User talk:Kleuske

Welcome to my talk page.

New messages at the bottom of the page, please. Messages placed elsewhere will be ignored and/or removed.

External Video

AFAIK the External Video format neatly sidesteps the WP:ELNO objection. Correct me if I'm wrong! kencf0618 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kencf0618: "Sidestepping" is not what Wikipedia is about. And no I don't agree, since it's "about the new book of the author" instead of Hegel. Kleuske (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the External Video format is a distinction without a difference, but be that as it may, what new book are you talking about? Dr. Gary B. Sadler is discussing Hegel, not touting his own books. He hasn't published any to date. kencf0618 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Material

Hi, Would it be possible to receive the material from the deleted page Bear(Productivity App) so I can edit the conflicting material please?n thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damienkelly26 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Damienkelly26: See WP:REFUND. Kleuske (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Solar Cars

Kleuske, you deleted my updates in the Wiki page on solar prototypes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prototype_solar-powered_cars But, pls, consider that in this way you re-introduced several inconsistencies. 1. the P-MOB, the FIAT prototype, does not exist in the reality. I even tried to contact the project manager, who was fired 3 year ago. Now, you re-introduced the flake information that the homologation is under consideration. Everyone moving in this field knows that FIAT group rejects any idea of solar mobility or electrical car. 2. you deleted my information regarding the italian situation and, in particular, OndaSolare (Bologna) and Futuro Solare (Sicily) teams, with our 5 cars, including our cars ('Emilia 3') that won 2 competitions and arrive 3 in Belgium. And we are the only EU team at the ASC. 3. in my opinion the technical table about Twente has to be moved away. For instance you can create a specific page. At the moment, it is not in the right position. In this page it is simply requested the list of cars and not all their details. When I noticed that I simply imagined that someone from Twente made a mistake. Anyway, if you really like it, at least, report the technical data of a new model. cheers Cristiano — Preceding unsigned comment added by CiranoTheBest (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@CiranoTheBest: A little explanation (in the edit summary) goes a long way. The additions are still unsourced. The talk-page of the article is the appropriate venue to raise issues. Kleuske (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: You are totally right: data in 'Specifications' are unsourced. Reference dealing with P-MOB homologation was not existing. As said, you can delete both. :-)

राजनीति का सार

Hi Kleuske, you just tagged this as CSD (totally agree), however the link to a foreign wikipedia article does not make sense. Probably a copy/past error. This may be rudimenary dupe of Computational thinking if I trust google translate. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I got "politics" from the same source. Never mind. I'm not going to start WW-III over this. Kleuske (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Octocat is a youtube chennel please don't delete it

Please Qwerty 12345688999 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a completely and utterly non-notable, run-of-the-mill YT-channel. Please do not add it again. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for starting an editing war Qwerty 12345688999 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Baja Designs

Please let me know which parts of my draft were too promotioney so that I can edit the post to fit the Wikipedia guidelines better. Thanks. Redolive1 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)User:RedOlive1 (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Steve Down and COI

Hi Kleuske, I think this is the first time we have spoke. How are you? What did you add my name back into WP:COI noticeboard, when I was added by the filing editor who is clearly vindictive, probably paid, the evidence from their edit clearly shows and is not showing Good Faith. scope_creep (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: If that's true, then a WP:BOOMERANG will likely fly. Until that time, leave other peoples reports alone and have a little faith in the admins handling it. Kleuske (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your warning

Please see MOS:NC-CN which can justify my edit where I replace People's Republic of China with China (basically the same thing in English). Thanks!--123.161.169.88 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, this IP sock of Whaterss has engaged in campaigns of WP:HOUNDing my edits within 12–24 hours of the fact and often attracting initiating an edit war with other IPs. See my last report at WP:ARV. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted materials on the Gay Icon page

Hello,

I'm sorry you feel this way about my add on the Gay Icon page but I do believe that people interested by in this subject might find this book interesting, thus making it a valid addition to the page.

Best regards. KevinDrif (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@KevinDrif: Wikipedia is not intended to draw attention to book. Hence "See this or that book" is tantamount to promoting that and if your edit is nothing but "See this book" it does not add anything to the article and can easily be construed as promotional editing. Hence I reverted. Kleuske (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Skinner Dairy page

Thanks for your input on my first edit. How can we correct the title on the page? It is listed as “Skinner Dairy”. The correct spelling is: “Skinners’ Dairy Inc.” I was the third generation owner. thank you. Harlocar (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Harlocar: You need to be autoconfirmed to be able to change the title. I will do that for you. The problem I have is tha it fails common notability checks, especially those for businesses and organisations. Just a heads up. Kleuske (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Natron (software)

Hi Kleuske, the Natron's wiki page has been reverted the state it was 2 years back. Could you please tell me which parts should be fixed in order to bring it back as it was ? Thanks a lot. Fabiof17 (User talk:Fabiof17) 12:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fabiof17: Source it and do not use Wikipedia as the programs webpage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost. To list all the goodities and niceties, you can use a blog, SourceForge or GitHub. Kleuske (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: So what procedure should i follow now ? Rebuild the page and remove the unwanted parts?.Fabiof17 (User talk:Fabiof17) 14:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

How about leaving it alone? Safest procedure by far. Kleuske (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean it shouldn't be modified in any way ? Fabiof17 (User talk:Fabiof17) 14:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No. I made a suggestion. It's the second one in this thread:

1. Source it and do not use Wikipedia as the programs webpage.
2. Leave it alone.

Kleuske (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI

I forgot to thank you for reporting that user to ANI. It was definitely an LTA; sadly, I know this user and his habits quite well... oh well. Anyways, I appreciate the ANI report :-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: De nada. I appreciated your lightning response. Kleuske (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! I try ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You are now a pending changes reviewer

Hi Kleuske! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling, and you consistently view and undo vandalism and disruption to articles. I believe that this user right would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tool. Instead of having you formally request the pending changes reviewer right at WP:PERM, I just went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and either accept them to be published and viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them so that the pending changes are not published.

Keep in mind these things regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

• The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
• Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you additional "status" on Wikipedia nor does it changes how you can edit articles (obviously).
• You'll generally want to accept pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself - especially those that are vandalism or have neutral point of view or BLP issues.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline and tutorial on using the rights and reviewing pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface you're used to, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into any troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the user rights and accepting or reverting pending changes. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, contact me and I'll remove it. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the confidence. Kleuske (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Heh, it's not really a tool that you can easily nor catastrophically mess up or cause damage with... figured I'd grant you the rights and let you extend your patrolling abilities ;-). You're quite welcome - have fun! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A great, warm welcome!

Your warm welcome, is, itself, -welcome-, from another experienced editor and contributor! Have been making edits and contributions and fighting vandalism for years, from the sidelines. Welcome to my home base! Your nice welcome message makes the community that much more pleasant and disproves those who have argued that Wikipedia is 'elitist'. In fact, it is full of Wikipedians who are committed to accurate, free speech! IlseBecker7 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Have fun. Kleuske (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Thais Weiller

Hello Kleuske. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Thais Weiller, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: how is developing two notable games not a sufficient claim of significance? Thank you. SoWhy 15:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: First off, neither of the "notable" games was actually mentioned when I nominated the article. It merely referenced "JoyMasher", which also has no evidence of any notabily (PRODded for that reason). Hence there was no credible claim of notability and a CSD for that reason was reasonable. Second it is a unsourced BLP (which is Verboten) and I'm surprised you did not PRODBLP for that reason (I've done that, in the mean time). Thirdly I did a quick search for "Thais Weiller" and found no evidence of notability whatsoever. Thirdly, I inspected the two games (which were added post nomination) and found them at best marginally notable. So the concern "how is developing two notable games not a sufficient claim of significance?" is a rather pointless one. Kleuske (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I concede the first point, although you might have noticed that the article was still in construction when you tagged it one minute after creation, so that was a bit too hasty. Was about to BLP-PROD it when I had to take a call. Regards SoWhy 15:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I nominate when I see things drift by that are worthy of nomination. That may be a bit too hasty, but I'd rather not let things slip through the cracks. User:Brunhildr has been around since 2008, so the DRAFT article space and the sandbox should be familiar concepts. Should JoyMasher be dePRODded, I will AfD it instead, since Google shows the company fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Pretty much the same goes for the game developers mentioned, since I found no evidence of notability. Kleuske (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Population density calcuations

I received a notice on my page that my 'unverifiable' edit to the population density at Westbrook, Connecticut had been removed because it didn't have a source. However, the value was calculated from the other data in the infobox on the population and area. The article shows a population of 6,938 and an area of 21.4 sqmi. 6938/21.4 = 324.2, which is the value I changed the density to; it seems to be a somewhat simple calculation based on already accepted numbers, so I figured it would make sense to add. Do I need to provide the source for the calculation, or find a separate source that identifies the population density directly? I want to continue updating the density values, as a lot of the Connecticut towns are rounded to the nearest 10/mi2 or 5/mi2 which seems like a big difference from the actual values, but I want to go about it properly so they don't just get removed. Phosphorescent Wave (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Phosphorescent Wave: We have templates that do the calculation automatically. If you replace those by manual calculations, the calculations have to be redone every time the population changes (as they tend to). Moreover you have repeatedly removed data from various infoboxes (e.g Westbrook, Connecticut, Middlefield, Connecticut, etc). Now you are removing red links, which is also not a good idea, since Wikipedia depends on red links to grow. See Wikipedia:Red link for details. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and it's greatly appreciated if you follow guidelines, policies and generally accepted practices instead of inventing your own. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Okay, I didn't realize there was an automatic calculation, or the redlink thing (I thought they were all dead links). Is there a list of guidelines and rules somewhere so I can check to see if something is wrong or already taken care of before doing it? Phosphorescent Wave (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines. I've placed an extra welcome template on your TP, with a short list of the most important ones. As a general rule, do not engage in large scale changes without gaining concensus (i.e. talk to people). Kleuske (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. There definitely seems to be a lot to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phosphorescent Wave (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of it is pretty common sense stuff, given we're trying to build an encyclopedia. Making mistakes is not a big deal, so don't panic. Kleuske (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I managed to undo most of my problematic edits, the earliest few I can't because of some sort of an anti-abuse limit? Thank you again for the help, I'll be sure to check the guidelines before making any big changes from now on. Phosphorescent Wave (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

Also, please remember that Alt-right is under a 1RR restriction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I raised this on your TP, too, but better safe than sorry. You have the issue backward. DoubleHammy's edits are the ones I dispute, since they're lumping all kinds of different "movements" (for a lack of a better word) into one giant wall of text, without proper sources in many cases. Kleuske (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page: the point being that you made substantial changes to a controversial article withouy prior discussion -- which, of course, is allowed by WP:BOLD -- but those changes have been disputed, so you need to justify them on the talk page and get a consensus for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah... And who exactly disputed them? Inquisitive minds want to know. I've contacted DoubleHammy on more then one occasion, but they have failed to respond. Kleuske (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Fuck it. I have no desire to get myself into that quagmire. Kleuske (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

De-implementation

edit undone; it had no promotional context whatsoever but is a new concept in overmedicalization which is a central problem; is linked with deprescribing overdiagnosis overscreening; WP is dying of contributions undone brutally; it prevents new contributors from going on contributing; think twice before you undo Please !Yves.bertin (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yves.bertin: Apart from promoting a concept ("De-implementation is a challenge in tackling ineffective care"), Wikipedia requires secondary sources when editing medical subjects. Brutally or otherwise, I would be neglecting policy if I let that stand. Kleuske (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

the edit included references to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choosing_Wisely that also cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs You mistake conceptualisation and promotionYves.bertin (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. De-implementation, as you presented it, is a medical subject and hence the references need to meet WP:MEDRS, which neither references do. Kleuske (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

besides, this comes awfully close to using the article as a WP:SOAPBOX. Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to July 14 that did not included any source. I looked for a source for this date of birth in Collins Nweke and it was unsupported by any source there either.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. That's careless of me. I'll be more careful. Kleuske (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it careless - I figured you just didn't know about the change. You seem to do very good work around here. Please keep it up! Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you Speedy Deleting My Article?

Well, I got a photo, that I created, from Creative Commons. So, if delete my article, does that delete, the photo as well. I liked to know, Kleuske. Kew1119 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Rejecting edits on the Slime Rancher Wikipedia place

You keep deleting my edits with the reasoning that info is from a fan run site however all forum links pasted are from the devolpers of this game, Monomi Park. The edits are being done to ensure the section edited remains up to date with recent updates. Please can you either revert the edits you made or tell me why my edits are being rejected. TheLordRutherfordOfNelson (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I reject it because Wikia is not a reliable source, since it's user generated content. Wikipedia requires content to be sourced by reliable sources. Moreover the content added can reasonably be qualified as fancruft. Kleuske (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Are the official forums created by the developers considered fancruft? If you would like I can provide Twitter links from Monomi Park, the devolpers, a reliable source TheLordRutherfordOfNelson (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Vidyadhar Durgekar

Why are you deleting my page ' Vidyadhar Durgekar ? It is like any others author page. My article is published in Science Direct a magazine of repute. My seminar papers are published in other magazines. My book Sale of souls is an important book on land acquisition for the industrial projects and have been referenced in the new land acquisition bills of the government of India. Other paper has been converted the legislation for Port Safety. The editing is in progress. Please dont cancel my deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durgekar (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Durgekar: Notability has not been established (Fails WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR), it's an autobiographical article and hence you have a conflict of interest. More than enough grounds to unceremoniously nominate it for deletion. Kleuske (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Deep River

Zip06 is not a travel site. It's a news site for the state of Connecticut, featuring news articles written by local journalism company Shore Publishing. Thus, your assertion is false and there is no reason why my edit should have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18B:8280:C3E:491C:5CDB:F732:EF6F (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's a couple of hints in the news site

• It's called ctvisit.com, where ct, presumably stands for Conneticut
• The site greets it's visitor with the motto "Travel less, experience more" (which is unusual for a news site)
• It's got menu items "Ideas, Do. Stay. Regions. Seasons" (which is not what I expect from a news site)
• It's got nice vids of people having a good time, sailing boats etc. (rather atypical for a news site)

So If we apply the Duck hypotheses (If quacks like duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck, we're dealing with a small aquatic member of the family anatidae), I can conclude with a fair amount of certainty that the alleged news site actually a travel site. Kleuske (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

<wiping egg off face>

This is a newssite, you are right. But a local news-site still does not establish notability. Kleuske (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

LADWP

The page I was editing was intended to reflect the information the Department has on their website. This was requested by the Department. Is there no way that I am able to post a description of the board members? Cmerca96 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cmerca96: Well. This is Wikipedia, not a mirror of their website. There's a reason for that. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Nixtun Ch'ich'

you want to tag my other page for removal but honestly i think you might as well tag the first page for removal because i prefer the title of my page better in terms of accuracy. thanks. (talk)

I answered on your talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Sean Kelly Gallery update not promotional

Hello Kleuske,

I wanted to write and let you know that the Sean Kelly Gallery updates I just added are not promotional, they are merely informational, so that researchers can have a better idea of our gallery's history and greater access to information about the artists that we represent. I would like to know how I can have my changes re-published. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sknyintern (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sknyintern: You added internationally regarded for its diverse, intellectually driven program and highly regarded roster of artists to the article, which is obviously promotional. The rest of the edition was full of editorializing, such as reputation for diverse, intellectually driven, unconventional exhibitions, increasingly ambitious, museum-quality exhibitions to great critical acclaim, renowned cultural institutions, exceptional contemporary artists. Your user name also indicates that you're working on behalf of someone, which would suggest that you're in no position to gauge the neutrality of your work. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Deorprted to USSR

Deported to USSR is included with the 2 million ExpelledThe report Gesamterhebung zur Klärung des Schicksals der deutschen Bevölkerung in den Vertreibungsgebieten, München : Zentralstelle des Kirchl. Suchdienstes, makes this clear Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans#Research by German Church Search Service--Woogie10w (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Woogie10w: I do not doubt your sources, I commented on a faulty translation. Kleuske (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kleuske I appreciate your help.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware

Hi Kleuske, thank you for your work at WP:COIN - I've just oversighted some content you added in regards to ‎Purezza, as it was a touch too much information in regards to the current letter of WP:OUTING. I am certain it was done accidentally, and in good faith.

I definitely don't want to discourage you or anyone else from investigating paid editing, it's something we need to crack down on, but in the future please be mindful not to accidently out an editor.

Per this recent discussion regarding our current policy, I would ask you to make more generic claims publicly, and then contact Arbcom with detailed, private information. If you have any questions, please feel free to get in contact - TNT ^💖 19:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Article tagging

Article tags are for encouraging improvement to articles, but in the case of Young there is no improvement to be had (I don't think the sources exist). So your tagging serves only the purpose of MAKING WIKIPEDIA UGLIER and in particular MAKING A BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON UGLIER and not encouraging any useful purpose. There is no actual problem with the article. All material in it is sourced in a way compliant with WP:BLP, which explicitly allows the only primary source there (her curriculum vitae) to source basic factual and undisputed data about the subject (which is all that it is used for). So you are acting like a vandal by making articles worse while not identifying actual problems. Go away and find some other article to tag-war about. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Why not answer on the TP, where stuff like this belongs? You've been around since 2006, you ought to know how things work. If there's no more sources, why is this person notable (WP:BIO)? Kleuske (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Because you apparently haven't read even the edit summaries? I already told you to look at WP:PROF for notability rather than WP:BIO. The case for notability there is extremely clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: That's (presumably) referring to 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

So where's the "independent reliable sources" that demonstrate it? If you had something else in mind, please point it out. Just going "WP:POLICY!" in the edit summaries does not suffice. And again, why not answer me on the TP, where this stuff belongs? Inquiring minds want to know. Kleuske (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

discussion copied to Talk:Virginia R. Young, where it belongs, please respond there. Kleuske (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Linear algebra talk page

Could you respond on the linear algebra talkpage about why you don't want the linear algebra video in the external links section? I posted the link into the article because an apparent consensus on the talkpage appeared to have formed for its inclusion. JustOneMore (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Nizamski rastanak

Hi,

Do you understand that you re added text to Nizamski rastanak cited with sources about different song "stani stani ibar vodo" song?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Recently forged Bosniak song has another name, "Šehidski rastanak" and compltely different text as per exceptional source used in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand we have edit summaries for a reason? Kleuske (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

About polpol reverting.

You dont know well about polpol as i know. If you ask me about everyone i will give you a proper reasons and proof aginst every editing . Rajan singh chauhaan (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

True. I do know what "unsourced" and "puffery" is, though. Kleuske (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear troll

Here is how your edits have beed judged as disruptive by uninvolved editors. Go harass somebody else. Nergaal (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)