in the current article into either a new page or finding it a home in the info theory page. I'll give it a try; info theory isn't a specialty of mine but I've been meaning to learn it....! Kaylea Champion (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ruud Jacobs

Information icon Hello, Kku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ruud Jacobs, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruud Jacobs (July 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
no improvement since previous decline?
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kku! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Südwestdeutsche Medien Holding

Information icon Hello, Kku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Südwestdeutsche Medien Holding, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels

Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for stv.tv

An article that you have been involved in editing—stv.tv—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. GMc(talk?) 13:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Plant resources moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Plant resources, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Many people variously refer to "plant resources" without specific scope. So this was obviously meant as sth. along the lines of Wikipedia outlines, indicating the levels of where plants are used and a rough hierarchy. These outlines do not very often contain references. In such cases, forcing additional content into the article for formal reasons alone does not always improve the usefulness of the contents. -- Kku (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
hi thanks for your message. I was a bit mystified by this article. I wondered if it was intended to be a disambiguation page or if it was just an initial sketch of something larger. I didn’t think of it being an outline but if there isn’t substantially more to it, I’m not sure an outline is needed. The relationship between the top level concept and the blue linked articles didn’t seem clear to me either, and without sources I’m afraid it looked like an odd piece of original research. Mccapra (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Orlandus Wilson

Notice

The article Orlandus Wilson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stub on non-notable person, and no reason or ability to expand. He's a member of the Golden Gate Quartet, which has a long article. He's not independently notable. The scant info in this article -- birth year, vocal range -- is in that article already, so no merge. And there's nothing about him in that article to bring over here and make a proper article. Anything new about him that comes to light can go into that article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Herostratus (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Analytics vs analysis

Hi there,

Hopefully you are doing well!

A long time ago, in the article "Analytics," you wrote "Thus, analytics is not so much concerned with individual analyses or analysis steps, but with the entire methodology. There is a pronounced tendency to use the term analytics in business settings (e.g. text analytics vs. the more generic text mining), presumably to lay emphasis on the interdisciplinary and integrative aspect.": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Analytics&oldid=500770361

Would you happen to have source for this info? Tommyren (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that the original paragraph has been ref.ed and modified anyway. But, if you insist: https://www.bmc.com/blogs/data-analytics-vs-data-analysis/ and others found by: https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=data+analytics+vs.+analysis+&cat=web&pl=ext-ff&language=english&extVersion=1.3.0 . Besides, there was a lot of (painful) personal experience behind this insight. Just take a peek into the business intelligence business. The difference will jump into your face. -- Kku (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fuel efficiency in aircraft

Hi, I noticed you were linking Fuel efficiency from many aircraft articles. Note there is a more specific article Fuel economy in aircraft if you want to link to instead. Bye!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC) thanks for pinging me if you reply as i don't follow your talk page

That's definitely something to watch and take into account! Thank you! -- Kku (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Südwestdeutsche Medien Holding

Hello, Kku. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Südwestdeutsche Medien Holding".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank's everybody for their great oversight to ensure that every single byte be saved for such relevance as the blisters on Beyonce's butt or something in this vein. Where would WP end if sparsity and efficiency didn't rule througout. I am eternally grateful to be part of a community that absolutely knows precious knowledge from waste and works 24/7 to ensure a constructive environment. -- Kku (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"Pro-life" v "anti-abortion"

Please be aware we normally use "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life", especially in links, as pro-life redirects to Anti-abortion movements. See the FAQ on the talk page there. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I am well aware of this. The point is that the articles I just changed very often unabashedly and consciously(?) do use the euphemistic version. I did not bother to change that, since a change in wording would probably fuel more discussion than useful. I am very willing, however, to discuss ways to nudge WP towards a less biased phrasing style. -- Kku (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NAPAW

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.

A tag has been placed on NAPAW requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Fram (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If admins were half as alert on tracking down advertisements, fandom, and outright bullshit, WP could be a better place indeed. -- Kku (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, and I tag all kinds of pages for speedy deletion. So not clear what your point actually is, or how it is in any way a reason not to delete your article. Fram (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
While tagging articles for deletion might also be useful for keeping proliferation of nonsense articles, the page I have created to my mind is on a par with other red links - neither too useful, but certainly not harmful (until somebody proves that the NAPAW is indeed an irrelevant congregation, at any rate). In general, few of the WP recommendations should be taken as strict policies, just my 2 cents. -- Kku (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Plant resources

Information icon Hello, Kku. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Plant resources, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Automated edits in Spanish Wikipedia

Hola Kku, I have seen that you are maybe doing automated edits in the Spanish Wikipedia where you create internal links in pages related to the campain #WikiForHumanRights. How do you do it? Recently an article was created: Gleba (micología) and there are many articles about funga where it would be great that the word "gleba" in them is linked to this new article. Can you do it? Cheers, Cbrescia (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hola Cbrescia, I am glad that you ask. In fact the tools that you ask for have become indispensable to me, faced with the sheer amount of text that sifting through manually would make the task virtually impossible. So, here we go. There is
  1. http://edwardbetts.com/find_link/ - a very fine tool that partially automates the task - available for all languages, although, mind you, not flaw-free for non-English ones (it appears there are at least some rules for stemming built in)
  2. my shell script adaptation of pywikibot with its ready made scripts/replace.py module that reduces the routine to automated search for patterns, automatic replacement of patterns and the user only clicking y or n on the command line for approval or dismissal of the suggested edits. Caution: the filtering is heavily dependent on the order and combination of filters you give and can slow down the process to unbearable. If you are interested, I can provide you with the list of filtering parameters I use that just so happens to work satisfatorily for body text pattern searches. -- Kku (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
On a side note: simple search replace for terms that have an ambiguity in them and need to be qualified further is a little trickier, as you might have suspected. I have experimented with it and couldn't find a solution that worked right all the time. It is probably best to pywikibot here, because it will allow arbitrary replacements, not just simple hyperlinking of the search term. -- Kku (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Hola Kku, thanks for the response! I undertand what you are saying but I think I have to deepen my knowledge in this type of automated edits in order to do them. But now I have an idea on how to tackle this. Best regards, Cbrescia (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
You are very welcome. If you are not conversant in scripting (on Linux, preferentially) then of course it's best to play around with "Find Link" first. When you feel like you have more specific questions, feel free to contact me again, I'll be glad to be of help. -- Kku (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Kku

Thank you for creating ChemIDplus.

User:Dr vulpes, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hey Kku your article is really important, I have friends who have used ChemIDplus and I didn't even know it wasn't a page here on Wikipedia. I merged your work over to the United States National Library of Medicine page as I felt it would mesh better with the other services NLM offers and have more exposure. You're doing great work and I hope to see more of your contributions to Wikipedia. If you need anything help or have any questions please feel free to message me on my talk page. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Dr vulpes}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

@Dr vulpes: Thanks for the flowers. You forgot the Trump era effects part. Just saying. -- Kku (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to add it back in if you like. I thought it would be better to be more conservative with the edit since it was being added to an article and community I wasn't super familiar with. I'm a psychologist not a chemist, I know where my expertise ends :-). I do feel that if there was going to be a mention of funding cuts to NIH/NLM (particularly political cuts) it might warrant its own section in the article because more things were but during that time then just the ChemIDplus database. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 07:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Alright. I see your point. Maybe very cautiously in a more general paragraph. :) -- Kku (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"Violence in movies" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Violence in movies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Violence in movies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


Information icon Hello, I'm LaundryPizza03. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
One is not allowed to express amazement? Or provide specific arguments in favor of some content? I wasn't aware of this. Thank you for making your point. -- Kku (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
No, expressing amazement is allowed. However, I interpreted it as baselessly accusing someone of one-track deletionism, which could be a personal attack. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I am quite certain that you would immediately recognize one-track deletionism if it came your way. -- Kku (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William Schiøpffe

Notice

The article William Schiøpffe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't pas WP:GNG and only had one reference.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of William Schiøpffe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Schiøpffe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Schiøpffe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kku!

Happy New Year!

Kku,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of NantWorks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NantWorks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NantWorks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rhadow (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

NOTAMS

Kennst Du vielleicht jemanden, der in dieses Thema etwas Licht bringen könnte? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident#Airspace Die Frage ist, wo und wann hat Russland seine Erklärung zum "temporary airspace regime" über der Krim abgegeben und wie sieht dieses Gebiet aus? Entweder weiß jemand, wie man gezielt nach diesen Daten sucht, oder jemand kann die verfügbaren Datenhaufen mit einem Script so durchsuchen, dass man nicht Tage braucht, um den richtigen Datensatz zu finden. Manorainjan 16:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hyperlinks

Hello Kku,

Thank you for your comments on my Talk Page. You are most definitely correct - leaf litter is important to most rainforests and to a few species of Sarcochilus. However, it is most unlikely that a reader of either article would stop to read the article about leaf litter. Most (all?) readers know what leaf litter is. The purpose of a link is to aid understanding, not because the linked word or phrase is important.

The Manual of Style/Linking is worth a read, especially the sections on underlinking, overlinking and [Note 1].

I'm happy to continue this discussion here, or on my Talk Page. Gderrin (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Note

  1. ^ A 2015 study of log data found that "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention." This was reported in:
    • Ashwin Paranjape, Bob West, Jure Leskovec, Leila Zia: Improving Website Hyperlink Structure Using Server Logs. WSDM'16, February 22–25, 2016, San Francisco, CA, USA. PDF

Looking for Feedback

Hi! As part of my university curriculum, I've contributed to the banking lobby wiki article which I believe you've contributed to before. I'm contacting past editors seeking feedback on my contributions, so if you could take a look at it, I would appreciate it. I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize for any mistakes in the article. No problem if you cannot take a look, thank you for your previous contributions to the article! Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking

Any given link should probably only be included once per article, according to MOS:REPEATLINK. In cases like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frown&diff=prev&oldid=1155306316 you're adding the same link twice in the same paragraph. Belbury (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

yes, thank you, that was a slip of attention. -- Kku (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Green sport event

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Green sport event, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Plastic card" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Plastic card has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12 § Plastic card until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

As you can easily see from the history, I am far from responsible for this (misleading) redirect. I have no idea why my article stub had to be crippled by User:Nuts240, plus, I certainly don't approve. Maybe you ask the worthy colleague what he/she had in mind. -- Kku (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Touchpoint

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Touchpoint, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Trilobite linkspam

Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Duplicate_and_repeat_links each article linked to is only supposed to be linked once. You are spamming links into articles where links to the trilobite article are already present, which is disruptive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for that. While I think that "disruptive" is a bit of a hyperbole here, you are right that the semiautomatic edit happened by mistake. Obviously an undetected and meaningless case-sensitivity in my code. -- Kku (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Energy efficiency

I noticed you have been linking energy efficiency in a lot of articles. This links to a disambiguation page. Can you please fix all these links with the proper link or revert the edits? In most cases the link should be to efficient energy use Ita140188 (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I am currently on it. but before I start fixing everything everything: What would you think of redirecting "energy efficiency" to "efficient energy use" and putting a "for other, specific uses, see ..." in the top? the other, more specific topics could nicely reside in a disambiguation page that is also named correspondingly. -- Kku (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you, but you would need to start a formal discussion in the article talk page before proceeding, as I imagine it may be a controversial move. I would support such proposal Ita140188 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Scientific evidence

I've noticed you've been adding a lot of links to "scientific evidence". Don't you think that goes against MOS:OVERLINK? Specifically Everyday words understood by most readers [should not be linked]. Everyone knows what scientific evidence is. —Panamitsu (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

One of the sad facts is that scientific evidence is actually NOT understood correctly by many people and actually varies with political, religious, etc. affiliation. See e.g. McFadden, Brandon R. (2016-11-09). "Examining the Gap between Science and Public Opinion about Genetically Modified Food and Global Warming". PLOS ONE. 11 (11). Public Library of Science (PLoS): e0166140. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166140. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link). This said, if you still feel unhappy with those links, please prove to me that the average WP reader will actually understand the meaning of "scientific evidence" on the spot, whereever mentioned. -- Kku (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and you can check for yourself that there are quite a few articles out there, which would still benefit from linking, especially when it comes to content where pseudoscience is mentioned (implicitly) as well. https://edwardbetts.com/find_link/Scientific_evidence -- Kku (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Native forest" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Native forest has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 17 § Native forest until a consensus is reached. Hildeoc (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Indiscriminate placement of links

Please do not add links to titles of references or publications [1]. Please do not add links to text in disambiguation pages or other lists that are designed to have one bluelink per entry [2]. In general, please check MANUALLY whether each link you add fulfils a constructive purpose, rather than just adding links by text matching. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, this shouldn't happen. The sad thing is that plain text references are trickier to spot than cite references using the appropriate references. I already tried to catch all patterns hinting to the non-template ref.s, but obviously it doesn't yet work everywhere. Thanks for pointing out and sorry for the trouble. -- Kku (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OABOT

Hello! I've noticed you're very active adding links. Have you tried the oabot tool? I'd love to hear about your experience doing some edits with it. There are new suggested edits in the queue. Nemo 21:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, in fact that's a new one to me. Looks really promising. Thank you for the hint! -- Kku (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

national conservative vs. conservative with a national audience

A few of the pages with links to national conservative seem like they're more about conservatives with a national audience rather than the National Conservatism movement. See Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and Conservative talk radio. Faolin42 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is certainly a valid point. Unfortunately, the categories do seem to have considerable overlap, depending on context. What would you suggest to clear the situation up? Kku (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
If it's OK, I can unlink the national conservative, when it seems likely that it means conservative with a national audience. I just didn't want to do that without checking with you. Faolin42 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you running a bot on this account?

I am not too experienced in this area of Wikipedia, but it appears that you may be running a bot on this account because I've been seeing edit summaries like "kku bot link XXX" which imply bot editing. If you want to run a bot, please file a BRFA afte reading the bot policy and run those edits from an authorized bot alt account if your BRFA is accepted instead of running it on your main account. #prodraxis connect 18:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also curious about this. Would be good for other editors to know whether you're running a "bot" in the strict sense of a script that's been given a set of instructions on where and how to add wikilinks to articles and left to run its course, or if you're using a custom-built edit-assist tool where you're checking each suggested link before adding it. Belbury (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Quick answer: Yes, sort of. pywikibot plus replace.py using regular expressions. And mostly in supervised, i.e. interactive mode. But not always. Thanks for the remarks, I'll look into BRFA first.-- Kku (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking

I see lots of bot activity from you - I recommend reading WP:OVERLINK; edits like this one are not really useful. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am familiar with the concept of overlinking, although I admit having a slightly larger tolerance towards links than the average. Of course, I try to avoid the "useless" (what exactly is that in a hyperlinked encyclopaedia?) links, whereever possible. My main focus, however, is on nondestructive edits. I'll also ponder the possibilities of automatically finding criteria for "useless" links, promised. As an aside, I will mention here that I find the link to "gearbox" in a car-related article absolutely useful. Of course, the usefulness is somewhat diminished by the already existing link to Electrohydraulic_manual_transmission, I grant you that. -- Kku (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. There are already a number of links to various transmissions on that page (and on many others), and your bot didn't know enough to understand that the sentence regarded an automatic transmission. Bots are great for some things, this is not necessarily one of them.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Certainly true. I usually run it supervised (with manual choice) when I feel unsure. This was one of the cases where I felt a little to lightheaded. Thanks for noticing. -- Kku (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Environmental degradation

Hi Kku, please make sure not to insert links when the degradation of materials/chemicals in the environment is referred to (e.g. Special:Diff/1141788662, Special:Diff/1189604224). Leyo 01:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, of course, I am aware of the ambiguity, so sorry, this one must've escaped my attention. Do you maybe have a suggestions for an alternative article which we could link to when we talk about the degradation of chemicals? -- Kku (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, sometimes environmental degradation is meant to refer to the sum of biodegradation, photodegradation etc. --Leyo 00:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't insert links inside quotations

Thanks for your contributions in the area of wikilinks, which is part of the goal of improving the encyclopedia by linking Wikipedia articles together. I noticed this edit of yours, adding brackets to turn junk science into a wikilink at Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy. This was a problematic addition, because the link was inside a quotation. After crediting your good-faith edit, I reverted with this edit summary:

Wikilinks are often helpful, but with rare exceptions, we don't wikilink terms inside a direct quotation inside quotation marks. This goes double for articles on contentious topics, and quadruply so when the link itself is a contentious term, and we cannot be 110% certain that what the author meant by 'junk science' is what Wikipedia says it is. Better to leave it unlinked.

There are other reasons for not inserting a link, some of which have to do with polysemy and other reasons. I see you like to do runs of missing link insertions in articles, such as these 65 contributions linking cognitive dissonance, these 33 linking photoluminescence, and these 50 for junk science. I think that 99% of the time your added links are an improvement to the article in question; but just slow down a wee bit to make sure that you're not hitting one of those 1% cases where it isn't. Maybe have another look at WP:MOSLINK#Principles, and 'Note 2' at MOS:NOLINKQUOTE. Thanks again for your contributions to the encyclopedia! Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, thanks for the (cautious) support! Wrt quotations: I think I had this discussion before, some time ago. If we have technical or domain terminology in quoations and we are not sure whether the originator of the quote really meant what he/she said, then why include the quote in the first place? If, on the other hand, we are quite certain of the meaning and content of the quote - why would there be any reason not to wikilink included lemmas? I tend towards your (and the majority) opinion when it comes to derogatory terms of which 'junk science' would be one example. So, in those cases, I promise I will be more attentive next time. But I feel strongly about a rule forbidding linking lemmas in quotes of the kind "blablablabla reallycomplicatedandlesserknowntechnolingo blablablabla...". The whole point of having quote at all, in the first place, was to further elucidate the topic at hand, a feat that is self-defeating if the quote proves incomprehensible to the layman. What do you think? -- Kku (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Kku, I would definitely assume that the author of a quotation meant what he said. However, I would not necessarily assume that what the author meant, agrees with what Wikipedia says about the linked term, and that is the reason we shouldn't link them: they could be two different things. It puts us in the position, as editors, of mind-reading the author, and saying, "This is what he meant," when we don't really know that. Determining whether to include a quotation is a separate issue having to do with whether it improves the article, is relevant, is typical of majority views on the topic, and so on. (Note that accurate, true, and unbiased don't enter into it.) The links above provide an alternative method of having the link you wanted to include, just not within the double-quoted quotation, which gives the impression that the author meant what we mean. The guideline does not absolutely forbid linking within quotations, but it does say to be conservative about it, and gives some "do" and "don't" examples. I think where you could link a term, is where there was no possibility, not even a remote one, that someone might mean something else by it; like, say: 3',5'-cyclic-GMP phosphodiesterase. I'd have no problem if you link that inside a quotation.
Since I first wrote, I noticed three other articles hit my watchlist with junk science terms (DSM-5, Climate change denial, and American College of Pediatricians) and I reverted those. I noticed that a fourth one (Family Research Council) was already reverted by Jclemens. Since that's 100% of the ones on my watchlist, maybe that's an indicator that that a lot of the rest of them are inside quotations and myabe you should go through the run of edits for junk science and double-check them. This kind of makes sense to me, as it's not the kind of term I can imagine an experienced editor using in most cases in a Wikipedia article if it were not in quotes. The other terms (photoluminescence, etc.) don't have the same issue, and likely none of them are in quotes, so I don't think you'll have the same issue with those. (Does photoluminescence seem like a technical term that could not possibly have another shade of meaning? You never know; check out fr:wikt:photoluminescence.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Communications style

In the three interactions you have had on my Talk page, is intensely personal. Extracts from those three comments:

  1. "You will find startling arguments in there. Whom [sic] are you trying to please here?"
  2. "If that doesn't help, I am afraid, I will have to doubt your impartiality."
  3. "Your offhanded remarks about "gods of knowledge", mobile phones and glyphosate further go to show that you do not appear to strive for an unbiased introduction to the topic. As I see it: if you are completely happy following your own agenda and believing in your own infallability, you should do so within the scope of personal projects, but not in WP."

You would be better off trying to WP:AVOIDYOU. As well as being antagonistic, an argument which boils down to "if you do not agree with me you are flawed and should leave Wikipedia" is unconvincing and is (ironically) an appeal to your own "infallibility". Bon courage (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Aha. I remember what I wrote. No need to repeat it here. Hyperlinks are made for this, if you want to rub it in. I also remember the uncompromising and prompt revert that you applied to my change, without trying to get in contact. Were you maybe assuming that did not have reasons for this edit? Why?
I am trying to be outspoken about an article intro that, as far as I see it, glosses over the fact that there is more to this chemicals risks than just a myth. I do understand that you are trying to remain scientific and true to the WP guidelines. Fine. Good. I agree.
What I am concerned with is the too-short and overly optimistic intro, which is what most casual readers will leave off with. Can you see that? Good. If not: just do not give me this "Gods of Knowledge" stuff ever. Thank you, and sorry for the escalation. Let's get back to real work.-- Kku (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree there's scope for adding something about toxicity (as distinct from cancer risk) to the lede. In general, there is no need to 'get in contact' before a revert (for which I gave a reason). I honestly don't know what kind of response you expected from "Whom [sic] are you trying to please here?". I mean what (seriously) would be a better answer than the one I gave? Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bon courage I, for instance, will always and invariably only revert vandalism, when I find it. If there's enough room for assuming that the editor put some thought into his/her contribution, I would try to first get into contact. Reversion of sth. that even appears to make sense is already the first stage of an escalation, as I see it. - Be it as it may, beyond that I think we've found an agreement now. Alright then! -- Kku (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Kku!

  • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Cross-country skiing

Kku, you may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Cross-country skiing#Travel vs transport. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Ecological rehabilitation" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ecological rehabilitation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § Ecological rehabilitation until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Family businesses of Germany has been nominated for merging

Category:Family businesses of Germany has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Overlinking/bot-like editing

Hi Kku. Your editing pattern indicates that you are in violation of the bot policy. Specifically, you have been adding large numbers of links to articles, and previously disclosed that this was being done only mostly in supervised, i.e. interactive mode. But not always. You have been marking these edits as minor, which should be done only for edits that could never be the subject of a dispute. However, editors have repeatedly raised concerns that many of these edits are overlinks (see here, here, and here). I noticed your recent run adding links to financial risk e.g. here, which is questionable given that "financial risk" is both a concept too broad to be all that useful in most contexts (where a specific type of financial risk is normally being alluded to) and one that's pretty easily understood without the link. Additionally, concerns about linking within quotes were raised here. Granted, given your large link-adding editing volume, these concerns may represent only a small fraction of the edits. Still, they indicate that these edits not just could be but in some portion of cases actively are controversial.

Please take the following steps:

  1. Desist from any automated (unsupervised) editing. Such editing must be done through a bot account approved at WP:BRFA.
  2. When making non-automated or semi-automated edits adding links, do not mark the edits as minor unless you are completely sure that no one could consider them unwarranted.
  3. Review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and relevant discussions to gain a better understanding of what is considered acceptable linking practice. I also recommend User:Tony1/Build your linking skills.

Adding links can be a positive contribution to the encyclopedia, and many of the links you add are useful. But adding unwarranted links at the scale you operate can also do significant damage, which is why the bot policy requirements are in place. And inappropriate bot-like editing has and can lead to sanctions including blocks.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Sdkb talk 18:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Although I would define "damage" differently. But alright. Thanks for notifying me. Maybe a broader discussion and reconsideration about "overlinking", "damage" and "usefulness" would be appropriate in the future. I personally am suffering a lot intellectually from fandom and pop culture trivia in WP. Did anybody else notice? Anyone for a constructive debate? -- Kku (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Overlinking is admittedly a blurry line where different editors will have different interpretations, and there are ongoing discussions about it all the time at WT:LINKING (as there are discussions about what constitutes fandom/trivia elsewhere e.g. in essays like WP:Fancruft). But the level of consensus/accuracy expected scales with the volume of editing, which is where my concerns come from. Sdkb talk 18:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. There's no need to go from article to article linking "drainage basin". I can see I'm not the first to mention your overlinking. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kku: The edit here is wrong. A glance shows that repeating [[Pileus (mycology)]] is a problem but the real issue is that the original is explaining that "pileus" is the technical term for the Cap. Please stop looking for terms that might be changed in mass edits. That kind of editing requires bot approval as indicated above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to believe, but that was absolute manual and accidental oversight. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Of course the link would have been better placed on pileus instead of cap, but that's another matter. -- Kku (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Burnin Red Ivanhoe

Notice

The article Burnin Red Ivanhoe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable band which fails WP:NBAND. Has lacked any references for months now and doesn't look like it would survive an AFD.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vladimir Kunin

Notice

The article Vladimir Kunin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Entirely unsourced for nearly 8 years. Unclear claim to notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

0634352123 154.115.223.80 (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

+252-634352123 ? Kku (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kku/Archive_2&oldid=1221690832"