User talk:Kiyoweap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives[edit]

  1. 11 April 2012
  2. 21 December 2012
  3. 7 June 2013

Edit errors[edit]

When you edited Eysteinn Erlendsson on October 27 you introduced major errors. Please check your work carefully before saving --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You are making a hasty accusation. All I did was replace a red link with an {{ill2}} template that indicates a blue link to a corresponding Norwegian (no) article. I typically preview before saving. When you review my old edit (on 14:51, 27 October 2013‎), do you still see this problem? because I don't.
I was perplexed until I read your post in Talk:Eysteinn Erlendsson, because now I have an inkling of what's going on, as I too have seen the phenomenon recently. I will respond there.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Resolved As per Wikipedia:Help desk#December 31 "Why does "File:Michigan state police.gif" (link to AR-15) appear at the top of Courtesy name?" the culprit has been identified as the now blocked SonicTheHedgeFan (talk · contribs) who vandalized the template {{ill2}}. (strikeout, minor edit, {{resolved}} template added)--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ships in Norse sagas[edit]

Category:Ships in Norse sagas, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. DexDor (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Kelpie[edit]

I have just reverted your edit to Kelpie; this is a featured article so please discuss any extensive edits you may wish to suggest on the talk page first. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Once the article's pulled from the main page, isn't the normal Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in play? I'm not aware of a priori screening process I have to follow in the Talk page, being that this is an article and not a WP policy or guideline page. I will discuss (describe) the five or six issues I had with the Kelpie#Etymology section, which prompted my edits. I think they were relatively minor edits though you characterize them as "extensive" ones.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Cloak of Invisibility[edit]

Invisible Barnstar Hires.png The Invisible Barnstar
For all your great (and bold) edits to articles based on mythological subjects. Loved your work on Cloak of invisibility which is what prompted this Barnstar. At the start of the year the article stated 'Cloaks of invisibility are relatively rare in folklore', great to see how a little research can prove that wrong. Thanks again. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the kudos. The statement "relatively rare in folklore" was probably an alteration of "rare in fairy tale" quoted from Maria Tatar's Annotated Grimm, a reference source someone had already employed before I tampered with the article. I added the Stith-Thompson index D1361.12, a lead for further information. One reference stated there are parallels in Ireland, China, Philippines, and US as well, besides the Japanese counterpart I added.--Kiyoweap (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Explaining the GAN process[edit]

Kiyoweap, you may want to review the criteria for WP:GA. In short, your comment "I'm not going to fix it and fix it ad nauseum till teacher finally approves" is why you need to let the other editors work on the article. Fixing it until the GA reviewer approves is PRECISELY what has to happen (if you think the GA reviewer is unfair, they will eventually fail the article, you can let it cool for a bit and then renominate). I reverted your one set of edits one time only because you made it worse, but as a GA reviewer, I cannot make extensive edits myself as then I become "involved " with the content. You need to let the other, more experienced editors work on the article; they are both veterans of the GAN process and once they have it cleaned up, if you have some very specific factual points you think need to be raised, AND have the reliable sources to back them up (and by this I mean with links to books available online or highly reliable web sites so I can independently verify this material myself) then I will look at those issues and make a decision. But for the "wikignoming" work of citation cleanup and wording/style fixes, I will suggest that you take second chair on those issues for now. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why you lecture me on renominating after a cooling off period. It's Eric and Sagacious who are the ones trying to promote Stoor worm to GA status. It would be unfair to them, if a reviewer were to flunk the nomination due solely to concerns with MY use of {{citation}}, but it's all academic to me, because it deserves to "go back to the drawing board" anyway, due to content issues.
You couch it in the context of a GA review, but when you engage in reverts you are still bound by WP:BRD process. Your claim that a revert is somehow not an "involvement" but {{citation}} format fixes would constitute "extensive editing" does not wash with me, and I'm sure others would find it implausible.
You are dwelling on this {{citation}} formatting excessively. It's "minor edit" material. I made a good-faith edit to fix the issue where editor and illustrator fields were spliced. If you want to perpetuate, at the very least describe why my cure was worse than the disease as per "MOS". Or find an example page, or drop it altogether, or practice WP:Wikignoming that you mention. If you have a beef with the way the template renders according to MOS, take it up there, otherwise it's textbook WP:POINT behavior, which you accuse me of doing.
This claim of being inveterate at the GAN process rings hollow to me, it just sounds to me like you have had in the past had a number of GA reviews, with no one to hound you for not fact-checking, so you feel entitled to the same cushy experience every time around.
If you checked my edits, you would see provided inline sourcing at each step. You mentioned, Hathi trust link I recently gave out, and the text and notes there are paramount important prim/secondary sources. If you have problems with finding online accessibility to other resources, you shouldn't be complaining to me. You could probably find them by googling. I insert the google links, but Eric and Sagacious delete them for whatever reason. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I am going to recommend that instead of editing the article right now, please use a limited number of appropriate inline tags (i.e. {{dubious}}, {{citation needed}}, etc. to highlight areas where you have a dispute. However, please do not tag bomb. I will tell the other folks that I am doing this, and that I will take a look at what you are tagging. That said, comments such as "with no one to hound you for not fact-checking, so you feel entitled to the same cushy experience every time around" are not winning me over to your point of view. I have worked on about 40 GA-class articles myself, as well as over a dozen FA-class articles, so I know the process from both sides. Montanabw(talk) 20:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Kiyoweap, I'm late to this party, but I just read over the entire GA review and the rest of the talk page. For the record, I've done a few GA reviews myself. One thing that stood out to me was the comment you made about stability, in this edit--I found that odd, since it suggests that the article shouldn't be a GA because it's not stable, and it's not stable because you're making it so. I have not yet looked at the edit history in great detail, though I note that it does appear as if you're editing against consensus. I understand that you know a thing or two about this subject matter, but I accept the same thing about Sagaciousphil and Eric Corbett, and I have faith in Montanabw as an editor and a reviewer. It cannot be that one single editor can derail a GA and destabilize an article; if consensus is against an editor, edit warring is not an acceptable attempt at solution. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies:, I see what you're getting at, and let me start off saying I agree that a "disrupter" making wanton meaningless edits to claim that "5. Stability" is not justifiable grounds to fail GA.
However, this rogue behaviour accusation applies only if my edits were just meaningless games. Note, some of my edits such as the entire /*Textual sources*/ section recently are already incorporated in, and the article is being modified on the basis of these sources, so I feel we have moved beyond the point you drag out from an already collapsed portion.
Another obvious issue is the perhaps suspicious seeming timing of my latest wave of WP:BOLD edits, starting just before Montanabw posted her review. Well, the ideal timing would have been after getting pinged my older BOLDS were being addressed, but that wasn't happening, so the next likely timing was when the candidates where "done for now" allowing others to take a crack. But of course that's when they deem it ripe to promote it from to GA status, so this coincidence of timing was a rather inevitable.
You haven't looked examined my edits, so your innuendos are scurillousyour characterization of what I did is unfounded. If you're basing your assessment just on your implicit acceptance of Eric and Sagaciousphil I must say your opinion is utterly jaundice-eyedprotest prejudice. And plurality of votes, if not successfully advocated by argument in talk, fails to count as "consensus" as per WP:DEM#Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Scurrility and jaundice, well well. A disruptor is someone who continues to drive home a point against consensus. You seem to argue that your edits are exempt from consensus since they are correct. It does not work that way. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Kiyoweap, one more "clueless" remark--or, really, any kind of disruption to the GA process here or elsewhere--and I will block you for personal attacks and a disruptive lack of good faith. I think it is time you left these supposed content issues, which appear to stem from personal issues you have with Corbett and Sagaciousphil and possibly Montanabw, to other editors. You're not the only one who can judge article content. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, surely you are aware of equal and more offensive language spouted from certain other party in this GA nomination, which you don't act on, and I am not sure your applying WP:CIVIL to me on this strikes anyone as impartial. That said, re the two words you take issue with, I admit the choice of words above may have appeared to have gone a bit inflammatory, so I apologize, and will retract/amend my phrasing as above. I said you lodged "scurrilous accusation" merely in the sense of "unfounded accusation based on hearsay" but I see now this may not be dictionary definition ((Wikt:scurrilous) though rather a widespread use (cf. Alpha dictionary). So perhaps this was poor vocab, malapropism on my part, Sorry.
Using "clueless" on the reviewer was more blunt than the "you don't know what you're doing" type comments that I receive, I will cop to that, but it wasn't meant as a blanket label on Montanabw. I don't know jack squat about horse-racing and many other subjects in her experience. In context, I hoped it was rather clear that what I meant was this reviewer was not "clued in" on this particular bit of knowledge (words borrowed from Norse), which was crucial for informed judgment. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Whatever. It's a personal attack. Your behavior in that review is atrocious; fortunately the review is over, and I have removed the comments you added afterward. You are welcome to have a look at WP:GAR to see what other steps you could take. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, deleting other people's comments is blatant breach of Talk page others' comments, but maybe you had a stroke of remorse, and at least you had the courtesy of notifying me. So I am willing to grant a retroactive permission to delete, provided you change your grounds for doing so to something like "this user did not get the point that this GA review was already as good as closed," which I think is within reason, and retract your resumption of baseless accusation once again with your edit summary claiming "outside the scope of this review" and "repetitive and disruptive". If you don't feel inclined to retract, then debate me to defend your accusations while I defend my stance. Also, I request that you use {{collapse top}} apparatus just as the reviewer, instead of outright delete, if you want to demonstrate good faith.--Kiyoweap (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Also, Drmies, your remark that "my behavior in that review is atrocious" comes entirely from the standpoint of nominators who feel entitled to a painless GA pass. But this "wish" is not an overriding concern over Wikipedia's goal to create a decent article. My actions were perfectly within bounds of WP:BRD, and you cannot seriously argue that outside of the review context, my BRD was unduly disruptive.

  • You also discount the fact that I also made various concessions to accomodate this reviewer, which were onerous beyond the usual demands of BRD. I have relented to reviewer's request to edit additional material into the article beyond the "etymology" issue. This meant limiting the issues I would table during review. I also did not fuss over this reviewer semi-deleting (collapsed down) my points of issue, which were dismissed not on substance, but defamatory characterizations. On balance, the others were digressing from arguing the article more than I was. It is true I did not completely cave to demands, such as the reviewer's request to do nothing except add 1 or 2 tags. I wrote up my own red-hilited version of the article, to facilitate the task for the reviewer, dispensing with her having to check diffs on the edits I got insta-reverted on by Eric and Sagacious.
  • It just seems to me you were just lying in wait for me to make one slip up that would justify your threat to block me. But isn't Montanabw labeling me as "disgruntled" cause for your concern? This is an extremely prejudicial term evocative of the stereotypical "disgruntled (federal government employee)" who goes on a shooting spree. It's clear to me that Drmies makes hardly a credible case for being an impartial arbiter so far. If you pretend to be fair, would you be willing to render judgment on specific instance of bad behavior on Eric and Sagacious's part?--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The review was over. Your comments came as mustard after the meal. If you wish to comment on the article, take it to the article talk page, not the GA review. The comments are there in the history; you can copy and paste them yourself as you see fit. My comment on your behavior in that review were not fed to me by the creators; they are my own observation and I stand by them. I am happy to see you qualified one comment (though I don't see much difference between a "blanket" statement and whatever it was after qualification) and struck a few others; thank you. Your reading of "disgruntled" strikes me as pretty narrow. I did not see behavior by Eric or Sagaciousphil that warranted any kind of warning or action; you are free, of course, to find a better admin. One more thing: if I had really been lying in wait just so I could block you, I could have blocked you already. I didn't. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Stoor worm into User:Kiyoweap/Stoor worm. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, thank you for your heads-up. I've added the {{copied}} template you suggested (small=yes) version. There is no one particular oldid that applies, since this is a composite of various edits that had been reverted by these other editors, but the idea is "this oldid plus if prior edits of mine had been kept in and not deleted". The only other local page is User:Kiyoweap/Opium Wars, which has a hatnote which I will take as close enough {{copied}}, since there too, no single oldid is applicable. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Folkung family tree[edit]

Dear Kiyoweap, thank you for your feedback reg the family tree Ihave been working on, I value a lot that someone took time to evaluate the work. I will, within shortly try to complete the work, and submit it to the article. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)