User talk:Randy Kryn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Muybridge Buffalo galloping.gif


·:· 5 Jul '7

Contents

James Bevel[edit]

I reverted your edits, not because the content was bad (I couldn't tell) but because of the formatting problems. Go ahead and try again. I suggest working on a section at a time, and using the "preview" button to check your progress. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Lost Symbol[edit]

Hi, I saw that you're taking a stab at updating the plot summary at this article. For tips, you may wish to read Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. It will be especially important to keep the summary very concise, around 500 words (roughly 3 paragraphs). Anything longer than that will probably get deleted or condensed, just FYI, so I wanted to let you know before you got too far into it. Good luck though! --Elonka 23:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Am doing so, and thanks. I haven't read that, but some movie summaries I've read are many more than 500 words, and maybe this book's summary can be longer than most, but it will have to be edited down from what I've added. But for tonight, other things beckon, and I will see what has occurred with the summary in the morn'. Thanks again.Randy Kryn (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

I notice that you're adding categories. However you may not know that we avoid adding articles to both a parent and child category, and instead aim for just the most precise one. For example, if Joe Smith is American and a pilot, we'd add that article to Category:American aviators, but we wouldn't also it to category:Aviators since all American pilots are pilots. Does that make sense? The same applies to Category:Civil rights activists, Category:American civil rights activists, and Category:African Americans' rights activists. That last category includes the prior two, so they are redundant. For an obtuse guide, see WP:CAT.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, good to meet you again. Up early! In this case wouldn't the category Civil rights activists also be a good place to list the participants, since it includes activists from all civil rights fields and not just the '60s movements? This doesn't seem like a child category, but a major stand alone which maybe should include separate names, even though the other link exists for people who don't just stop at the main list (students and casual readers may not know to go to the sub-category link) Thanks for the data. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Many editors think that the categorization scheme is fundamentally flawed. The point of categories is to allow navigation between articles on related concepts, but if the categories are too narrow then it becomes difficult to find an article of interest. There's been talk of converting the system into one which uses discrete tags. Thus, there'd be a tag for ethnicity, and another for occupation, instead of the current practice of defining occupation by ethnicity. But that isn't the way it works now, and any change is in the distant future. So we're stuck with the current scheme, and within that scheme placing articles in redundant categories is strongly discouraged.   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Book Collecting.[edit]

I googled Donn Albright after I saw your edit and saw who he was. You could establish his notability by creating an article about him. Or, you could find references to him in the literature as being a famous collector such as A. Edward Newton. One of these days I'll take the time to rewrite the Book Collecting article. It's pretty horrible as it is now. GroveGuy (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your note. In general, and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia as the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, articles are protected only when they're experiencing very high levels of vandalism. For "everyday" vandalism, regular editors rely on one another to keep an eye on the article and revert it when we see it. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

African-American Civil Rights Movement template[edit]

Hi. It looks like Kaldari has already fixed the "dot" problem with the template. I fixed the template at Clara Luper. Take care. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Civil rights talk[edit]

I suspect readers of the talk page might simply have been a bit overwhelmed by the detail you offered. I would offer a helpful summarization at the bottom: "In sum, what I am suggesting is that the current sentence X be changed to Y or possibly Z" (I find it makes things clearer to frame X/Y/Z as blockquotes. See what I did in this thread:Talk:United_States/Archive_36#Proposed_addition_to_lede). That may help lead people into the topic, who may then may feel more prepared to read your presentation above. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nashville Sit in page, idea for a page entitled 'Nashville Student Movement'[edit]

What a great comprehensive article about the Nashville sit ins. Thank you for the main editorship on this page, well cared for, tended, and grown. Nice work.

Most of the participants in the Nashville actions call the combined activities the Nashville Student Movement. Besides the sit in, it included the Open Theater Movement, the continuation of the Freedom Rides, a voter's registration campaign, and the start of much of the Mississippi moement. These are all covered somewhere on wiki, but not under one article. For example, such an article could have a few concise paragraphs on the sit in, and heavily link to the Nashville sit in page for a fuller view. Thanks again, Randy Kryn (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Randy. Thanks for the note about the sit-in article. I think an article about the Student Movement would be a great idea. My main priority at the moment, however, is to try to build the sit-in article up to featured status, so that it can be featured on the main page next year - the 50th anniversary of the first sit-in. It's come a long way since I started it, but it still needs some serious work. In particular it needs to include the story of Lawson's expulsion from Vanderbilt, and perhaps more info about the later sit-ins (after the first 4) and the legal battle. If you can identify any other areas that need work, please let me know. I would welcome any collaboration or advice. Once that article is in better shape, I'm planning on expanding some of the biography articles associates with the sit-ins, a couple of which I've already worked on. It's great to meet another editor with similar interests. Looking forward to collaborating more with you in the future. Kaldari (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I added more dots for you and also added Kelly Miller Smith to the list. Kaldari (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

RAW Occultist?[edit]

Mandelbrot sequence new.gif

I don't remember Wilson ever calling himself an occultist per se. He was certainly a Pagan, and said so, and a Buddhist as well. He was an Occult author, of course. By the definition presented on the List of occultists page, he was certainly one, since he had been "involved with" (and in some cases a decades-long practitioner of) various forms of magic, witchcraft, sorcery, mysticism, etc, and was an authority on certain ones. But I never heard him say "Hi, I'm Bob Wilson, an occultist". I doubt many people under the definition offered use that title, except old Fate Magazine contributors and Dion Fortune followers. :-) Rosencomet (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look over those articles and add my input sometime soon. One point that should be made: the Historical series was never meant to be a trilogy. Wilson planned it to span five books (yes, according to the law of fives). He and Bob Shea were actually working on a sequel to Illuminatus! called Bride of lluminatus! when Shea was diagnosed with cancer. (Unfortunately, I have no way to document that fact.) Rosencomet (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Shea was the real historical novelist of the two, though, and Wilson would agree. They never had a falling out, and appeared at the Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium (where Shea met Patricia Monaghan) together for years. I recommend All Things Are Lights (available to read online on Mike Shea's website; I was the one that transcribed the whole thing), Shike (in the same spirit as Kung Fu and Shogun), and Saracen. I haven't gotten around to Shaman yet myself. Rosencomet (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Satch, photos, and also Template question[edit]

I've responded on my talk page. BRMo (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

George Weiss[edit]

Thanks for your comments, Randy. I don't have a Weiss photo, sadly. Take care. McGill1974 (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Lola Hendricks[edit]

  • At your suggestion I've whipped up an article on Hendricks for Bhamwiki (bhamwiki.com/w/Lola_Hendricks). I'll try to adapt it for Wikipedia soon (if you don't beat me to it). I haven't found any notice of her death (though her daughter Audrey apparently died this past Spring). Other things I'd like to tie down include her maiden name, her husband's occupation, and the specific desegregation lawsuits to which she was a party. Help is always appreciated. --Dystopos (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've made some adjustments to my Bhamwiki article and added a Fair Use photo (that may or may not be justified under WP's acceptable rationales). Since nothing in WP currently links to Lola Hendricks, you might help me get a head start by inserting red links where it would be appropriate to refer to her biography. (Such as in the template you mentioned). As for an article about the ACMHR itself, I find it more difficult to dig into the big subjects. Maybe soon... --Dystopos (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, the article is written (Lola Hendricks), linked from a few other articles, and nominated for WP:DYK. Still unsure if she's still living. --Dystopos (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've made a start on the ACMHR at Bhamwiki. It will need a good deal of work before it reaches the right balance and tone. Criticism welcome. link --Dystopos (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ramakrishna photo[edit]

Hello Randy Kryn , Saw your message on my talk page, Just wanted to share a tip. To reverse the edits you can go to Article history and revert to the right version. You can even use Popups. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ACMHR[edit]

  • I've been expanding Bhamwiki's timeline and looking out for any good overall summaries and any good information about the more recent history of the group (which may in fact still be operating under Gardner). If you want to jump the gun, Bhamwiki's licensing is compatible with WP so you can migrate the content yourself if you like. --Dystopos (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I put together a first stab at a bio for Nelson Smith (link). Seems that ACMHR and SCLC had a bit of a falling-out post 1963. --Dystopos (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure about what to do with the declarations. They seem important to understanding the aims of the movement rather than just its confrontations. It's possible the text would be better placed at Wikiquote, but I'm not really up on what the powers that be prefer in such cases. I believe that all the redlinks I left in would be reasonable subjects for WP articles. --Dystopos (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa![edit]

Randy, I am SO happy you caught this--and that's a good reminder for me, to ALWAYS proofread after another editor, who shall remain nameless, has "tweaked" articles I've worked on. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tofurkey[edit]

No, I haven't heard anything.   Will Beback  talk  14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I mistook your question for something else. Ralph did write back to say that there was no editorial review of your essay. For that reason, I believe it would not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
When there is an "edit conflict" your draft text is in a box at the bottom of the page. You can either copy it from there, or use the "back" button on your browser to find a copy. Then you can paste it into the top box in the "edit conflict" screen, or press cancel and start over with a fresh copy and paste it in. If you have a long response that's relevant to the Bevel article then that talk page would be the best place for it.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I look forward to reading your posting. The talk page doesn't really need archiving - it's not that long and everything is fairly recent.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Festivus protection[edit]

{{adminhelp}} Can someone protect "Festivus", for at least a couple of days. The vandalism is coming almost minute by minute now. Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is where you need to go. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 16:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Please use WP:RFPP in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

16th Street Baptist Church[edit]

  • The church recently completed a major restoration/conservation project, but no big changes; mostly maintenance issues (repointing mortar joints, roofing and flashing, wood repairs and repainting and the like). --Dystopos (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Festivus[edit]

Thanks for your good thoughts. My view on the links you suggest is that they'd probably make good inline references (and I believe the NY Times one already is) but aren't appropriate for the external links section. However, if you review WP:EL and don't agree, that's how consensus is built. External link sections generally need a good trimming now and again to stay useful, though. Happy editing!--otherlleft 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

James Peck (pacifist)[edit]

Hey Randy, I was able to add a thing or two. See also my comment on the talk page. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I really don't know how this thing works but buried on my trunk in the closet are some b&w's of Jim Peck in a home made protest tee shirt sitting in, blocking the escalator, at the US pavilion on opening day of the Monteal Expo67 World's Fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.162.31 (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

US Holidays[edit]

I noticed your edit to Template:U.S. Holidays readding Festivus. While I disagree with it being included (and said so on the talk page, though did not remove it from the actual article), I do agree with what you said about there being too many little-known holidays. I have not been involved with the page prior to today, so was there any past consensus about what should or shouldn't be added? I'd support trimming it down as well. Kansan (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

U.S.[edit]

You know, I don't recall what happened. I've reverted myself. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


MLB wins champions[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know, when a Major League Baseball player was widely referred to by his nickname, the WikiProject Baseball guidelines state that he should always be referred to by that nickname. That's why I reverted your edit to List of Major League Baseball wins champions. For the record, your edit also broke the sorting on that featured list. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page. Thanks! — KV5Talk • 22:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Festivus isn't limited to 23rd December, but can be celebrated on practically any day.[edit]

So, if the Festivus page is merely about the Festivus holiday as shown in Seinfeld then the introduction of the article should make that 100 percent clear with words like "fictive holiday", etc.; but, currently the introduction sounds like it's about a general holiday topic which certainly also should mention how people celebrate Festivus these days in its original spirit (which certainly isn't limited to the 23rd December).

The whole point of Festivus is that you define your very own rules for it and do not follow common precepts. Once you have common precepts you will also have people or companies that try to make a buck out of it which isn't what Festivus is about at all. People simply could celebrate Christmas in that sense.

So I suggest to move this article to "Festivus_(Seinfeld)" or something and have some general "Festivus" article that links to it, but also writes about how people really celebrate the holiday and understand its spirit or we have at least some prominent mentioning in the first paragraph about the very common fact that people might use any other day than 23rd December as shown on Seinfeld to celebrate the day and to avoid celebrating those hugely commercialized holidays like Christmas. I reall see no problem to mention this fact prominently in the first paragraph were it belongs. Even just the word "usually" would do already. But it quickly was reverted away for no obvious reason.

My friends and I, for example, celebrate Festivus on 8rd December w/o a pole or Airing of Grievances or Feats of Strength. We just have some fun day and we don't celebrate christmas later in the month. And that's what many people do as you can see on the many mentioning of this fact on hundreds of pages in the Google search results. That's just common knowledge it's as easy or hard to prove like any other common knowledge. And that's why the current article is just spreading incomplete and hence untrue/ false information which can be misleading to people who want to learn more about Festivus (and its origins in Seinfeld, of course) which they might have encountered on a day other than 23rd December.

Feel free to incorporate the required information in a way you think is right, but not to include it is just not right. tokai (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I added a line in the lead which hopefully will address the points you have brought up. Festivus was and is templated by the Seinfeld show. Using it's name for other parties would be the same as using "Christmas" as a name for a party, acceptable in the party setting itself but not a definition of the holiday. As for commercialism, the use of Festivus as a general party term is very open to commercial use, from sponsors, alchohol manufacturer's, etc., and is itself probably an abuse of the non-commercialism aspect of the holiday (on the show George's boss drank from a hip flash, but there was no alchohol served at Festivus itself). Would you mind if I moved this discussion to the article's talk page? Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:12 14, December 2010 (UTC)

Festivus[edit]

I have restored a removal of data that two editors placed on which are media coverage and action that a court has ruled on this wiki. While, I understand that some unsourced material and bad sources should be removed, however when a court even heard a motion on a fictional holiday created by a show moving it from fictional event to the real work it does ad to the article. Thus I have restored it. As this event has had some significant media coverage, it does ad to the myth of this holiday that is being created. It is located in the correct part of the article of pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsgoodrich (talkcontribs) 15:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well presented explanation! Randy Kryn 13:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bevel[edit]

That works, thanks! --JN466 18:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I love your stuff. Please contact me by email...an old old pal. obswestern@aol.com Lmnopbear (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pointe Anne, Ontario[edit]

Hi, Randy. I was watching recent changes today and was faced with an individual commenting in the article's mainspace. I reverted and contacted the editor about their edits. To help them understand the situation I attempted to bolster my position with sources and all I could come up with was some Belleville Intelligencer articles that referred to "Point Anne". I saw that you had moved the article from that name and was hoping you could provide the basis for your move so that I could pass the info on. Thanks Tiderolls 10:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  • You can ignore the above. I've moved the page back with an explanation on the article talk page. Tiderolls 22:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn[edit]

Hi Randy!

Your removed Tom Kahn from the template of civil-rights activists. Kahn (with Rachelle Horowitz) was the chief assistant to Bayard Rustin and active as a leader in Rustin's activities certainly from 1958 to 1968. His analysis "Problems of the Negro Movement" and especially "From Protest to Politics" (published under Rustin's name) were influential and certainly deeply discussed by the movement (and later, e.g. by William Julius Wilson).

Finally, his NYT obituary was entitled "Tom Kahn, leader in ... rights movement":

I mention these points in case you wish to restore him to the template and for your possible interest. I would agree that the civil-rights movement part of his biography needs expansion.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1917 Fatima events[edit]

(first item moved from History2007's talk page)

Hello. You seem to be the person who "watches" the Mary page, so I'm coming to you with this. I've noticed there is no template box for the events at Fatima in 1917, and I would make one except I don't know how. Putting together a box is the hard part, additions to the categories within the template are easier (I "watch" and add-to the template on the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s). Topics in a Fatima Apparition template (maybe a good name for it) would be the participants (the children, priests, government, etc), the events, the "prophecies", and many more. Would you either create such a template or round up someone who would know how? Thanks. It should be neutral, which is why the name Fatima Apparition may be best. I also notice that no one is really watching and protecting the Our Lady of Fatima page. Well, a lot for one post. Good to meet you. Randy Kryn 11:09 24-1-'12

Actually making the box is just a few minutes of work. If you have the contents I can do that easily. Else I can leave one on your talkpage/userpage with items that read ABC DEF etc. as page names and you can just change the ABC to real page names.
Please select an image name that should be used, so I can just use that. Please see the smaller template on Mariology. I would use something like that. Please provide 5-7 page names to start it.
As for watching them, I have well over 1,000 pages on my watch list, so I have ignored some of the Fatima items. History2007 (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. A larger template, please, not the side box but the bottom template, seems better to me. The pic should be of the children, and not of Mary (it is neutrally verifiable that the children were there, Mary, not so much). The name could be "1917 Fatima Apparition", but maybe just "1917 Fatima Events" (sound okay?). Some of the template links would be Our Lady of Fatima, Jacinta and Francisco Marto, Lúcia dos Santos, Three Secrets of Fátima,The Miracle of the Sun. There are quite a few others, as the subject has been well covered here, although some bias is included in some of the pages. Randy 13:07 24-1-'12
I will do that in a day or two. Today I was busy with other events. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I got into an unexpectedly loooooong debate on a page as of the day before yesterday and did not manage to pay attention to this. I will try to do it today. History2007 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Template[edit]

Here is the template, just replace aaa, bbb, ccc etc. with page names and it will work.

The children img was not visible -- too small. There are too many items now, but just delee an aaa line to reduce those. History2007 (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(template "1917 Fatima events" created here, and expanded as it was moved to various pages)

Hi, do you need anything else before you build and use this template? History2007 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I'll get to it within a day or two. Thanks for reminding me. Randy 17:00 19-2-'12
Great. History2007 (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed the name to "1917 Fatima events", took off the picture, and will pass out the template. This was an interesting event, although when catholics decided to "own" it that doesn't mean they actually did. The three children were involved in some type of phenomena, but if it was religious or something else is of course open for debate and cannot be verified. Thanks for the assistance. Randy 11:33 24-2-'12
Later. I've added topics to the template, some I didn't know were on the site -- Consecration of Russia, etc - and put it on several non-listed pages including Rosary, Marian appariations, etc. I don't think it needs a picture, many templates don't have them, and I'd suggest leaving the template secular. Thanks again. Randy 12:45 24-2-'12

Fatima infobox[edit]

Hey,

You mind if I add to 'Template:1917 Fatima events'? Oct13 (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pacifism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Lawson (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) 11:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding Pigasus to Template:Phil Ochs[edit]

Thanks. I forgot that Phil Ochs bought the pig. Face-smile.svg I always got the impression he (Phil, not the pig) was disappointed he wasn't indicted along with the other Chicago Seven/Eight defendants. Regards, — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad you like the addition. Pigasus has his own place in history, of course. Ochs would have been honored to have been indicted, I've never thought of that. He's listed on the "Chicago Seven" template because he testified and played guitar at the trial. I've just listed Pigasus on the U.S. Presidential election 1968 template, Independent candidates section, if that's okay. Since he has a page it seems to fit (added Pat Paulsen too, as he was a real candidate) And it's good to see you're still around and enjoying the place. Will write later. Randy Kryn 15:36 2 March, 2013 (UTC)

Civil rights template[edit]

I appreciate the compliment. As for the Deacons for Defense, I am not attached to the entry. However, the template format is questionable. By questionable I mean it is failing to capture key individuals, organizations, places, events and opposition. If the purpose of the template is to give the viewer an information rich means of reviewing the Civil Rights Movement, then I think it is failing. Here are examples of each point:

Individuals

Organizations

Places

Events

Opposition

A template format that could capturing all relevant or important information would resemble a template from a significant war. This may sound hyperbolic, but the scope of the movement is too massive to be captured by this template. Significant battles took place simultaneously and in different sittings. For an example for a more encompassing template view the following:

Just food for thought. Mitchumch (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Answered on Mitchumch's talk page. A very good ommission list, although Dexter Ave. Church is on the page. This really won't take up that much room, if well abbreviated. I wouldn't say the template is failing at all, yet these additions will build it into a more solid work. Separate listings for each movement would be very interesting, and is a good idea. More later. Randy Kryn 3:56 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. I have no living memory of the movement and have relied upon documentaries, research, and memoirs to learn about it. One difficulty I have encountered are the conceptual frameworks that early historians, journalist, and some contemporary participants have used to convey that history. More recent published research is questioning that old conceptual framework as being not comprehensive enough. The term "The Long Civil Rights Movement" is central to that debate or questioning. Sample materials reflecting that questioning are the following:
Books - Place
Books - Time Frame
Books - Opposition & Proponents
Websites
Articles
A digression. A potential source material of the Deacons for Defense is The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance And the Civil Rights Movement
I have no particular attachment to the format of the template. But as someone not part of any generation that was alive at the time, the template doesn't seem to capture the published material. My previous post was attempting to reconcile the differences between this new body of inquiry and the template.
More food for thought.
Mitchumch (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New Age template[edit]

I removed Robert Anton Wilson as a "new age leader", since such a claim is completely unsourced. I haven't checked up on the other additions you made to that template since I am not familiar with them, but please make sure that the claim of them being "new age leaders" can be verified as such. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Vatican City[edit]

Likewise, nice to meet you! Was just clicking through to give you this when I saw your message -

Working Man's Barnstar Hires.png The Working Man's Barnstar
Great work on the index and related articles! Stalwart111 13:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There's probably a whole bunch more that could be added. I'll look around. I'm surprised it has sat there for so long without much attention. It will no doubt benefit from your burst of enthusiasm! Stalwart111 13:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff! Yeah, he's an interesting fellow. I actually started on Catholic-Church-related stuff after editing The Gallery of Maps I think, then ended up where you have (Sistine Chapel) and then Pope Urban VIII and the Barberini and I've since created about 100 related articles, mostly 17th century cardinals. Every participant at Papal conclave, 1644 is a blue link now. Once you're on a roll... Stalwart111 13:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It's been good fun researching each one. There are some crazy stories among those in the conclave lists. Carlo Rossetti is a favourite. Of the same era, Torquato Conti was also a piece of work. It's interesting to see where research takes you. The Gallery of Maps was a redlink at WP:RA from memory. On the other articles, I would say templates are missing from many of those. Will have a look at where I might be able to give you a hand. Agree they are valuable for helping people to find their "next article to read". Stalwart111 13:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, fascinating things happened during that period and I (and probably WP) have only scratched the surface. We cover most of the big events in broad detail but we don't seem to have gotten around to covering the sub-plots (so to speak). Some might argue it's not the role of an encyclopaedia to cover such historical minutiae, but I would point them to WP:NOTPAPER and this fascinating example of encyclopaedic content.
View 1
View 2
On the Sistine Chapel, my thinking is that probably both are technically correct. Strictly speaking it could probably most accurately be described as an "annexure" to the Apostolic Palace. But it would probably also be accurate to describe it as being "within the confines" of that building, depending on where you draw the boundary. In reality, many popes over many centuries have added bits and pieces; walkways, statues, buildings, halls, apartments, etc, to the point where it's really just one giant interconnected building with many distinct parts. But it is certain considered one of the chapels of the palace so I don't think the article is inaccurate. Stalwart111 00:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that would probably be because the Sistine Chapel ceiling article doesn't really deal with location at all - it links to Sistine Chapel in the very first sentence which is where the reader would go if they wanted to know about it's location. There's probably an assumption that anyone getting into in-depth detail of it's ceiling knows (at least in general terms) where it is. So there's no need to cover that again. The question is whether it should be included in the Apostolic Palace article or whether the reference to the Palace should be removed from Sistine Chapel. Like I said, I don't think it's inaccurate, per se, but there is probably a better way to describe it. A more accurate description at Sistine Chapel would probably dispel the need to make some technical note at Apostolic Palace. I might have a play around with it. Stalwart111 21:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
So having had a look I've added two views here (-->) to have a look at. The first is a historical view which, having a look at the second, contains a number of inaccuracies. It does show a more standalone building but it's still connected at the back. The more modern second view clearly shows its interconnectedness with the surrounding Palace. The section on architecture in the article itself also clearly says there is no façade, in the traditional sense, because access is internal, via the Palace. So after all that, I've made a very substantive change to the article. Stalwart111 21:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, have been working hard for the last couple of days on non-WP things! Rome is great - went there years ago. At that stage I wasn't really interested in any of these sorts of things and the four hour lines turned me off. If I ever went back I would most certainly take the time to go, even just to bring back a whole bunch of photos for WP. I think that image at Sistine Chapel looks great and yeah, I saw some other links got added to the index - very good! I can't see why adding Papal States would be a problem. To me, that would be like adding US Government to an index for Washington, D.C. - makes perfect sense. Stalwart111 05:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry, has been a couple of days (again!). I can't see any particular reason why you couldn't list categories, especially on an index page. At least, I'm not aware of a specific prohibition. But I may well be wrong and we both may need to accept an admonishment if you go ahead with it and I'm completely wrong. Ha ha. I've been watching the progress of the Index of Vatican City-related articles - very impressive. I've added a couple here and there. I added two, in particular, relating to the foreign affairs and laws of the Holy See (as distinct from the Vatican City-state itself). These are about the Holy See as a separate entity but they start by explaining the distinction with regard to the Vatican in particular so I felt adding them the index (as directly related articles) would be okay. Anyway, I'll keep adding things as I find them! Stalwart111 08:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the first view, the drawing:
  • It's not by Michelangelo
  • It is a 19th century drawing
  • It appears on WGA, from whence it has been uploaded, with the statement that it is a reconstruction of how it may have appeared. The article links it to Michelangelo for obvious reasons, but doesn't state that he drew it.
  • Because it is a reconstructed view, it doesn't provide any evidence for the buildings that may have surrounded it in the 15th/16th centuries, or even for the buildings that surrounded it in the 19th century.
This is a separate issue. Michelangelo, the artist, is known as "Michelangelo", not as "Michelangelo Buonarotti". Likewise Raphael, the artist, is not known as Raphael Sanzio; Donatello, Verrocchio, Brunelleschi, Ghiberti, Botticelli, Massacio, Carravaggio and many others are identified, as artists, by only one name, (in several instances a nick-name) regardless of what may have appeared on their tax returns. The fact that someone has transferred all the files on Wikimedia Commons previously categorised as Michelangelo to Michelangelo Buonarotti emphasises the amateurish nature of Wikipedia. I wish I knew how to fix this, but don't as I have never discovered how to rename files. Basically, art students, and the general public don't search "Michelangelo Buonarotti"; they end up getting redirected.
Amandajm (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Obama[edit]

I reverted your last edit to Barack Obama. I removed that category from the article just yesterday after the category had been renamed (and, in my opinion, redefined). Obama was not a "community activist" and there are no references to support that. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Animal rights advocates[edit]

Just a heads up that there's no need to add "List of animal rights advocates" to the see-also section of a biography article, when that person is (or at least should be) listed in the "Animal rights advocates" category. --McGeddon (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. A category and a list are two different animals (to coin a pun). They give different data and, of course, a list includes more of a summary and can also include a good "See also" section of its own. Take a look at the "List of animal rights advocates" page, some people have put in alot of work on it (I was impressed when I first saw it). Thanks, and would you like to help on this one? You can start from the "Z's" because I'm going down the list alphabetically (and educating myself during the reading/listing). Randy Kryn 16:20 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response on my talk page. I appreciate it's a good article, but it feels a bit unhelpful to the reader to be offering lists as further reading - we could with equal reason include List of English novelists, List of humanists, List of atheist authors, but with all of these pages simply saying "yes, Douglas Adams was definitely one of these, here are some others", does it really add very much?

You're right that WP:SEEALSO clearly supports this, although it looks like the enthusiastic endorsement was only added to the policy in the last couple of days, so forgive my unawareness of it! I might follow that up on the talk page... --McGeddon (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Mandela the civil rights leader[edit]

Hello there Randy! I hope you won't mind, but I've undone your recent addition to the Nelson Mandela page, and am contacting you in order to explain myself. Over at that page, we had a problem with the "See also" section becoming very long and unwieldy, and for that reason it was removed altogether. Were we to reintroduce it, as you have done, it would soon be filled to the brim again, with the likes of "List of African politicians", "List of South African politicians", "List of revolutionaries" etc etc. I would recommend that if possible, "List of civil rights leaders" be added to the page as a category instead ? All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randy; I suggest that you talk your suggestion to the Talk:Nelson Mandela page, where it will get a far fairer debate and assesment than if I were to discuss the issue with you alone on our respective user talk pages. There are several other editors active on the Mandela page who would probably want to be involved in the decision. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a hike[edit]

Keep working on the hikes article, I am no longer creating new articles, I have been banned from creating them. The amazing way I discovered these topics was through the Baine collection that is being crowd sourced at Flickr Commons for the Library of Congress, each week they release photos of people and their names on the old glass negatives. With some sleuthing we are able to fill in the details. Someone has to take over doing the research and uploading the photos. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/sets/72157603624867509/?page=151

List of suffragists and suffragettes[edit]

You seem to be doing some sterling work on List of suffragists and suffragettes, but parts need to be re-written to reflect that some of the suffragiests and suffragettes are still campaigning; use of past tense implies that it's not. Also it needs a hat note that these are campaigners for Women's right to vote and point to other lists of suffragiests and suffragettes (List of civil rights leaders, etc). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


Civil rights leaders[edit]

That list is managed by you? Let me know here, need some correction. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I can't say managed, as a wiki all we do is edit, but I've done lots of work on it and keep an eye on the new edits. Good to meet you, and I'd like to hear what you found incorrect. Randy Kryn 12:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Ambedkar's description. He wasn't activist for caste equality, he was activist for Caste abolition, but it didn't worked out, when he converted, and probably due to political reasons. But caste system had no legality now, that can be said.
See? It is very complicated. He was a economist, that is what you can add. And he wasn't alone who wrote constitution, because constitution borrows from 100s years old writings as well. It can be removed/edited as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice, thank you. And in the future just pop it in. I noticed an IP had added his name to the list, someone removed it, so I researched him quite quickly and realized he well deserves a place in there (and I added his picture onto the page as well). I noticed his article needs a little fixing of language structure, would you mind if I proofread it at some point? Thanks. Randy Kryn 16:17 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forest Park, Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warren Brown (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) 09:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Howl may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Howl (film)|''Howl'']] (film}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

James Karales[edit]

Is there any attribution or footnote you can add to his page that shows he is from Canton, OH?

Yes, I'll get to it. I think his obit has that, but I've seen it elsewhere as well. Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:36 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That's really cool he is from Canton. Inordinately large Greek population here.

Category:Civil Rights Museums[edit]

Category:Civil Rights Museums, which you created, has been nominated for 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

John Punch (slave)[edit]

Hey Randy!

Thanks for adding the slavery navigation template to John Punch (slave)! It looks good. However, I'm not sure the other template, slave narratives, fits very well because Punch didn't leave any sort of narrative. Is there another template that might work better? Maybe Template:History of slavery in the United States? —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil, and thanks. I add the slave narrative plates on this particular run-through because it adds more information and links about slavery (which I've been floating around the last couple of weeks since watching "12 Years a Slave"), not that the page itself is on the plate. Maybe collapsing the plate may be one way, but please remove it if you it doesn't fit the tempo of the article. The U.S. plate is pretty sparse, and not one I'd use, but I haven't seen it before and notice an article which isn't on the main slavery template - the health of U.S. slaves. Thanks for leading a horse to that one, but after looking at it it's not one that is worth being on any template (it looks like a hight-school junior decided to write a homework assignment on Wikipedia and its stayed despite its shortcomings). Despite that article, I see the role of templates as giving the reader as many options as possible to the subject matter, to show them what has been covered on Wikipedia, and to give editors interested in the subject quicker access to pages that they can add to. Good to meet you. Randy Kryn 10:29 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Counterculture: Style (US vs. U.S.)[edit]

Some time back I switched every ref to US so as to be consistent article-wide. Do you have any objection to sticking with "US" for that purpose? Best Wishes! Learner001 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Guess I'm just old school, where U.S. was written like that. But of course no objection to an article or site wide sweep. I wonder if a bot can be set up to do one or the other on the entire site? Randy Kryn 16:20 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi back. Already did it, till you came around again :). Hey, please help (if you can) with the "interior" sections of this article, which I have not really edited. Ideas? Maybe just simplifying a lot of it, and linking to main pages? In any event, your ongoing input remains needed! Thanks! Learner001 (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
A few years ago I did some editing, additing, and edit sweeps of the page, and every time I've looked at it it keeps changing. Just like the 60s. Nice work, and I'll be glad to dive in again at some point. Do you really need those large seemingly unrelated templates at the top of the page? Anthropology? Oh well. And thanks for the invite, on a quick run through some sections are lacking in data, events, and summaries (and cowbell). More soon, good to meet you. Randy Kryn 17:15 6-5-14 (UTC)
As to top of page, I don't know. The journalist in me hates excessive "white space." I think Anthro is relevant, but so is History and Culture. Delete Anthro if you think that's best. I liked the old photos and quote boxes as well, but it did not display properly for mobile (I'm using a Mac, so not sure about PC either). I initially tried to keep all of the Timeline entries to one line, unless they were truly huge events, but everyone seems to have a different display/resolution preferences. Yeah, it keeps changing, hopefully for the better, but it needs help. I hate to scratch sourced material, but the article is long, and most of the material commencing with "Politics" and through Occult is covered much better elsewhere. The Timeline could be split off, but I think that's what students (young or old) need most, depending on their goal or project, to lead them where they need to go. Thoughts welcome. If we continue at length discussing this, let's move it to the article talk page so that others can pipe in(?). All thoughts (and much more cowbell, as I always need more cowbell) welcomed! Learner001 (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Freddy[edit]

Ignoring a debate about whether a "spirit" is a "ghost" is a "poltergeist" is a "fill in the blank" (as many would say that "ghosts" cannot actually hurt you), at best, you're talking about a category at the bottom. There isn't enough relationship to create a "see also" section like it's really tied to the film. This isn't a "ghost film". It's a slasher movie, and for all intents and purposes, Freddy is "real". Almost every incarnation of the film revolves around them ultimately making him flesh and blood so that they can "kill" him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to remove the films from the 'List of ghost films', which I've added to on a whim, feel free to do so and I for one won't revert. Randy Kryn 15:16 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Selma, the film[edit]

Randy, at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/mar07.html you can find an image, perhaps one you've seen many times, that is one reason for my leader-listing-order. Because of my background, I place the documentary photographic image over other expression of events, save for the moving documentary images, in expressing the actuality of events (Errol Morris notwithstanding).

I see that you don't have Wikipedia email delivery set up. Here is the Wikipedia page for setting it up for your account. - Neonorange (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't received an email via Wikipedia from you; could there still be a technical glitch? And did you receive my test email via Wikipedia? - Neonorange (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Selma (film) 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Although Daniels had been talking with [Robert De Niro]] was in talks with Daniels, the civil to play [[List of Governors of Alabama|Governor of Alabama]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ledisi 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *2014: ''[[Selma (film)|Selma]]'' (as [[Mahalia Jackson]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of protest marches on Washington, D.C. 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • bu.edu/remotesensing/research/completed/million-man-march/ BU Remote Sensing Million Man March page]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Bevel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Common (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) 08:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Voting Rights Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Look (magazine) (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) 08:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please explain[edit]

Why are you spamming see also sections with list of vegetarians? There's no reason to think that is a verifiable or relevant encyclopedic characteristic of all these people. If it is, then it belongs in cited content text, not a see also. Further, such edits are not "minor" so please do not mark them as such. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I was marking them as minor so as to not jam up the recent changes. Very relevant to those who have taken care with the List of vegetarians for years (I'm not among them, although I wondered why nobody had put the lists on the pages as yet, and am finding out it's not easy going, lots of reading on some pages, others go quicker). I thought adding lists to "See also" was fine, and have done it on many subjects. The fact that they are vegetarian can be cited in the text, the list is a list of vegetarians. It is an established lifestyle, and an established list. What do you think is the problem with it? Thanks, and good to meet someone else out here in cyberspace. Randy Kryn 23:47 22 June 2014 (UTC)
p.s. I'm finding that the list is already on many very prominent See also's on pages, nobody has bothered to just do the entire list before, the riff raff famous with the ultra-famous. Randy Kryn 23:53 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the above message. We do not need to make a list more visible by artificial means just to benfit (and frankly stroke the egos of) a handful of editors. Also, see also sections are considered very bad style on Wikipedia these days, especially in biographies. For this reason, I have undone all your additions to see also sections of the vegetarian/vegan lists. Graham87 01:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that it becomes just so much trivia, poorly referenced if at all, with no semblance of balance or objectivity. The vast majority of wp biographies will have zero RS information available as to the dietary practices of their subjects. There are no global directories to give a systematic overview of who eats what that could provide the objectivity of coverage needed. Even if there was, there would still be the question of relevance: how long, how consistently, and why, does one have to be vegetarian for it to be a definitive aspect of their character? Cradle to grave? A decade? A day? For health, faith, ethics, or economics? It couldn't possibly be done right, so it should not be done.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In general, "See also" lists appear to be a diminishing trend on Wikipedia because they're too often used for "Oh, this kind of reminds me of this article's subject" trains of thought, and becomes a repository for many irrelevant links. In other words, people just dump links there because they're kinda-sorta relevant to the subject of the article in question. Also, since adding them when they were not present constitutes an actual change in article content, these are not minor edits. WP:MINOR does a better job than I ever could of explaining it.
I'm here because I reverted your addition to "Weird Al" Yankovic. I don't believe you intend any harm, but there is probably another way to achieve the goal you've been seeking with adding these things to articles (even if in some areas it's already been achieved). Cheers! LazyBastardGuy 17:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi you guys. I've moved the discussion to Graham87's talk page, as he is an administrator who has taken an interest in these edits. Hopefully we can talk this out there. Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:06 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Hi Randy, sorry if I've come across as a bit ... mad over the last couple of days. But I've found a little problem with your signature ... there's no comma between the time and the datestamp (e.g. your sig says "12:16 24 June 2013 (UTC)" where it should be "12:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)". Also, the timestamps seem to be a bit off from the server times sometimes (e.g. this edit). Are you by any chance signing manually? Using four tildes ("~~~~") would be far easier. Graham87 12:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I do sign manually, and do so on other sites too. I enjoy editing laying on a bed or couch, with the laptop as a chest top, and type without using my thumbs. I tried the tildes route, but haven't trained my fingers to be able to reach that section of the keyboard automatically, and so I had inadvertent deletions occur and other coding mishaps, so I just sign manually. I try to be exactly on time with the sigs. On Wikipedia this hasn't been a problem, as until recently I haven't written very many talk page posts, and have actually "talked" to you yesterday and today more than I have anyone else here. So there should be a comma between the time and date? Thanks. (typing my name automatically seems very natural now) Randy Kryn 12:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ideas for new entries in Civil Rights Movement template[edit]

I came across a website that has entries that may be missing from the template. The website is The King Encyclopedia. It is part of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. Just something I browsed by and thought about the template. Mitchumch (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27[edit]

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.

Barbara Haney Irvine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 19th amendment
Eve of Destruction (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bloody Sunday
Hubert Humphrey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grant Park
Paulsdale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 19th amendment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Input needed[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war#Requested move. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The way I understand it, the term "Peace and conflict" includes articles related to the anti-war and the peace movement, which have significant overlap. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Check out this expanded view of the project watchlist. This shows all of the articles tagged under the scope of the project. As you can see, so-called "anti-war" topics are only a small part. Maybe this will give you some more insight for a better, more inclusive name for the project. Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Nice list, and no, I don't disagree with a wider name, that surely is a good idea and is needed. Just that 'Anti-war' probably should still be included in the title, for historical accuracy and the intent of people who worked or work in that field. C'mon, give anti-war a chance. And because of this talk I looked up something I never checked before, 'List of anti-war activists', which was empty, and put in a redirect to 'List of peace activists', and also put the anti-war template on "Give Peace A Chance" (or vica versa) Randy Kryn 15:50 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Next time, add {{WikiProject Anti-war}} to the talk page so we can watch it. Viriditas (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia delivered email[edit]

Hi, Randy! I received a Wikipedia delivered email purporting that you'd left a message on my talk page, or something. But nothing showed up. So I emailed you. I'll try again. - Neonorange (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

RE:Madison template[edit]

Your Madison navbox is excellent. You've caught a couple items that came to my mind the other day while looking at it. I've thought of some more and have added a few article & portal links. I also moved the presidential election links to the presidency section and took out the 27th Amendment link - my thinking here is that it's somewhat unnecessary, given that there is a link to the Bill of Rights article and given that there are not links to Amendments 1-10 or to the unratified 1st BoR article. Drdpw (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't looked at your changes as yet. The 27th amendment does seem appropriate, as it's not an overlap of the Bill of Rights as people know it, it was a long-long-ratification time Madison amendment which I was surprised was Madison's, and is, of course, not usually thought of as an item in the Bill of Rights. On all the presidential templates the elections are put in a separate section, and are not part of the presidency, which seems appropriate as elections are animals which nobody mixes up with the actual presidency itself (see: campaign promises, smiling-out-loud). I'll take a look at what you've added soon. Randy Kryn 12:13 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy template[edit]

You having been doing a good job improving the Template:John F. Kennedy/nav box. A good one to follow is the LBJ template/nav box. I think the JFK box should have a Legacy section. In it should be the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example. Those are my thoughts; keep up the good work. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated, I just went on a roll on it last night after seeing what it was missing and the layout of the sections. Good idea about the Civil Rights Act, which started under the Kennedy administration during the time and events of the Birmingham Movement. Maybe as a sub-section of Kennedy's Civil Rights speech, as 'Legacy' can also mean all of the high schools and street corners named for JFK. Surprisingly I can't find a JFK bibliography page, or one on JFK and popular culture (so all the films, etc., are spread out on Wikipedia and not linked in one place) or a page on his affairs which would be quite interesting. Reading your note just reminded me that the U.S. postage stamp page isn't linked on the template, and interestingly JFK has very few stamps honoring him in his own country. Randy Kryn 12:42 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Done, added the legacy section and moved the Presidential Library and Museum into it as well. Fits nicely. So, what is missing on the template? Kennedy's life before the Presidency doesn't seem to be well covered in articles other than his main page, and I looked for a page on the Palm Beach compound with no luck. Randy Kryn 13:00 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking good. As for "affairs page", I don't believe it is needed or appropriate. I agree there should be a "JFK and popular culture" page. Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've added and shaped it a bit more (I look at these things as artwork and this one flows well), and it feels good now. I almost made the first inaugural address the "Ask not..." Inaugural Address, and you know, why not. But not quite right yet. Try the whole line "Ask not what your country..." Inaugural Address. Yeah, it feels good, and fits in with the rest of the speeches section. Thanks, just worked that out here. Yes, the thing needs a 'popular culture' page, so all the movies and songs and all link to the template. No mistresses article? I'd read it. lol. Thanks again, Randy Kryn 22:20 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A contrary opinion[edit]

I have to beg to differ with the above two posts. I think you are adding so many entries into these templates – including the ones for presidential nominees, such as McCain and Romney – that the high-value entries get swamped and lost in all the visual clutter. Why, for example, does the Romney template need all of 2012 Republican National Convention, 2012 presidential campaign, and 2012 U.S. presidential election? Only the middle article is actually about Romney; the other two are just articles that contain material about Romney as well as other material. As the WP:NAVBOX guideline says, "templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." Or in other words, less is more. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the differ. Always good to talk about this stuff. I see a template as a total map, a guidebook to the entire topic. On a presidential template, for example, I try to put, in what is actually a very small box, as much of a total overview of a person's private and personal life as you can put into the space allowed, giving students and other readers a good look at what Wikipedia has to offer on the subject. The Romney box, please revert my edits if you'd like. I won't argue about that one. I think it's obvious that the addition of a link to the 2012 United States presidential election - which details the results of that election - on Mitt Romney's template is not beyond the pale. But I won't revert you, we just have differing opinions of how to present a template. Thanks for giving me another view, although I do like the full-information presentation. Randy Kryn 1:48 22 July 2014 (UTC)
p.s. I took another look at the Romney template, and I can maybe see the problem. Most politicans have a section on their template named 'Elections', in which this stuff is put. The Romney template doesn't have that. And the three listings can be condensed somewhat, I don't want to go in and try before we talk, it might work though. Thanks for inspiring me to take another look at that template, and it may be an easy answer. Randy Kryn 2:05 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Because of your inspiration for clarity, which is something I strive for as well, I reworked the "Election" section on the {{Richard Nixon}} template, and although it took some long-time cut and paste, it looks and feels much better. Please take a look at the before (yikes) and after. Thanks! Randy Kryn 2:56 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree you've made that part of that one more compact. On the other hand, you list a lot of books that don't have articles; seems to me the existing link to the Richard Nixon bibliography article should suffice. In the bigger picture, I wonder whether regular readers even know these nav templates are there. They are way at the bottom of articles, amidst lots of other clutter, and many are in contracted form by default. A while back after observing a long battle over some category naming dispute, I asked a few regular people who use WP whether they ever clicked on categories to see what else was in them. None of them were even aware that categories existed. I suspect the same might be true of these nav templates. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed on the book list. I didn't put it there, and did notice how out-of-place it looks but didn't have much attention on it and so didn't delete. Will do so, thanks. Templates are probably noticed if they are on shorter articles and are open, but for the most part, on longer pages, the templates may be quite unnoticed and unseen by human eyes (the bots seem to get around). I suspect that those who know of them look at them, I usually seem to, while I'm also one of those readers who doesn't even glance at the category listings unless looking for something really specific. So with all of the tools both working in tandem and on their own, they likely cover the aware reader or student, and those seeking an overview can find one (I suspect some students would be advised by their teachers, or stumble upon them accidently while scrolling down further than they intended). Like any roadmap, some people just like to ask Siri and be done with it. Randy Kryn 12:53 22 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kennedy (miniseries) 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[The Kennedys (TV miniseries)|''The Kennedys'' (TV miniseries]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Papers of Abraham Lincoln 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [File:Abraham Lincoln head on shoulders photo portrait.jpg|thumb|right|'''The Papers of Abraham

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cultural depictions of John F. Kennedy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dion. 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) 08:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Truman template[edit]

Hi there. On the Revolt of the Admirals page, I noticed you added the template on Truman. I am not familiar with these templates. Are they added to pages that represent significant events in a president's term? Are they broader in use than that, other nations, other leaders, etc.? How would one know if it were appropriate to add a template or not. Thanks for your consideration. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. A great username you've got there. If the event is prominent in the person's life and career, per data within the page itself (the Revolt of the Admirals was a direct attempt of the military to override or at least gum-up-the-works of civilian control of the armed forces by Truman, occurring at a time he was reorganizing the Armed Forces in major ways after World War II) they are likely template-worthy. An event unrelated to a person's actual major role in the event would not have their template on it (i.e. putting 'Dwight D. Eisenhower' template on 'Elvis Presley', although he may have been a fan). If a building or area is used as a memorial to that president or world leader, it would be part of their legacy, and likely template worthy (although not for minor street names or elementary schools, at least I haven't used them on those type of listings). I hope that helps, and it's nice to talk about these things. Good to meet you. Randy Kryn 2:27 31 July 2014 (UTC)
p.s. After taking another look I collapsed the Truman template, as an open template puts a lot of emphasis on the event or person, and on this one it seems best not to yell-from-the-rooftops about Truman. Thanks for inspiring me to take another look. Randy Kryn 2:35 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Gunbirddriver (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your template work for the betterment of Wikipedia, I award you this Barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Milton S. Eisenhower 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Milton. S. Eisenhower to Members of Congress, April 20, 1942; on War Relocation Authority]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)