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)

Hi Kleuse, Johnson's theory deals with a close correlation between groundwater resources and geoglyph. Of course, one can agree or disagree. On the other hand, as you may have read, the real meaning of the geoglyphs, after almost a century of long cultural debate, is still an open question. You consider Johnson's hypothesis ridicolous. However, I would like to point out that Johnosn's theory has been published in book edited by Helaine Silvermann, who is one of the important experts of Nasca culture. Finally, dear Kleuske, if I can afford to contribute to contribute to Nazca Lines, I would suggest to erase the hypothesis of Danegano, really ridiculous and absurd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier Mosteiro (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I read that you saved my contribution. Maybe it was a misunderstanding. Many thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier Mosteiro (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi, just wondering why you deleted my page? I followed all of the guide lines, i want it back now, it took quite a long time to create, thanks.

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)

G10

G10 is better for Toi Mapahuku since it directly threatens a person. Regards ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: You're right. I was still on my first coffee. Kleuske (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems Widr deleted it as G3. It's a vandalism and attack page then :) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Well... Let's keep it at "general badness". Kleuske (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

FDMS in Hong Kong - LGBT culture in Hong Kong

That whole section is very inappropriate from only two sources, one of which was presumably written by the person who added this section, and the other using superfluous descriptive language. Would you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.0.174.187 (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@14.0.174.187: The section was poorly sourced and contentious, hence I removed it. I can't read minds, so I have no info about the person/persons who wrote it. Kleuske (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wentworth Mausoleum

Hi there. Would you please review your tagging of Wentworth Mausoleum, Salisbury Court (Rose Bay), Wentworth Memorial Church, and any others as WP:CFSD. These articles are several of many hundreds that form part of a project to create articles for all places that have state government heritage classification in the Australian state of New South Wales. The source has been clearly attributed under {{NSW-SHR-CC}}. The talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian historic places#New South Wales state heritage items - article generator and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian historic places#NSW State Heritage Register - ready to roll? gives some background to the project. This has already been to the Village Pump several times and reviewed favourably. Please STOP. Rangasyd (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

And further, the content is Salisbury Court (Rose Bay) has been created by merging content from this edit of Rose Bay Cottage that is now called Salisbury Court (Rose Bay). So to say that it relies entirely on copyright material is erroneous. Rangasyd (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rangasyd: (e/c) I read your message objecting and stopped already. You could make life a lot easier by explicitly referring to CC-by-SA since "merge with content from NSW SHR" isn't very clear on that. Kleuske (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted re better CC-by-SA at time of article creation. Please remove CFD tags. Thanks Rangasyd (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't need an edit summary for you to incorrectly delete appropriately-licensed material. There is a clearly labelled attribution section on every page that uses this content - if you can't be bothered to read it, that sloppy editing is on you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Yay.... Let's make errors as likely as possible, so we can berate any editor who makes one. Including a comment that makes things clear and avoids errors is sooooo 2017, especially if the material is copied verbatim of another website, which is usually totally allowed by Wikipedia rules. I am very glad we have at least one superhuman editor who makes no mistakes at all. Kleuske (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Watch out RE: Sarah Jeong

The IP you reminded, yet again, that a talk page is not a forum, might accuse you of being in a WP:CABAL LOL! Thanks for your effort keeping a difficult talk page on track. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Kleuske (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ismat Chughtai

Thanks for undoing the blanking of the above page. An anon IP has done this a couple of times and hence, I have blocked them for 12 hours. Also, the Google doodle for the Indian subcontinent region for today refers to Ismat Chughtai and hence I thought the block would be appropriate. --Gurubrahma (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gurubrahma: The block surprised me a little, but I fully approve. Didn't know about the Google doodle, but that obviously aggravates the issue. Kleuske (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sykesem Clarification

Hi, Kleuske!

Could you clarify which link is viewed as spam on the Foot Odour post? I'll be sure to avoid it in the future. Thanks!

--Sykesem (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sykesem: Avoid all of them. For medical subjects (and that includes foot odor) we have even more stringent demands for sources than we usually have. The link I object to, as you indubitably know, is the one you've been inserting into various medial subjects, from "Estrogen dominance", via "Detoxification (alternative medicine)", to "Foot odor". In fact, it appears in each and every edit you made thusfar. If you're getting paid, as I suspect, you have to divulge that fact and your employer, to boot. Kleuske (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. To make it perfectly clear, none of the citations you adorned the payload with, meets WP:MEDRS, and the one I checked, did not support your claim. Kleuske (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ocean Network Express

22 August Hello,

1. could you please advise what is the meaning of the sentence: Quoting his words, “ONE does not aspire to be the largest carrier in the market, just large enough to ..

if you remove the Subject (who? - the company CEO) from the sentence, starting it with "Quoting his", does no more make much sense (HIS of whom?)

1. company slogans are an important thread on Wikipedia, and were even part of the company info box (however now the field is no more available). What's the reason you completely removed this sentence?
2. what is the reason you removed the sentence that explains why the Company has selected magenta as colour? It was explained through the sentence related to Sakura the Japanese tree, that you removed. If you needed a further reference, please just add the small box (needs ref)
3. For more than sixty years, nobody has used that colour in shipping, why does result irrelevant to you to mention the predecessors?
4. it would be appreciated if you could kindly explain the reason behind you browsed another page created by me (Trinity Court), created in the same way like Ocean Network Express than in just a few weeks reached 250 readers x day, and proposed it straight away for deletion. Instead of inserting the template to try to improve the page, you immediately proposed the removal of it.

Thanks, Goodwillgames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwillgames (talk • contribs) 09:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Goodwillgames: See WP:MISSION. The color is hardly relevant and serves PR purposes only, the same goes for the Onassis reference. I suspect WP:PAID given your editing history and I seriously doubt (after WP:BEFORE) that the building is notable. Kleuske (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

PS. As to trinity court, please provide references to show its notability. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting allegation about being paid. I am glad you reviewed my editing history, and I am surprised you came to this conclusion. I contributed to all major maritime Shipping Lines, defunct and those still trading, improving pages from a few sentences, to informative, always supported by sources. Majority have extremely unusual ships, you removed all pictures that were taken by other users and just collated by me in the right page, to explain what's all about. I contributed on architectural, streets and buildings: in London there are just about 100 Art Deco buildings surviving. By adding Trinity Court (that is one of them), there is a possibility the building has more visibility, including becoming part of the Listed building registry. This was mentioned in the article too. Goodwillgames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwillgames (talk • contribs) 09:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You asked why, I provided a reason. Kleuske (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

United European Car Carriers

It would be appreciated if you could kindly check this page (never edited by me) MSC Cruises It's an example of what I wanted to achieve with the page United European Car Carriers. The Company fleet with pictures, in line with the majority of the maritime lines' pages on Wikipedia. You stated WP:CATALOG. "Gallery" is a standard Wikipedia section, created on purpose to show items/pictures, related to the topic/article. There are great pictures on Wikicommons, that once added to an article make it more clear. Thanks, Goodwillgames.

@Goodwillgames: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POINT. If you feel strongly, kindly remove it yourself. and for *(&&(*# sake, sign your posts. Kleuske (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

English Armada

Hi Kleuske.

It is correct to say that it was a Decisive Victory, that the queen continues on the throne is not a strong argument to affirm that it was not a decisive victory, it is not a game of chess. The battle of 1589 supposed the hegemony of Spain during a decade in a dominant position, and the English Armada ended with the forces very depleted because their fleet was almost completely destroyed. In fact, it is after the Battle of Cartagena de Indias the greatest defeat in the naval military history of England.

And the Spanish defeat a year earlier in 1588 is (I do not understand the why) a decisive victory despite the fact that Felipe II continued to reign and the Spanish naval force was still strong and ready to continue the war without problem, as was demonstrated in 1589.

So I do not consider it an exaggeration. A greeting. JamesOredan (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@JamesOredan: Since nothing was actually decided, calling the victory decisive is misleading, IMHO. However, neither your nor my opinion matters, since your qualification lacks sources. Reverted for that reason. Kleuske (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not at all in an annoying to say that it was a decisive victory, even if it hurts.

The Battle of 1588 where England won says it was a Decisive Victory, and that of 1589 was very similar, but as it lost the battle England does not put the adjective "Decisive"

I have listened to you and put sources and even then they are not accepted, despite being studies and not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 12:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@JamesOredan: Whoop-di-doo. Now if you advance to a source that actually calls the victory "decisive", you may be on to something. Oh, and the History channel is not exactly a good source. The hint is in "A History Channel Thanksgiving". Kleuske (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Wubba Lubba Dub Dub. You are very demanding in matters related to Spain, you decide what sources are good or not based on your subjective opinion despite being recognized sources, such as History.

Not even here in Belgium do we get so involved with the French (hahaha its a joke). Thanks for the "hint", I'll sail if I find something. The English have historically been very good at suppressing and hiding information, especially if it was about defeats of their country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sure... It's all a British conspiracy. Kleuske (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You should check what the "Black Legend" is. It is not strange that countries omit and hide defeats while extolling and exaggerating victories, and above all they demonize and underestimate the victories of the enemy country.

Historically almost all European powers did. England was the one that used it the most. And I love England, but everyone knows such English ability.

By the way: British =/= English. It is a failure that should not be committed, they are different things dear European neighbor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@JamesOredan: Please stop posting here. Take it to the @^*%& talk-page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

TheCentralLineLondonUndergroundOnDisks

That's not even alliterative! Why not "Waterloo and City on Wheels", "Bakerloo on Bicycles", "DLR on Discs", "Central on Cylinders", "Piccadilly on Pedals", "Metropolitan on Motors", "Circle on Cogs", "East London on Electrics" .... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: <snigger> You just don't get the same quality of vandals these days... Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh lordie, my apologies XD

This is why I shouldn't Wiki first thing in the morning; I somehow thought that you'd introduced that edit to Kangchenjunga and agree that URLs aren't last names! Egg on my face, I'm sorry about that! Now to look in to if I can self-trout... NekoKatsun (nyaa) 13:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Everybody screws up before the obligatory morning coffee/tea... Kleuske (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Response

SERIOUSLY, I'M NOT LOUD AND OBNOXIOUS, I'M JUST TRYING TO BE F*CKING REASONABLE BECAUSE SPSHU DESTROYED THIS PAGE'S F*CKING INFOBOX AND AOI KEPT REMOVING MY EDIT REQUESTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M TRYING TO ASK EDITORS TO CHANGE THAT INFOBOX BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND I DON'T GIVE A SH*T IF I'M "THROWING A TEMPER TANTRUM"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU NEED TO CHANGE THAT INFOBOX BACK TO THE WAY I WANTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:< 92.97.113.189 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You're shouting, screaming and making demands on my talk-page and you're not throwing a temper tantrum? who'd have thunk it... Kleuske (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

About Stalag

I can't find any information other than the one I posted on the Stalag Edition, the only websites I can find on it often have the same exact description and are mostly book selling websites -or amazon-, how would I go about editing the page with the Stalag Edition if I can't find a proper source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.215.141 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

That's usually a good sign that it isn't notable. Besides, I'm not saying you can't write about it, just don't copy the source verbatim. Kleuske (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

Why did you contest my page for deletion? Did I not post it properly? Dtrain424 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dtrain424: I nominated your userpage since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost. Kleuske (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Sorry about that, it was just bad wording what I was trying say was it is the chief canticle at vespers in both Some protestant Traditions and In the catholic Church. Also how do you do the wiki page links? TheRoseAndTheOstrichFeather (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@TheRoseAndTheOstrichFeather: It's beyond "bad wording", it's well into competency and editwarring territory. There's plenty of examples of how to link on virtually every page on Wikipedia. See Help:Link for details. It ain't rocket science, after all. Kleuske (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit to talk page of topic: Transition ..... was completed

The explanation of previous changes were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor's Axe (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thor's Axe typed out a bunch of obfuscation on the talk page and at the end lied about the language of the sources cited in order to mislead us. He claimed the sources used by historians were in Manchu because most Manchu texts are not available to the public for us to see and it would be a miracle to explain how he somehow got his hands on them. Therefore he can insert any fabrications in their name. The actual sources used by the western historians were written in Chinese and do not support his claims. He is inserting fabrications and hoping people don't check the citations.Opasney (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Opasney: I strongly suggest you take it to the appropriate talk-page and discuss changes there. The present situation can be adequately described as editwarring and may result in a block. Thor's Axe already has an EW-notice and consequences may follow. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The claim of Op is blatantly false and involves personal attack. In no where in the comment was it mentioned that the sources quoted were written in Manchu, instead the wording was "based on materials written in Manchu", which means the materials quoted were in other languages or translated from the original Manchu script. Besides Manchu materials is available to the public. Opasney claims is purely rumour and malicious, and its view extremely insular. An edit war is not desired, but it is important to correct the crucial facts presented, and reverting without being supported by evidence should be completely prohibited. While I made some changes to the text, everything was based on the reliable evidence. As a result the edit shall be valid and constructive. Besides,::@Opasney: you are spreading rumour about me to a third party. This is not only inappropriate but deeply despicable.

@Thor's Axe: You are deep into WP:3RR territory, so throwing around aspersions is a very bad idea. If you keep up this behavior, you are on your way for a block. I remind you, once more, that the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for any proposed changes. Arguments about content belong on the article talk page. Kleuske (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kleuske. Since the 3RR closure, a good discussion has been happening at Talk:Transition from Ming to Qing. I'd appreciate if you could keep an eye there. Even if you (like me) don't know the languages, you could still make sure that the people in the discussion understand Wikipedia's sourcing rules. The person who got blocked is quite new, and can't sign messages properly, but is quite bold with the reverts. My worry is that the problem may continue after their block expires. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

They've shown some signs of bending slightly, but also some new problems. I'm keeping a pretty close eye on these pages and am trying to be a peacekeeper here, but there's a bit of a WP:AGF failure going on. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Yeah... AGF is stretched beyond the breaking point, at the moment. TA is now claiming consensus ("reviewed" it) , where the TP flatly contradicts that. TA is now at 3RR, so I expect he'll be quit the next 24 hours, but I'm willing to place a bet he will start again. I'm wondering if ANI isn't the proper venue, here. WP:IDHT? WP:CIR? WP:RGW? Kleuske (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering they're now at Revert 2 back to their preferred version despite all my gentle attempts to point out to them how they're failing to gain consensus for their edits (I've been trying really hard not to WP:BITE a newbie here) and this on the back of a recent WP:3RR block, I'm sadly beginning to think ANI might be an appropriate venue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

He's still at it. This time not deleting sources but rather inserting egregious WP:WEASEL content to try and discredit the historians referenced and push his dubious and contested WP:PRIMARY derived position. This is getting ridiculous. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Yes. I've been following the drama. Perhaps it's time to formally request a block on WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:IDHT//WP:OWN ("you may...") grounds, perhaps adding a sprinkle of WP:CIR. I very much get the impression TA is not used to opposing opinions. The continued use of WP:PRIMARY sources adds to that. In any case, I think you should be commended for patience and Sheer sticktoitiveness. Kleuske (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But I'm reaching the limit of my willingness to push solo, I'll add into the AN/I case that I now prefer a block on those grounds, I've already explicitly asked for third party help too as I'm getting frustrated and am worried about losing objectivity in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my mistake, can you help me?

I understand the COI with my organization, I simply wanted to make a few fact updates to the page as it was out of date, and I had concerns that the incorrect information would misrepresent the station. Since getting our FM frequency we've been trying to get the word out, and we wanted it to be present and well represented on our wiki. Other updates included removing generally incorrect information and adding the bit at the end about what we are now (since there were no recent updates about our current programming).

I made the edits myself not with the intent to mislead or use Wikipedia to advertise our station, but because I was worried that the edits wouldn't be made unless I did them myself. In the edit history the last real updates were made 6 months to a year ago, but they left information out and some inaccuracies in. Such inaccuracies includes the list of on air personalities, the names listed haven't been on air in years and some of are current DJ's are no where to be found.

If you don't want me to make these changes please help me by updating the page yourself, so when people search for our small radio they can find the accurate information they're looking for. And if you're feeling generous, could you also visit our website and add our current Air Schedule/ Line up, so our listeners who use Wikipedia will be able to see what shows we have and when they are? Much appreciated, have a lovely day WTTRHilltopCommunicationLLC102.3 (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ellipse: why can't I add a known reference?

I am sorry I do not get it. I saw a rather lengthy discussion, which you sent me, much in favor of that reputable reference which I suggested. Yet, the reference was strangely removed with suspicious justification that won't stand. Please enlighten me on what is going on here. Why is not that ellipse talk page openly available? It seems artificially terminated and prematurely archived...83.149.239.125 (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@83.149.239.125: Since you propose the change the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus on the talk page. Discuss it there. Kleuske (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

But I am NOT proposing any change whatsoever. I just added a worldwide spread reference which you can see on multitude of sites discussing ellipses. Are you kidding me? Or is it me missing something not to be told? Which rule did I violate and why am I being restricted from editing freely as long as I haven't violated any. Please clarify your position or restore my edit if you do not want me complaining. Why do I among all the rest of wiki editors need anyone to approve my edit. Do you need anyone to approve yours? I have been editing for sometime but haven't encountered anything nearly as weird and even crazy...83.149.239.125 (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@83.149.239.125: What, exactly, is unclear about take it to the fucking talkpage? Kleuske (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Frits Purperhart.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Asgardia

Hello, there. I see you reverted my edit.

Yes, it obviously is not a country, but it is an entity claiming to be or aspiring to be one. As such, it should be evaluated through that light. I think the language I used clearly shows that it is not a country, but fairly communicates what it currently is.

Do you have any specific suggestions to improve my edit? Simply calling it a group of people who launched a satellite does not exactly cut it. OCHNCaP (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@OCHNCaP: Wikipedia is not for "evaluating" stuff. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, we summarize available sources. No more, no less. At this moment it's a group of people who have launched a satellite. That's all it is. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's not get into a semantic battle over what evaluate means. I sourced everything I added. OCHNCaP (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss the importance of reliable sources instead and how policy forbids "evaluations" AND unsourced claims. Kleuske (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, what specific complaints do you have? If you didn't simply blind revert, surely there was something you found contentious.

• I cited the name (already present in the article) with the Asgardian "constitution."
• I described Asgardia as a "new country project" (micronation) and mentioned that it calls itself a "space nation." I cited two direct sources affirming they agree with that assessment and I cited The Christian Science Monitor. I included the direct sources and used "new ... project" instead of the diminutive *micro* in an attempt to avoid any overzealous fan misinterpreting me as putting them down.
• The article already says that Asgardia claims to have sovereign territory in space, but that the claim is dubious. I deleted the repetition and reworded the first part. I added a direct source (showing that they really claim this), then I expaned on why such a claim is legally dubious and cited Business Insider.
• I mentioned that they claim their "space capital" is the satellite Asgardia-1 and provided a direct source for them making this claim.
• I took the preexisting mention of Vienna being the administrative centre, preserving the original citation and adding one from the actual company that officially operates out of Vienna in the name of Asgardia
• I cited the original Asgardia announcement with a direct source. That claim was also already supported by other third party sources I included in the lead.
• I preserved the original citation for acceptance of the constitution.
• I took the already existing claim that they intend to seek UN recognition and sourced The Christian Science Monitor.
• I expanded all existed citations, and templated all of them.
• I didn't cite every claim that was already present in the lead, but not fixing everything at once shouldn't be an argument against the parts that were improved. Also, per MOS:CITELEAD, I didn't want to overcite the lead since most of the descriptive content belongs in the body.

OCHNCaP (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The "constitution" of a fictional "country" is not a reliable source for anything. If it would, any Tom, Dick and Harry could create a website and demand the same. For now i's a group of people with a satellite. Unless you have a reliable source that supports your claim, it's WP:OR. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The constitution is a valid source for what they call themselves.OCHNCaP (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

As it states in the article right now. If they called themselves "Bob ALMIGHTY", we would not include that in the article as a fact. Now please take it to the talk-page and stop pestering me. Kleuske (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kleuske reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: ). Thank you. Hhkohh (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Redesign Records

Sorry. I tried seriously add a relevant music label. You removed it within minutes. I feel like you are not respecting my knowledge. It also looks like that you do not have any knowledge on the house music scene. For me it only shows that you are better at Wikipedia. Why would you else delete a Dutch music label that is relevant to many artists and fans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimentary (talk • contribs) 10:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikimentary: I haven't removed anything, but failed to inform you that I moved it to draft namespace. You will find your constribution at Draft:Redesign Records. Sorry for the omission. Kleuske (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I guess I'll become better in the Wikipedia editing over time. Appreciate the help. Is there anything we can do to make the Redesign Records page better than it currently is? I would love to add the discography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimentary —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikimentary: Add independent reliable sources. Besides... "We?" Who's "We"? Kleuske (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"We" as in the community. You and I. All the other users. It is really hard to contribute to Wikipedia if you are not a tech-geek that writes HTML-code and understands the unwritten rules of the community.

D'Evelyn

I'm sorry, I am really trying to update the D'Evelyn page and source it. I need all of the correction I made there so I can post references, but you keep removing them all. Sourcing everything will take some time. I have sourced many items and they disappear too. You are just taking away every single edit. I am doing my best, but getting sources for every athletic win is more difficult than just a couple of seconds. Our page was sorely out of date, so the edits are vast, as will be the sources. Please stop undoing my changes and allow me to update our page so we don't have such outdated info. Thank you. I hope I did this message correctly, you said to go to the bottom of your page, yet there is no way to start a new string. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locococomama (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Locococomama: Achievements for school teams belong on the website of the school, not in an encyclopedia. The same goes for promotional language, lists of extracurricular activities, etc. I strongly suggest you adress those forst and restrict yourself to the things you can source since that's required by Wikipedia policy. You have also not adressed my concerns of a conflict of interest, so I feel obliged to report the goings on at [{WP:COIN|the appropriate noticeboard]]. Kleuske (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Donbas Battalion

Good day! Unfortunately, I recently became a member of the war of edits. In this article I have made a big encyclopedic contribution. Could you check the validity of the links I deleted? I am sure you will understand that, unfortunately, the information in these links is an unconfirmed lie and is vandalism over the page. I hope for your understanding. Help to understand the situation. Best wishes, Pa30T (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not true. The information has been taken from UN reports and the incidents attracted an attention of Ukrainian MPs [1]. --Wiggling Piggy (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pa30T: Take it to the talk-page and discuss it w/o me playing the nanny. Kleuske (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The "take it to the &(!&*(@& talk-page" goes for the both of you. Kleuske (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Lynching - India

Hi,

I noticed that several months ago you disallowed a particular edit related to Cow-vigilantism in India on the Lynching page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynching&diff=next&oldid=849235136

And that you warned a user to stop:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maestro2016#Lynching

I believe there is a misunderstanding as to how serious the issues are in India. Perhaps you are not from that part of the world, so you have not witnessed it firsthand. You warned Maestro2016 not to post the link as you thought he was making light of a sensitive subject. I disagree because it is actually quite serious, and not making light of the issue at all. What "Cow-vigilantism" means is that there are very conservative/far-right groups who consider the cow as a sacred Hindu animal, and have gone harassing and sometimes outright killing people those who transport cows for meat or who otherwise farm or restrain cows in any way they deem unspiritual. It is not just one or two people who are doing this, but sometimes mobs of a dozen or more unruly people who go around and enact their violence. Quite a few groups who have adopted this ideology, and have brought it about themselves to administer 'punishment' as they see fit. It is bad enough to where national news covers such stories several times a month at times. There are also many top-tier world publications that have addressed the issue, such as:

• | The Economist, | The Guardian, | Asia Times, | VOA News.

So you see, 'Cow-vigilante' is not just a made up term or something making fun of lynching. Many people have been killed and mob-lynched as a result of indiscriminate 'cow-protectors' going around and accussing/harassing people, or outright halting cow-transport trucks in the middle of the street and pulling the driver out and killing him. It is quite a serious matter that I believe a link to the original article, not just a minor inclusion under the 'India' subsection of the lynching article. Please reconsider allowing us to re-add the 'see-also' link. Thanks Rush922 (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kleuske. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC Request

Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kleuske reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: ). Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

My edits were undone on Smart Gun Page

So I made some updates in the page named "Smart Gun" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_gun)

The section named BIRDS Pakistan had the following tag on it: This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: This section has been partially or fully pasted from an advertisement or corporate mission statement. Please help improve this section if you can. (November 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

And I made changes to it by rephrasing it into a neutral language and added a few sources but it was reverted saying (Unexplained deletion of sourced content, WP:PROMO) Can you explain why did this happen when the tagged clearly said it needs to be cleared up and that it has been copy pasted?!? CorporateGangsta (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@CorporateGangsta: Thanks for reminding me. I should have been more thorough in the first place. I have now removed the entire section, because it basically was a cross between WP:PROMO and WP:YELLOW, both of which have no place in an encyclopedia. Your addition to that page fell well withing the WP:PROMO bit. I would like you to review WP:COI and WP:PAID on conflicts of interest and paid editing, just to be sure. Kleuske (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Lou Arab Page

I am Lou Arab, and happy to provide ID if needed. I didn't start the page, and I don't think I warrant a wikipedia page, and would rather not have one. That said, parts of the draft are inaccurate and highly irrelevant. I'll try to source changes going forward, but some of the material already sourced is inaccurate. Local small town journalists are not known for fact checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louarab (talk • contribs) 14:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

As a joke I edited the page of Erky Perky.Sorry for trolling it won’t happen again Destructor of Capitalism 24 (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Destructor of Capitalism 24: You got reverted by one bot and three users (myself included) in one article. You bet it isn't going to happen again. I'm surprised you haven't been blocked yet as a vandalism only account. Kleuske (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

My mistake

@CASSIOPEIA: I'm assuming you posted this on the wrong talk-page. If not, please explain how unsourced gossip meets WP:BLP. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I wanted to warn other editor, and click on the wrong line at Huggle. Removed previous message. My apologizes. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. No worries. Kleuske (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect editing -Skysurfing

As I emailed earlier you have incorrectly deleted my amendments to Skysurfing.

The purpose of Wikipedia is accuracy and the current listing is far from this. I have the support of the skydiving community and would urge you to please do a little research for yourself and we can move forward

This would be entertaining if this (a) didn’t mean so much to me and (b) wasted both our time

I am asking for your help to make this really good page

I have been in touch with fellow sky surfers and the founder of this X-Games event and tour - all have offered their support to validate. Do let me know if you would like their details to verify?

Mike Skysurfer Mike (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, as much as I welcome improvements to the encyclopedia, adding unsourced material and asking the reader to just take your word for it, is simply against policy. Kleuske (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you review WP:Verifiability, the policy in question. Kleuske (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You are so wrong on this point, the detail is incorrect and not referenced already - this will correct the errors. I will make simple changes for you to understand albeit i will add pictures if this helps - i have said there is no written references to such things as design of bindings, terminology etc. There are only two expert sky surfers in the world - what would you like me to do, write a book or create a web site to substantiate the detail for your pleasure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You are free to correct any errors, provided you cite sources. You are also free to challenge and delete unsourced claims. You are not free to defy policy. And given your personal interest and unique position in the world of skysurfing, you seem to have a conflict of interest. That’s another policy i’d like you to review. Kleuske (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The Wrecking Crew

How is this information unessesary damn!!!! OMG it's sd (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@OMG it's sd: It’s an unsourced, promotional blurb about a non-notable company in a disambiguation page. Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

New to this, thank you for your message. Isn't there some sort of allowance for factual information about a company from the company? As long as it's referenced, what better source is there for complete and accurate information? Not sure how to proceed (I do understand that I will need to refrain from commercial or product-y additions or edits, but simple, verifiable, factual edits should be allowed I'd think. Wolfram Corporate (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No allowance. Once we start making allowances, we’re toast as an encyclopedia. You may also want to check the username policy, since yours is promotional, misleading and suggest shared use. Kleuske (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Lest I forget... please check out WP:PAID, too. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Kleuske

Hi Thank you for the information...i was just trying something else since i have seen in my community that there's a lot of people who think their teenagers have peer pressure and wanted to view my point Alwaba Tom II (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alwaba Tom II: Good intentions, to be sure but that’s not what Wikipedia is for. Kleuske (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia is not used for that but i was just expressing my own point of view as i have just said so could you please leave me alone in peace because i would really like to start what i have came here for!i know that wikipedia is not a social media and it can never be social media Alwaba Tom II (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If you abuse Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX, I think you will get blocked. And, no, I am not going to leave it alone and in peace if I notice someone abusing the money of donators and the time of volunteers. Kleuske (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well then why don't you block me?instead of helping me through my page...you busy judging and arguing with me well then that will never get you anywhere in life nor help you with anything cause you not helping me so why don't you rather block instead of telling me that i will be blocked please leave me to get back to my research okay? Alwaba Tom II (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I can’t block you, since I’m not a moderator. What I can do, is to remind you that this is collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia and that at some point a contribution to the project is expected. So far, you have contributed nothing but complaints on my talk page. So unless you start contributing, I might file a complaint at WP:ANI, since you appear not to be here to help build the encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine if you not gonna help me with my researcher then why don't you just leave me please i have had enough! Alwaba Tom II (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Still no contributions, more crap on my talk page, one request for personal contact on a BLP talk page. Are you here to help build the encyclopedia, or are you here to chat? Kleuske (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Rape in India

Hi, you reverted my changes saying: "Source does not mention India, does not support the claim", and then "India is mentioned in the list of countries with the highest rape rates. You seem to have misread and changed the wrong article. Kleuske (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)"

This is incorrect, as this source () clearly states:

"The countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape are Saudi Arabia (0.003), Azerbaijan and Yemen (0.004), Indonesia (0.006), Armenia (0.009), Georgia (0.010), Greece (0.011), Macedonia (0.013), Qatar and India (0.014)..."

furthermore, this is inconsistent with other wikipedia articles on the same topic: "India ranked 94th in a statistics of reported rape cases in 2010" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#India

Ah, but I see that you have just changed this one: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_rape#India) to "highest" also, which is in direct contradiction with the source.

Please review the source again and correct both articles since you won't let me do it.

Thanks.

Afacool1 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the warnings that you placed on User talk:73.93.110.37 and added an explanatory note. You might want to add something, too. Sjö (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Afacool1: You were right and I misread, hastily. Apologies. Kleuske (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Constitution Plaza

After making my first attempt to contibute to Wikipedia by rewriting a paragraph on a building called "Broadcast House" (razed in 2009) that I edited on the article for Constitution Plaza (in Hartford, Connecticut), on May 24, 2019 I received your gentle notice notifying me that it was deleted due to an an apparent conflict of interest "because [I may] work for, or represent, the subject of that article." I am not, however, associated in any way with the subject matter and don't understand how the information I provided implied that I do.

May I ask you to please copy that paragraph as I wrote it to my user page so I can review it and then submit it as a draft for approval?

RazzmatazzWilson (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)RazzmatazzWilson

@RazzmatazzWilson: It’s easy to copy the content yourself, it is preserved in the article history. It was, however, nowhere near neutral and read like an infomercial. Also, external links to youtube are rarely, if ever, acceptable. Kleuske (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and guidance, @Kleuske! I will review my contribution and will consider resubmitting it as a draft to an editor for approval.

RazzmatazzWilson (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)RazzmatazzWilson

Bayside Secondary School

Why did you revert changes made to the article? I am aware the the edit was submitted by the IP address of the school board which may imply that it was vandalism, but the information was correct and at the very least the information about the offered school sports could have been kept.

User:67.71.252.130 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@67.71.252.130: Because the IP made unsourced changes and has a substantial list of recent warnings on their talk page. Sources are required by policy. We can’t just take some IP’s word for it. Kleuske (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kleuske: The edit referring to number of enrolled students was actually sourced from a previously cited reference. Apart from that I can redo the edits with sources but after reading up a bit on wikipedia policies I think I may be in conflict of interest. As a student of the school I would be unable to edit the page right? User:67.71.252.130 (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

In that case, it helps to include a statement to that effect in the edit summary. I’m not sure about a COI in that case, but if you stick to neutral statements of fact and add sources, or at least mention them, you should be alright. Kleuske (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Ok thanks for the info! I updated the article and followed your advice User:67.71.252.130 (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

iflix

Heya - not sure if I'm doing this right, but saw your note that undid an entire day's worth of work. Completely agree with neutral, cited updates to Wiki pages, so I couldn't quite understand what you thought was offending material. Guidance would be very appreciated. Anibas1111 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

First off, there’s the external link to a iflix at the start of the article (a definite no-no), then there’s the plethora of iflix announces this, iflix announces that, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a message board for business announcements. Please keep that in mind when editing. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

4 of My Edits Were Undone

Hi Mr. Kleuske, hope is well for you. I received 4 notifications stating that you had undone my 4 edits for this articles: Julio A. Llorente, Mandaue City, Ormoc and Juan Climaco. Now I do understand from your point of view that my edits were unnecessary, however, with all due respect, you should not had reverted my edits on those 4 articles. My reasons are the following: 1. For Julio A. Llorente, I made that edit because I am a descendant of that guy. He is my great grandfather and was the First Governor here in Cebu, Philippines. Also, I added the birth dates of those guys who made the ordinance of naming a street after Julio because these people are the known historical figures in my hometown, yet, they are underappreciated and not given importance to. By having that little edit, I do hope that I had made a little imprint on the historical origins of my place. Second, for Mandaue and Ormoc, I made that edit because its part of the history of those places, and those links would have contained that information. Lastly, Juan Climaco was another historical figure of Cebu, and I did that edit to give due credit and justice to the memory of that guy that he deserves. Also, I made that edit basing from the information I gathered from the place where he hailed from (Toledo, which is actually the hometown of my Mother).

I know my reasons may not suit your standards but on my end, I though that you undid all of my editing works without knowing the places or the people in the article. I bet, you're a foreigner, and no offense, but if you tell me that my edits are not important or irrelevant then I would beg to differ. I just edited and did what I had to do because those articles are a bit misleading and lacking with information. I am one of those guys in my hometown whose trying to preserve our dying history, unlike your history which is well remembered and well preserved.

I do hope you can reconsider your actions and I do hope it merits something positive. If I had some faulty editing, then please let me know. I am not that familiar with this system and your tips or feedback will be of great help. Until then Mr. Kleuske, if you find that indeed I am at fault and you want to ban me or something, then be my guest.

With utmost respect and sincerity,

AdmiralProudmore Local Historical Researcher, Cebu, Philippines. AdmiralProudmore (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear @AdmiralProudmore:,

Statements of fact have to be accompanied by a citation of a reliable source. That is policy (WP:Verifiability). I applaud your efforts to preserve history, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish your findings, since that counts as WP:Original Research (also policy). I hope this helps understanding my actions. I hope this does not discourage you, doing invaluable research, since all history is worth preserving. Also, I’m still mrs. Kleuske. Sincerely, Kleuske (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Your non-justified revert on List of French marquisates

Hi,

Can you give me a valid reason to justify your refusal that For reasons of reliability, this list must contain (as in the same article in French) only legal and authentic titles of marquisates with reference sources and not courtesy titles of marquisates without any evidence that these titles were officialy raised or recognized as marquisates by a French sovereign. Sincerely. --Frenchmarquis (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Frenchmarquis:WP:ONUS. Consensus is a good thing to have when changing the scope of a list. I find the reasoning that many sources were lost or destroyed rather convincing, and I much prefer a historical approach to a legalistic one. Kleuske (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree to find a consensus with you if you disagree, but you know that you can only report an information with a valid source and not a personnal point of view. --Frenchmarquis (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

please discuss on the relevant talk page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Need to Clarify

Well, even if the article or page is about me, kindly do read it & go through it & the source links in it of news. I dont think there is anything wrong about a Celebrity creating a page about himself or herself, who has already contributed to world music in his continent. Also kindly check who all are associated with me & directly worked with me as my co artists. Most celeb friends I know get their P.As/friends & or agents to write for them. I could have done the same but chose to differ from others being more meticulous. Wikipedia should have no reason to delete my article upon reviewing, rather u should not comment. I presume your credentials are not even half matching upto mine to even evaluate me. Anyway, take care & all the best. Sarbajitjoeghosh (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know whether or not you are who you claim to be. The reasons why it’s a bad idea to write about yourself are spelled out in the message on your talk page. Wikipedia does not care who you are, what you are or who you know. Wikipedia cares whether or not articles are neutral and verifiable. Special pleading does not work. Kleuske (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The news links are what matters to wiki

I guess the news links & sources that I have provided to wikipedia in that article are more than sufficient to validate who I am or why my name or article should be in wikipedia. But u have no clue to who Anupam Roy, Rupankar, Akriti Kakar or Iman Chakraborty are & that I am producer, co singer, composer, having nationally acclaimed albums, my contributions to the music industry, along with various platforms, news channels, portals etc featuring me & my news. I have given all sources & links. So I guess u are no one to judge or comment why my article should be there in wiki or not...& frankly, u are not even having enough credentials to judge my standards. Neither u own Wiki, nor are u the spokesperson of wikipedia. So I suggest that u do not come to judge. Let time speak & let wikipedia decide. Thank u so much Sir. Sarbajitjoeghosh (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

LAMAR EGYPT

Hi, you deleted LAMAR Egypt article. It's one of the leading FMCGs companies in Egypt. The article included resources and there different articles redirecting to it. Can you please clarify what went wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanzykhafagy (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The article was deleted after a nomination because it failed WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I did not remove it. I merely nominated it. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jesse MacBeth

You undid some of my contributions on the "Jesse MacBeth" Article. It is sourced from his new Autobiogaraphy The One That Love Forgot The Article on him seems one sided and left out many of his other contributions to society. Like he is a published Author. Owner of a non profit that has helped many people in need. It leaves out his side of the story. The way it reads is like a smear campaign. I wanted to add diversity to the article and make it a less of an attack on the person and more of a informative page that talks about all sides of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeshiem (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Laudable, but referencing an autobiography on Amazon is not how books are referenced. Removing sourced content from an article is not the way to improve articles, especially if pertinent facts (like a conviction) are being removed. Also, phrases like "a bunch of land" is not exactly good English. Lastly, an autobiography is hardly ever a reliable source. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Great Lakes Field Service Council

Please stop undoing my changes to the Great Lakes Field Service Council page. I am simply moving the existing information for the camps to their own pages. I don't know why you think this needs specific sourcing or why you think you're somehow in charge of our Council wiki page. If — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pale Horse One (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pale Horse One: The information, as presented is unsourced and should not be in the article in the first place. Creating new articles, by replacing redirects, without sourcing or any means to establish notability is against policy. So... No. Kleuske (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The information has been there for the past 6 years and remains accurate. Pale Horse One (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Stop being a jerk.

Verifiability is not based on age. Kleuske (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Islam and violence

Hello,sorry to write here but I was checking article "Islam and violence" and I noticed to whole section about "pacifism in islam" inside that article is changed on 15 of july, with all sources blanked and content totally changed by user Maestro2016. I put back content how it was before and opened talk page disscusion. If you can take a look. Found your name into history of that article and I try to make more editors interested who could have more know about content etc dont know if it is legal if not sorry I dont know about all rules etc. Thank you.109.93.186.50 (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TheDutchViewer

Dear Kleuske, since February of this year, User:TheDutchViewer is contributing to Wikipedia. His main interest is to expand biogrophies of Dutch politicians. Though I appreciate the efforts this user is making, I cannot say his/her edits improve the quality of the articles. Just see for example the Joris Voorhoeve-article, and you see what I don't like:

• a lead that overshadows the rest of the article; per MOS:LEAD, the intro should give "the basics in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on;"
• then the contents of these expanded lead: it merely gives a resume in prose, as translated from the "Parlement & Politiek"-website. And then the lead only supplies the offices Voorhoeve held, focusing very much on dates and functions.
• meanwhile, the Srebrenica massacre, which is the main reason he is notable, is hardly mentioned.
• and then the language: The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy sufferd a loss, losing 5 seat and now had 22 seats in the House of Representatives is not a correct sentence in the English language. And sentences like this are now present in a lot of articles on Dutch politicians.

And this is just one example of his edits. I tried to reason with this user, but I did not get any response. Now,since I know you as having a reputation for being ruthless on bad editing: could you please have a look at the edits of TheDuchViewer? And if you are not available to take the right action: to whom can I reach out? That said, if you do not see any problem here, then please let me know. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Preston Magnet

Hi. On April 22, 2018, you seem to have removed a section from the article Thomas Preston (scientist). Could you please have a look at the suggestion I made on the article's talk page?

Hi I am new and you changed something

Hi, about youre comment about mayon. Is not Mayon is Mahon and it is not in France. https://www.disfrutamenorca.com/mahon http://www.ajmao.org/ Mahón (Maó) es la capital de la isla española de Menorca. Es conocida por sus casas de estilo británico georgiano y por su puerto resguardado. La iglesia de Santa María, con un elaborado órgano del siglo XIX, se encuentra en la céntrica Plaça de la Constitució. Junto a la iglesia, el ayuntamiento tiene una fachada renacentista y un reloj donado por el primer gobernador británico de la isla. El Museo de Menorca exhibe obras de arte y organiza exposiciones sobre la historia de la isla. So no, you made a mistake. The place of origin as Stated by the mayonnaise article is in menorca, Spain. Already posted in mayonnaise paged, please change the place of origin, it is cultural appropriation. Thank you in foresight, I am new and I do not Know how the page works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefco98 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted since you mentioned no source, and the change seemed a rather drastic one. A short explanation in the edit summary can do wonders. I am somewhat doubtful of the sources cited, especially since various wiki (German, French, Dutch) have different stories, but that’s another matter. Kleuske (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

hi can I ask why you have edited the page Riba-roja d'Ebre

You have taken off a section called Riu d'art - this is a free to walk around artwork in the streets of Riba-roja. it is not commercial it is artwork in the streets and a permanent part of riba-roja.

What is wrong with the edit?

Thanks

-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RibaRocks (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@RibaRocks: I removed unsourced and promotional material, per Wikipedia guidelines. Also, since you added a external link to riba-rocks.com, i feel obliged to note you apparently have a conflict of interest. Kleuske (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I am a volunteer who helps promote the village of Riba-roja d'Ebre as I say both Riba Rocks and Riu d'art are free it is information on the village of Riba-roja is it not what the page is for? to give information about the village? RibaRocks (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RibaRocks (talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How does anything about riba-roja become sourced? The artwork in the street is a fact and it costs nothing to walk around the streets. RibaRocks (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@RibaRocks: That does not matter. Your interest, promoting the village, conflicts with Wikipedia’s interest, producing a neutral encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 18:04, 24 February 20:20 (UTC)

@RibaRocks: addendum: you source things by finding sources describing whatever it is you want sourced. See WP:V and WP:RS for details. Also please do not start an edit war. Just reverting me and ignoring my objections is a reason to block a user. Kleuske (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed information added to Pi'erre Bourne

Hi,

Your reversion made to Pi'erre Bourne created incorrect formatting and removed relevant information. Most importantly, you reverted my change of quotations around album titles to italics. The standard guidelines for writing album titles is to write them in italics, not quotations, so your reversion incorrectly changed the formatting of those titles. Next, you reverted my change of the word "entitled" to "titled". "Titled" is the correct word to be used to refer to the titles of albums. "Entitled" is a word that means "having a right to certain benefits or privileges", according to Merriam-Webster. It should not be used in place of "titled" as it has a different meaning. Finally, you removed one of the most important pieces of information I added to his Career section. I wrote that he started producing for Young Nudy and Trippie Redd in 2016. This is important to add because the way the page is currently written, it makes it seem like Playboi Carti was the first artist he produced for, which is completely incorrect. If you removed it because there was a lack of evidence, you could have just added a "Citation Needed" tag next to the sentence instead of removing it. You can see that he produced for the two artists in 2016 by going to their SoundCloud pages and checking the dates of their oldest songs produced by Pi'erre Bourne. Here is one produced for Nudy in 2016 and one produced for Trippie in 2016. It is also mentioned in the artist bio I linked four sentences ago. Overall, I do not see any purpose in reverting the edits that were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TUNEINTUNE (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

question about adding citations

Hi Kleuske,

Thank you for reaching out. I added edited the sources and citations to the paragraph, but it seems that the context has been deleted by someone and the other editor refused to tell me why. Wondering what I shall I do next? I guess keep undoing is probably not a good idea.

Thx!

HelenWang1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenwang1 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Helenwang1: the Kotaku source should be fine, but Weibo, like Twitter is not a reliable source. From the looks of it, there’s a multi-party edit war going on, which may result in the article being protected. The wise thing to do is to raise the issue on the talk-page and gain consensus. See WP:RS for details. Good luck. Kleuske (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

RE: Hugo Boss (Joe Lycett) Twitter Source

Hi Kleuske,

Usually tweets are classed as non-reliable sources - however in this case this is the primary source about the name change, and is from the official and Verified Twitter account from the person, therefore making the source significantly more reliable. This has also been covered by news outlets, which have used the tweets as a reliable source (as is evidenced here https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/joe-lycett-hugo-boss-name-change-deed-poll-cease-desist-twitter-fashion-a9367401.html).

If you have any better ideas on how this event could be referenced (although the tweets are the only current primary source, to my knowledge) please do so, however for now I'm going to undo your revert due to this.

--TeddyTheTeddy (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@TeddyTheTeddy: If third party sources are available, I suggest you cite those. See WP: USERGENERATED for details. Kleuske (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Third party sources are available, but they're referencing only from the tweets that I referenced, and therefore if the tweets are non-reliable the third party sources would also be deemed non-reliable by this standard. --TeddyTheTeddy (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Third party sources, news outlets, have editorial checks in place, which Twitter has not. Besides, I did not create that policy, so arguing its merits with me is useless. Dura lex, sed lex. Basta. Kleuske (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I do hate to interfere in this spirited discussion, but I would just like to point out that in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it actually states in one of the sections that "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", which I believe this Lycett/Boss issue falls under.

Sdrqaz (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ibraheem Samirah

Dear Kleuske, can you please follow up on Ibraheem Samirah's anti-semitism and his promotion of white-washing it through probable sock puppetry if you've got time. I've noticed you've been involved with reverting some of his potential edits. Thank you for your anti-vandalism efforts, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I don't know where that external link comes from, but definitely check out the aforementioned talk page please. Thank you, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop reverting my changes

There's video testimony of McCabe admitting he spearheaded teh DuPont campaign. Do you work for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoctar (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Do not publish a warning on my talk page when you haven't even engaged me in dialogue.thedoctar (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have started the dialogue on the appropriate talk page. Also, I do not respond well to the imperative and veiled, ludicrous accusations. Kleuske (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No you did not. You never entered dialogue. Also is AzureCitizen your alt account?

thedoctar (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

See the talk page, where I specified my objections based on policy. Also please read WP:OVERLINK and, more importantly, WP:ASPERSIONS. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey now...

This here was an unnecessary bit of gravedancing, and was not useful. Please don't do that. --Jayron32 16:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You’re right. I would retract that, but there’s already a response. I do not, however, think I’m wrong.

Kleuske (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Being not wrong, and being helpful, are not always the same thing. Regardless, it looks like another admin got tired and just revoked talk page access. Probably time to let this one go. --Jayron32 17:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That’s probably best. I’ll gloat just a little bit longer, but in silence. He really pissed me off. And btw, I did not want to muck up the proceedings by bringing up tangential stuff, but I’m still mrs. Kleuske. Kleuske (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, did I misgender you? If so I am terribly embarrassed. I always try to use the correct pronouns when known, and neutral pronouns when I don't know. Can you tell me where I used he or him or his in reference to you? I will correct post-haste. --Jayron32 17:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it. It takes a lot more to offend me. It’s just FYI. The subtle hint on my user page may just be a little too subtle. Kleuske (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I could reply with a few choice observations after that response, but I’ll let it slide. Technocrat and atrocities, no less. Nah... I’ll stick to my assessment he’s not cut out to be a Wikipedian just yet. Maybe later. Kleuske (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

question about the heading of the page

Dear Kleuske,

Thank you for your welcome and your advices. I have only one problem now: how can I change the heading of the page "Metonic 19-year lunar cycle" in "Metonic 19-year lunar cycles"?

Jan Zu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Zu (talk • contribs) 06:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jan Zu: At the moment, you can’t do it yourself, since, being a very new contributor, you lack the privileges. You can either post a request at WP: Requested moves or ask an established user. It seems you have chosen the latter. That being said, the article does not exactly shine in clarity or good grammar. Kleuske (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

I am offended that you believed my edit to the Mojang page was some kind of joke. I was not trying to "lighten up" wikipedia, I legitimately heard that such an event occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torre degli Angeli (talk • contribs) 07:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Source? Kleuske (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

First Time Edits - Bias Allegations

Hi there!

Just as an FYI - I am a first-time editor and have updated my bio to disclose my employer. This was unintentional and I apologise.

Please let me know what edits you'd like and I'd be happy to adjust! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonWarnerSA (talk • contribs) 13:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted references to works about May Ayim and Selma Merbaum

Hi,

I do not think that the notification about important musical adaptions are promotion.

Regards, Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:SunnySundayMorningRun (talk • contribs) 09:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@SunnySundayMorningRun: If you have sources for the “important musical adaptions”, you could write an article. In the mean time, Wikipedia is explicitly not intended to notify anyone of anything. Please keep that in mind when editing. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Your use of sock puppets

Your use of sock puppets is not welcome here. I will be cleaning up this mess, doing appropriate suspensions and removing all sock puppets when I get home and log into WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:983:4601:AA80:C58F:A2F3:B1C0:4FD4 (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@2601:983:4601:AA80:C58F:A2F3:B1C0:4FD4: Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. Click here to report me as a sock puppet. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

your rollback on Mark Yoffe

[2] - you think it was useless, because you didn't wait and didn't look: CurrentTime.TV . Please take your time, next time. -- Kku (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, next time write an article first and then reference it, not the other way around. Speaking of that article, sources are completely inadequate. Please improve. Kleuske (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Finland

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Finland article with the explanation "Too many images, promotional". I actually did not add any additional images to the article (I moved one from one section to another and replaced another one). More importantly, I updated the tourism figures and added some much-needed sources for these claims. I also did some minor phrase changes to make the text (in my opinion, anyway) slightly less promotional, such as the following sentence changes:

Original: "The Finnish landscape is covered with thick pine forests and rolling hills, and complemented with a labyrinth of lakes and inlets."

My edit: "Finland is covered with thick pine forests, rolling hills, and lakes."

and

Original: "Much of Finland is pristine and virgin as it contains 40 national parks from the Southern shores of the Gulf of Finland to the high fells of Lapland."

My edit: "Finland contains 40 national parks, from the Southern shores of the Gulf of Finland to the high fells of Lapland."

Could you please clarify how my edit made the article more promotional? —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello SirMadam,

The user page existed since long time for "Avinash Kumar Agarwal". The information was dated and obsolete so I thought of updating the correct information. Please do not summarility discard all changes. Please accept whatever you think, is possible. I am new to wikipedia and am not aware of all the rules. Best regards: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinashagarwal1 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Avinashagarwal1: I have left two explanations on your talk-page. Please read them, since writing autobiographically is strongly discouraged, since nobody can be neutral about themselves and a conflict of interest is inherent to the activity. Certainly a man with professorial status should understand that. If you want, suggest changes on the talk-page, but do not treat the encyclopedia as your personal website. It is not. Kleuske (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Undertood but correcting facts and updating the facts doesnt fall under this category. If the wikipage is giving outdated information, that not professional either. My request is to you is to tell me, where you think, the information is not neutral and I will either revise that or retract that but dont summarily discard. Had I been aware that it will be summarily discarded, I would not have wasted half of my Sunday correcting the page. Kind regards. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinashagarwal1 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You added 22k of rather flattering text. That’s not correcting mistakes, that’s misusing the encyclopedia to write nice things about yourself. Suggest alterations and updates on the talk-page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, most of the text increase is because of the addition in details of the books and articles. If you ignore them, most of other things are under the category of "Correcting the facts and updating". You can take your time and remove whatever you feel is "Flattering text". Best regards

The section header states “selected bibliography”, adding 20k to that negates that. Also, please do not post walls of text on my talk page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, You can reject the changes for "Select bibliography and Articles". I will make changes later, and add few current bibliography, by replacing the old ones. The summary of changes for your consideration is as follows;

Introduction para (Removed Tribology, Added Fellowship of AAAS, charged the sequence of all fellowship in decending order of year, Added receiving J C Bose Fellowship: All this comes under fact correction).

Biography: (Hardly any change here, other than removing seven short stints and replacing with several short stints and following corrections.

Legacy (Here, there is hardly any change in first para. Second para has been updated for factual aspects. The third para is what is giving you the impression of "Flattering text". The firt part of the third para about the research park is a fact. You can delete the remaining about world class lab and students etc.).

Awards and honors (Again here, its all updation of the facts only; no flattering statements).

The last part is about Biography and articles: For the time being, you can keep the original.

I hope, you will review my suggestions and accept them. I have spent lot of time updating them and you have also spent lot of time educating the first time user like me. It will be sheer waste of time for both of us, if the suggested changes are completely ignored. With best regards and have a nice sunday. Avinash K Agarwal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinashagarwal1 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

For the last time’... Do not write about yourself. It is fundamentally unencyclopedic to do so. I am amazed I have to explain this to someone with a professorial stature. Kleuske (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Kurma

Not sure why [3] was reverted.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: By accident. Apologies. Kleuske (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

joker new movie

joker new movie is part of dc extended universe not a same name of 2019 film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackknight1234567890 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Regulatory capture

Where's "Using Facebook as a source?"? Kolyvansky (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The new standards for clothing are - in increasing order of protection - A, AA, and AAA. And the critical point to know is that the A standard sets the protection bar very low indeed. https://business.facebook.com/SurvivalSkills/photos/a.154251857940742/2747632348602667/?type=1&theater "How much protection does the new CE standard offer?"

That still leaves all the other policies I mentioned on your talk page. Wikipedia is not the place for your personal screeds. Kleuske (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Already abundantly clear"

About your revert of my edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tucker_Sno-Cat&oldid=949955953 : I must be mentally deficient, then, because as I read it, not only is it not "abundantly" clear, it is not even minimally clear. Toddcs (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Toddcc: You thought the Tucker Sno-Cat is a Mercedes product? Mitshubishi? Peugeot?Kleuske (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, right, Kleuske. And since you mentioned (but also misspelled) Mitsubishi, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Lancer

   Mitsubishi Lancer
   ...
   The Mitsubishi Lancer is a compact car produced by the Japanese manufacturer Mitsubishi since 1973.

So don't forget to remove that blatant "redundancy" too, and the hundreds of others like it all over Wikipedia.

Nor do I need to point out that Mitsubishi is a household word among manufacturers, while Tucker is nothing of the kind, even remotely. Toddcs (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Apologies for mistakes made when updating our Wikipedia page, I am learning the ropes so I appreciate your guidance. Could you please advise on how to make compliant additions to a page where I work for the company. I want to ensure that the information provided is up-to-date, informative and detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie CandlelightConcerts (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello! You marked my archive for speedy deletion. I am completely ok with personally reversing all of my edits. I would, however, like an explanation of where I went wrong, so I don't make the same mistake again. I'm trying to improve the Miranda Warning page in general. Thank you kind Wikipedian!

ThatSuperNerd (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

See your talk page. We have bots doing that. Kleuske (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Page of Corazon Agrava

I will never forget what you did!! You wasted!! RadsLeofredAdducul (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I applied WP:Verifiability and WP:Biographies of living persons and demanded a source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, after all. Kleuske (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey K. Pullum entry

--Araucarian (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kleuske,

I thought the reasons that I gave here were straightforward.

The main thing is that the entries here are libellous. For example, it is NOT the case that Pullum used or was criticised for using racial slurs.

Is there a good reason to keep libellous information in Wikipedia entries?

Araucarian

The entry was rather poorly sourced, with many references to a single source, most of which were editorials. WP:BLP demands it to be removed. I did, after having a very close look. You may want to 2atch it with the legalese, by the way, before you know it, it gets interpreted as a legal threat. The reasons you gave we’re not half as straightforward as you think, since “I removed false/biased/libelous information” is the go-to excuse for many who do not like the content. Kleuske (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kleuske,

Thanks for the advice re lagalese. As you can see that's not what was intended!

I know, and I did not interpret it that way. Kleuske (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Arlene Stringer-Cuevas

Hi-you did not mention why you reverted my edits to the Arlene Stringer-Cuevas article. In the article it was stated that she was married twice and her first husband was mentioned in the article. Also a more accurate category was needed and I added the Schoolteachers from New York (state) to the article. Therefore, it was unclear why you reverted my edits to the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@RFD: By accident. I have self reverted. Apologies. Kleuske (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Thank you! RFD (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notification: WP:ANI#Elkrivermr reported by ElSnakeoBwb

Hi Kleuske,

you might be interested in the following ANI thread: WP:ANI#Elkrivermr reported by ElSnakeoBwb

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with removing a biased edit to an article

Hi,

I went to revert a giant series of edits made to the Operation Ivory Coast page, but the system won't let me because of the huge mountain of edits made by an anonymous user. Additionally, the edits made by said user have severely degraded the article's NPOV. The article can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivory_Coast

...and the date I would like to revert to is March 4, 2020. Everything after that date is pure biased nonsense.

Should I wait a few more days to revert, or place a tag indicating the bias? Thanks MainBattery (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@MainBattery: If you select the first and last edit, click “compare selected versions” you can easily revert them all, by clicking “undo”. No special privileges needed. As it it, I found the edits largely unsourced and not adhering to WP:NPOV, so I reverted. It would be good if you voiced your objections on the talk-page. I advised the anon to do the same. Kleuske (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Will do! :) MainBattery (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with adding back edits to an article

Hi,

I am the Director of Colegio Karl C. Parrish. The Wikipedia page has some outdated information that I would like to update. Specifically, our student enrollment; some of our Facilities enhancements and the fact that the old Director, Laura Horbal is no longer Director and I am. Is there a way to get the edits I made, back or do I need to submit new edits and ask for approval? Thanks. Jlevno (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If you have sources, you can suggest changes. However, I reverted your edits because conflict of interest and promotional content. Kleuske (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

This has been a little difficult getting started and switching back and forth between my word document and the editor put my footnotes in the wrong place and messed up the references and some how just kept linking the Hypatia article itself. Your links are super helpful! I'll take some time to practice! --Owl Mermaid (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Owl Mermaid

My pleasure. Remember that you have a sandbox to experiment in. Kleuske (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please block me

Please block my account. I am a troll. --Garland J P (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m not an admin, so I can’t block anyone. You could just stop using Wikipedia. Alternatively, post your request at WP:ANI. Self requested blocks are usually granted. Kleuske (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Page marked for deletion: request clarity

Page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Subhashish_Chakraborty_(Product_Visionary) The article I am writing is a collection of facts about the personality without any promotional or opinionated content. What am I missing/violating with respect to style or content? -Etapomay (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Etapomay: The draft was shamelessly promotional, containing wildly hyperbolic claims, even in the title, and did not show any evidence of any notability. In short WP:PROMO, WP:NPOV and I strongly suspect WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and/or WP:COI. Kleuske (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I did not get a chance to finish adding the hyperlinks and photographs that qualify as evidence. I am targeting an article similar in style to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling. Please advise. -Etapomay (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The only way to show notability is to cite independent, reliable sources. Even then articles should be written neutrally, which your draft most certainly was not. Kleuske (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, comparing yourself to the inventor of one of the most widely used computer languages does nothing to enhance your claims. Kleuske (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Thanks very much for having me on board!

In the meantime, I am not in the mood for a bit of a chat due to the fact I am autistic. People all over the world, including New Zealand, may be a little bit confused when it comes to writing or editing stuff.

I am from New Zealand and I have excellent knowledge of New Zealand media - especially radio and television.

Until next time, take care! PaddyTePou (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dolmen CIty

I have absolutely zero connection, financial or otherwise, to Dolmen City. I'd appreciated if you remove that tag. If you'll note, I edit lots of pages about buildings in Karachi, including for Ocean Tower, and for Bahria Icon Tower. I've also created other pages about Karachi buildings, including heritage sites.

Alishernavoi (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Color me just a tiny bit incredulous. The Dolmen City article’s sourcing is piss-poor,you made sure to namedrop all the stores and pay no heed to things like WP:YELLOWPAGES in articles like Yellow. Not to put too fine a point on it, I do not believe you. Kleuske (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You might be incredulous, but why dont you do a search of Dolmen City and see what information aside from primary sources are available? You'll see that theres almost none. All I did was draw in whatever was available on the internet. This is how I create pages. Its what I did on the Bagh Ibne Qasim page, Edulji Dinshaw Dispensary page, Serai Quarter, Manora Fort, Karachi pages and so on. I make/improve pages about Karachi by simply going through every internet source I can find, and inserting usable facts wherever I can find them. The "name dropping" might seem off, but in reality, these are notable in a country like Pakistan where international brands are few and far between.Alishernavoi (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to provide sources. Not on the reader to find some. Besides if none but primary sources are available, the subject is not notable. Another reason to think you may have a conflict of interest. But trust me. I will have a look at your contributions. Kleuske (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've done the work for you - the sources which are listed in the page are those of note. If youre so concerned about "name-dropping," i dont see why you simply didnt remove that if it were so offensive. And yes, please do go through my contributions - you'll see I have nothing to hide, and certainly don't profit off any of my edits. Alishernavoi (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, it is not my job to find sources, so you did not do any “work for me”. I will, however, perform some WP:BEFORE searches, based on your admission above. I’m just getting started after my morning coffee. Kleuske (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to actually put the burden on you. My point is that for a complex recently built in a third world country, there wont be many primary sources available so immediately. That doesn't mean its not notable - these are after all some of the tallest buildings in Karachi. But I will say in regards to "names" - its exciting that some of these brands are in Karachi, like Adidas/Nike/Polo. Karachi isn't used to having major chains, so thats why I thought it was relevant to include those majore ones. As for the other chains like Accessorize, I just went through the directory and picked out international chains. I didn't realize it was such a problem. If its such an issue I dont see why you couldnt simply remove them, but proposing to eliminate the entire page by merging into into Dolmen Malls is quite rash IMO. Alishernavoi (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The only sources you provided are primary sources. They do not impart notability. Having two article on the same complex is a text-book case for merging. I have removed the unsightly list of brands. Kleuske (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The notability part is that these are some of the tallest towers in Karachi. The articles are not about the same complex though. Please read the Dolmen Malls page - its about the chain of malls in Karachi run by the Dolmen Group (not just the one in Clifton's Dolmen City. Dolmen City page is about the mixed use complex on the Clifton waterfront that also includes one of ~3 malls run by the Dolmen Group

And in case youre wondering - the reason why I made this page now is because a high quality picture was finally made available here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolmen_City#/media/File:Dolmen_City_Karachi.jpg, which I derived (Free art license) which I found from this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PK_Karachi_asv2020-02_img13_Clifton_Beach.jpg which was posted by a presumably Russian photographer who posted a bunch of photos just on 12 April. Previous photos were poor quality including [4] which I tagged as a probably copyright violation. Since it wasnt found to be one, I included it in the Dolmen City page. Nothing sinister here. Alishernavoi (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've expanded the article further. Do you think it now qualifies to at last have the tag "relies largely or entirely on a single source" removed? I'm sure you'll see after you go through all my edits that I have no commercial or COI with Dolmen City, so I'm confident you'll remove that tag too. As for the third "relying too much on a primary source" tag, I've cited different site aside from the developer's.Alishernavoi (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: - Hi, please respond. Alishernavoi (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Corona virus (COVID-19)

Hello Kleuske. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Corona virus (COVID-19), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The page is not a test page because it has meaningful text. As a duplicate draft, it can be declined if it is submitted and G13ed in six months if not. Thank you. Passengerpigeon (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Help Creating Page - Digital Companion

Hello,

I need some help. Tried creating a page for the term 'Digital companion' and thought I needed my username to be 'Digital companion' as well. Then, I got a message that the page has a potential conflict of interest. I work for a company (Intuition Robotics) that creates digital companions (my company's name was included in my user email, perhaps this was an issue as well?), but I wrote this article about an industry term, not a company, and in a way that was as un-biased as possible, and mentioned numerous other companies in this industry (and removed my company's name from the article). I want to know what I can do to get the page published - do I need to create a new user altogether, and start over? Do I need to disclose conflict of interest, even though I am not profiting off of this article in any way? Some help would be greatly appreciated, as I put a lot of effort already into writing and creating the page, and I was unaware that I would have issues due to either my user name or the fact that I work in the industry of the term of the page I'm trying to create.

Digital companion (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Digital companion, April 22, 2020, 17:34

I'm not sure if non-Admins can read block logs

if you can't, here's the one for an editor you reverted and I just blocked.[Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia - among other edits, see [5]. [6] and [7]]. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: We can, to an extent. Good block. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Advertising or promotion

Please tell what is reason behind this to speedy deletion to my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salahudin009 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• ”Australia’s most wanted Open Format artists”
• ”testament to the quality of the track”
• ” which are sure to also get the dancefloor moving.”
• a list of links to Spotify
• a ton of external links to various unrelated websites

And to top it off, it’s an unsourced BLP. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I went out of my way and removed the promotional content. Now it’s only an unsourced BLP. Kleuske (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Our edits to Qatar

Hi, Kleuske. I noticed that you’d reverted Qatar to a previous version. However, it seems that you actually added a small piece of vandalism back on the page (the vandal had initially added “this is all wrong” in the infobox code, making one line invalid. I reverted it, but then you reverted my edit). I’ve reverted the page to the last good version, and I thought I’d just inform you about this. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Hit revert by accident and did not notice. Apologies for the inconvenience. Thanks for the good work. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Help

Hi An authorization from the artist from your family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferreira&rogerio (talk • contribs) 01:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ravivarman Neelamegam

I have cited the sources in the page [Neelamegam], consider republishing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dushyanth edadasula (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Please use WP:Articles for creation. Kleuske (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Moving to draft

Hello!

I saw you moved an article to draft manually. Consider using user:Evad37/MoveToDraft which does everything automatically. It's pretty neat.Jonteemil (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. That should save a lot of effort. Kleuske (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Deprodding of Alte Voce

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Alte Voce, which you proposed for deletion. The author added references. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Seoltoir22 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seoltoir22: The point was to get the author to add sources. At the moment, I do not see much point in AfD’ing it. Kleuske (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your message to me

I warned User:99.245.168.121 because he replied to an edit request in an offensive manner, saying:

“And we don't care if its offensive for you or your stupid religion.“

I warned him on his talk page but you seem to have removed my warning, was the warning not appropriate? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 11:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez: That’s rude, but it is not harrassment or even a personal attack. As a matter of fact, it summarizes WP:NOTCENSORED rather brusquely , but ultimately correct. Wikipedia is wholly unconcerned with butt-hurt true believers. Kleuske (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, shouldn’t he be warned in any way? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 11:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You are free to point out they’re being rude, but I see no reason for a warning, let alone a level 3 version. Not a good start if you want to join the AntiVandalClub. Kleuske (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NPA, it says that Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 11:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It isn’t a personal attack. They call Islam stupid, not you. Kleuske (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand. So this behavior is considered normal? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 11:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No. As I said, it’s rude and that has been pointed out. It is not, however, a personal attack and does not warrant a level three warning. Kleuske (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, It was a level 2 warning. I found it reasonable at the time because the IP obviously knew that he was offending, he/she also claimed to be aware Wikipedia's policy. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 11:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

”template:uw-harass3” is a level 3 warning. It is trivial to look that up in the page history. It was not harrassment so any warning concerning harrassment is unwarranted. Now kindly stay off my talk page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, vs. facts - ModCloth

I do not work ModCloth. I do work with their parent company, GoGlobal. Every change I placed was backed up with a citation. Every one. I don't understand how some changes/additions were added and some where not. I understand that Wiki doesn't want to be seen as an advertising vehicle, but the page as already set up has not changed - beyond adding facts. I would respectfully ask that you reconsider removing the suggestions I made. NewbridgeRD (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That’s undisclosed paid editing, which violates the terms of service. You had betterIt makes no difference if you work for ModCloth or the parent company. Kleuske (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Two minds with but a single thought

We edit conflicted saving Plandemic. I have tried to merge both versions. Good work, Guy (help!) 08:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I can only return the compliment. Good job, all around. No conspiracy theory survives its first contact with Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPADE

Perhaps you are unaware, but WP:SPADE is an essay. It has no weight, and it does not trump WP:NPOV which is a pillar policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: The point of the essay is that neutrality does not involve dancing around the issue. If the common name includes “gang”, it violates NPOV to change it to “group”. While you’re at it, also read WP:WIKILAWYER. Kleuske (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter what the point of the essay was - an essay is an essay, it has no weight I could write one with the exact opposite point, and point you to it. Would you be convinced? I suspect not. WP:NPOV, OTOH, is policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You seriously misunderstand, or more likely misconstrue, NPOV. By now it’s sourced. Keep POV-pushing and you’ll end up on ANI again. Kleuske (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, four solid sources at Lehi (militant group), and zero for "group". So: WP:OR as well. Guy (help!) 16:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

You violated 1RR I suggest to self revert --Shrike (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Help

Hello sir, please check the page Maratha (caste) which was edited by a anonymous user without any source and i reverted these edits but latter Kleuske reverted my edits to anonymous without any enquiry. Rakshit Rathod (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir, My changes are sourced. Please check the quotes from the book by Gordon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.180.159 (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you protect the Maratha (caste) because there being a edit war Rakshit Rathod (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Kleuske, Rakhsit Rathod is persistently engaging in edit wars by reverting edits that are valid and backed by multiple WP:RS. He edits are already reverted by Mr.Sarcastic. Please can you tell Mr.Rakshit not to use WP:NOR. I tried explaining but to no avail. He simply comes and reverts valid edits.61.0.180.159 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. First off, I'm female so stop calling me “sir”. Secondly, take it to the talk page, Thirdly, and I can’t stress this enough, I do not give a rats ass about your castes. Kleuske (talk)

Sorry

Sorry if you got a ping from that AIV report, I meant to report the guy you gave that lvl4 warning to. SK2242 (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@SK2242: No worries. We all screw up, sooner or later. Just had one this morning, myself. Way bigger than yours. Besides, I do not think you get pings from an AIV report. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for my new article

Hello my friend, I just created and improve my article, Avian Brands. Why you nominated this article to speedy deletion? Ivan Humphrey (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There was no credible indication of importance. See CSD-A7. Kleuske (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Canada Drugs

I don't see the discussion you mentioned and still maintain the article is about the extinct, original, mail order Canadian pharmacy to the US and its reasons for being and aftermath. I'd support a more descriptive name for it, but "Canada Drugs" should be in the name for search convenience. Kolyvansky (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kolyvansky:I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about. Last i did in that article was removing a ton of spamlinks you inserted. Don’t do that again. Also, cut out the examples in Regulatory capture. They do not clarify anything. Kleuske (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We need to get others involved, b/c you don't seem to understand. Kolyvansky (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I just told you I have no clue what the fuck you’re talking about. Please involve others. Perhaps they can explain. Kleuske (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Antonio Pompa-Baldi

Hi. I only updated information, added some university affiliations, and a spotify external link. Everything is correct. Brahmschumann (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Glad you think so. It was also promotional and unsourced. Kleuske (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Francophonie

Hi @Kleuske: I reverted the above article back to the redirect as part of WP:NPP. It is perfectly decent redirect. If you need to recreate it, please recreate it on a seperate page and leave the redirect in place. 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That seems a bit weird, since the article exists since 2016, has been edited many times by many different editors, has never been a redirect, has never been AfD’d and you “restore” a valid redirect. Would you elucidate on the exact NPP policy this is based on? Also, based on the ping, I assume you intended it for the talk-page, were it belongs. I’ll copy it there, so we can discuss. Kleuske (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Tuite Baronets

I would like to understand your mass deletion of information on this page. Can you please site sources that brought this on or give justification? I think this was done in error, as all the information your deleted is supported by publicly available information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTuite (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tuite baronets#Request edit on 29 May 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tuite baronets#Request edit on 29 May 2020. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Talk:Californians_for_Equal_Rights

Hi @Kleuske: you proposed an article deletion, for good reason I believe, and it was indeed deleted. I'd like to re-write the article, and wonder if you can review and comment on my thoughts on the talk page first? Thank you! Stevel408 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There’s a discussion at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#serious issue with another user that may involve you. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Beeni

please do not delete my work on the sport of Beeni which is a pastime in kashmir and North Pakistan like Baseball is in America. it a form of wrist wtestling very tradtional sport in Kashmir and popuar in Northern England recently.

it is better that you get more information about this sport which like Kabaddie is very well estblished in north pakistan and Kashmir. Islamdefence (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Islamdefence: it is better that you provide actual sources, as required by policy instead of demanding others, such as yours truly, find sources for you. Kleuske (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

CORE

Hi Kleuske, thank you for keeping watch over the CORE page. I appreciate it. I am having trouble understanding your specific reversions of edits. Can you please discuss each one in the talk page instead of deleting them all? There is important info in there for covid relief, and i don't understand why you are deleting the edits. Please let me know, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KNWLEDGEISPWR (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, allow me to explain. Phrases such as “longtime humanitarian”, “played a pivotal role in relief efforts” are suitable for the website of the organization, but not for an encyclopedia, especially if the source is the website of the organization itself. Overall, yours is not a neutral description of efforts, its tone is geared towards creating a positive image of the organization, I.e. promotional. That coupled to your singularly onesided contributions makes it really hard not to suspect I am dealing with an undisclosed paid editor, acting on behalf of the celebrity and/or the organization in question. Kleuske (talk

Heading text

) 17:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, mind the various requests you have been given and sign your posts. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My apologies! Thank you for your explanation. I understand the distinction now. I will adapt for future reference. Thank you!KNWLEDGEISPWR (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)KNWLEDGEISPWR

I strongly suggest you stick to angelsharks instead. People who know about DISPLAYTITLE in their first edit, have a very hard time convincing me they are newbies. Kleuske (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Anna van Egmont

Dag, Kleuske. Misschien had ik mijn bijdrage aan Talk:Anna van Egmont anders moeten aanpakken. De situatie was, voor mij, kort gezegd: enkele maanden geleden verwijderde ik van het artikel een groot stuk tekst dat zowel copyvio als gewoon niet goed was; de gebruiker was (en is) vrij nieuw, en van goede wil, dus toen een kleine week geleden dezelfde gebruiker met een flink ingekort stuk zonder copyvio kwam, wilde ik geen (en niet weer) spelbreker zijn, bovendien leek me de toevoeging niet zo gek; toen kwam The Banner kijken en hij verwijderde het nieuwe stuk; ik wilde me niet direct mengen in de daardoor ontstane discussie, omdat ik geen zin had in wéér een aanvaring met TB; toen kwam jij en koos ook voor verwijderen, maar liet de gewraakte afbeelding juist staan, waarvan ik gebruik maakte. Ik had het misschien anders kunnen aanvliegen. Dus bij deze geen excuses voor mijn woorden, maar toch een zekere verontschuldiging – het spijt me dat ik niet wijzer was. Groet, Eissink (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC).

Zand erover. Ik had me niet uit mijn tent laten lokken. Kleuske (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

AdinahB

Yesterday I edited the Deep Instinct Wikipedia page, but unfortunately, my employer status with Deep Instinct entailed that I had a conflict of interest and I believe you took it down. What is the process of working around this 'conflict of interest'? Obviously I am willing to declare it on my user page, but it's not clear to me how that declaration needs to be made. I have also tried to keep the information on the page as objective as possible. There is no hyperbole in the content and i have strictly stuck to just limiting the content to the company's historical milestones. I have also provided citations for all points of information. This is the first time that I'm doing this, so if you could please walk me through the process, that will be appreciated. Thanks AdinahB (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The best way is to stay away from the article. Secondly, remember this is an encyclopedia, not your company website. At the very least, you make your conflict of interest known up-front, instead of letting me find out. This is required by the Terms of Service. Moreover, to quote a famous saying in the computing world: RTFM. Kleuske (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Raid on Gaborone: Revision

I removed biased terminology and sources from the article.

Previously within the article members of anti-Apartheid and pro-democracy organisations were vilified as "terrorists", which is an Apartheid propaganda term to vilify anyone opposed to minority rule and racism!

Now you, Mr Kleuske, keep on reverting the article back to the biased status. Do you have a political agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HartaMarta (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved to the appropriate talk-page. See my response there. Kleuske (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Bin Weevils

Hi there.

I am a long term player of Bin Weevils, since 2011 in fact, and did some blogging on the game and know its game off by heart. I was shocked to see so much miss information on the Bin Weevils Wiki. I have edited what was incorrect and removed several sources from Bin Weevils fan sites - this is against Wiki's rules as they are unreliable sources. They aren't news sites. They are fan created websites and they often are not correct. For example, the Bin Weevils Pet for a Day feature did not release in 2017. It released in 2014. The Bin Weevils Magazine did not end in June 2013, it ran until 2015 after enjoying some success.

I hope you can agree with me that my edit which is pending your review is much better and has correct info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florence232 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Re-organizing the "Karen (Name)" page

Hello! I sent you an email, but I also thought I'd write on your talk page. Here's what I want to re-organize the page too

I just wanted to re-organize the page because I think its kind of cluttered/needs re-organizing. I wanted to firstly add that the name "Karen" can be a surname as well, which for some reason the page's opening paragraph only mentions that its a "given name" even though people can have "Karen" as a surname. I also wanted to compress the various origins of the name to one "Etymology" section in the beginning, then when listing "Notable people", there would be a sub-section for Females and then a sub-section within the "Female" sub-section listing "East Asian people" (because all of them listed are female anyways). Then a general sub-section for males with the name, because several of those "Armenian Men" are Russian nationals of Armenian origin, like Karen Shakhnazarov. And I mean, "Karen Chen" and "Karen Chin" are both Americans of East Asian ancestry, but they're not listed in the "East Asian people" section so...

Then add a sub-section separate for people with the surname because the only person with the surname "Karen" in the "Armenian Men" section (Zarmihr Karen) wasn't Armenian. He was Iranian! I also want to move around some names into the proper sections, like how "Karen Mok" is from Hong Kong, and thus East Asian but isn't included in the "East Asian people" section and "Karen Kong" is Malaysian (but of Chinese origin) and thus from Southeast Asia and not East Asia but she's in the "East Asian people" section and I'll bring it up again that neither Karen Chen or Karen Chin, who are both Americans of East Asian ancestry are in the "East Asian people" section because they're American. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Clear Looking Glass: I saw what you proposed, and I do not think it is an improvement or a decluttering. The proper place to raise issues you have with a page, is on the appropriate talk page, not on my user page, and most of all, not my personal e-mail. That is reserved solely for matters which cannot be discussed on Wikipedia for WP:OUT or WP:BLP reasons. Do not expect an answer. Kleuske (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Bank Alfalah Limited

Bank Alfalah Limited is a stock listed bank and cannot be counted as private.

https://dps.psx.com.pk/company/BAFL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolingian Knight (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Carolingian Knight (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Then cite sources when mak8ng the edit. Kleuske (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Stadion Constitution

Please do not delete well sourced & referenced sentences from the article. Thank you!--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain why you would excise this new RS I found, and would like other contributors to discuss including in the Mjolnir article? Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, you self-reverted. Never mind. Geo Swan (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Sorry. Fatfingered the rollback button. The pros and cons of an IPad. Kleuske (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit of David Frost, Baron Frost

Hi Kleuske. Thank you your message and undoing an addition to the [Frost, Baron Frost] page. I note your comments that ‘politicians are not necessarily elected’, however, I would note several issues with this in relation to Lord Frost: 1) It is a fact that Lord Frost is unelected. The article does not make this clear, so there is an issue of clarity vs ambiguity. This fact may also not be clear to a non-UK reader who is unaware that the House of Lords, despite being our second/higher Parliamentary chamber, is a completely unelected body, so it is important to clarify this. 2) He serves in the UK Cabinet which comprises elected representatives, this would therefore give the reader the view that Lord Frost is indeed an elected official. We need to ensure that this is clear. 3) From a political context, his remit is Brexit and a large part of the Brexit debate centred around “unelected bureaucrats”. Therefore to add the term ‘unelected’ to Lord Frost’s entry also ties in neatly with a large part of the debate around Brexit.

This one word I’ve added seems to be causing an immense concern amongst people and, despite it being factual and adding clarity, I fail to see why it is being rejected. If it was untrue, I could see why it would be an issue. But one word and factual?

I will therefore put this to you: if you are not content to include that one factual word, what can we do to the article to ensure that it is clear that Lord Frost serves unelected in a Cabinet of elected representatives. I would like to see some compromise here. NorthYorksChris (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am a non-UK citizen, and it's utterly clear to me. He does, however, serve as a Ministers of State at the Cabinet Office, which makes him a politician. The fact that no borough he won is mentioned, already implies he's unelected. The addition of "unelected" in this case, is far too reminiscent of the UKIP/Tory qualifications of Ursula von der Leyen and should be rejected for the same reason: it serves no purpose and violates WP:NPOV as an obvious attempt to delegitimize. Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I would fully reject that as a reason. How can you seek to delegitimise with something that is an absolute fact? I would note WP:NPOV seeks to make the delineation between fact and opinion - this is clearly fact. Ursula von der Leyen is a poor example as she is a previously elected politician (which Frost isn’t), but the organisation she represents (the European Commission) is an unelected body - many in the UK were unaware of that, so why is it wrong to state facts such as that or that Frost is unelected. Again, what would you propose within the body of the article to ensure this factual clarity/distinction is made? NorthYorksChris (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought i was clear. Your addition goes against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, core Wikipedia policies. Moreover, the WP:ONUS is on you to seek consensus, which, at the moment, you do not have. Kleuske (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

For more clarity, I propose leaving that word out, since there's no good reason to put it in. I also suggest you take your political axe and grind it elsewhere. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you are trying to make this into a political motivation rather than establishing an article which provides clarity and fact. It is curious that you are trying to move it into this area. Again, I have asked for compromise and to reach a consensus over this issue which concerns fact and clarity, but you cannot act as sole aribiter and then claim consensus! How do you propose this should be resolved? NorthYorksChris (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Let me spell it out

1. There is no requirement for politicians, or indeed junior cabinet ministers to be elected. They only have to be appointed. Hence the fact that he isn't elected is inconsequential. Way too inconsequential to put in the lede of the article.

2. You propose to put in a word, which in British politics can be contentious, which I illustrated with the UKIP/Tory rethoric about Von der Leyen. That violates core policies.

3. "You want it in, I oppose" is a classic case of not having consensus. You are free to seek consensus on the talk-page.

4. Your insistance on this word, as evidenced by you pestering me on my talkpage, suggests you have an axe to grind. Since we're talking about a politician, it is likely to be a political axe. Hence my remark.

5. You are free to seek consensus on the appropriate talk-page. I will oppose for the reasons stated above. Don't ping me, it's on my watchlist.

6. I kindly request you WP:DROPTHESTICK and address the issue at the appropriate venue. Kleuske (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your points. I am genuinely trying to reach a consensus with you. I would therefore propose the following change to the first paragraph which would completely drop the word ‘unelected’ but which would make it clear as to Lord Frost’s position. The text I would propose is:

“David George Hamilton Frost, Baron Frost, CMG, PC (born 21 February 1965), is an appointed member of the House of Lords and former diplomat serving as Minister of State at the Cabinet Office since 2021.

This uses text directly from House of Lords article, removes the word you dislike, but gives fair fact and clarity to Lord Frost’s position. NorthYorksChris (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Much better. Excuse me for correcting the link to he House of Lords. Kleuske (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew we could reach a consensus which both of us could agree on. NorthYorksChris (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hitchens's razor

I notice you reverted my edit to Hitchens's razor. I just wanted you to know that I have opened a new talk section to discuss this edit. MarshallKe (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: If that's the thread Additional sources to use, go for it. I have no objections. Kleuske (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I don't even remember what this was about. Have a good day. MarshallKe (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Types of vegans

Kleuske (talk) The perspective interposed in veganism by Jb dean talk are readily found in the literature of the American Vegan Society. Those familiar with the literature around this article's topic ought to be familiar with that literature fo defining veganism by life-inclusive intention (reducing harm thoroughly) rather than merely dietary veganism. It should be possible to find references to support it. Admittedly, that would be the Wikipedia editor's duty when editing, but surely what Jb dean talk said is not 'unsourced opinions' (by any stretch of the imagination). I think that this effort to clarify veganism's definitions is recurrent and should be resolved more thoroughly and methodically. MaynardClark (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

In that case, cite a source and attribute. Kleuske (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The editor who wants to make changes ought (IMO) to cite reliable, reputable documentation (either electronic or in print). MaynardClark (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Just a small edit to say thanks a ton for passing along the vandalism report today! Has now been resolved, with the vandal pages deleted. :) Cheers! — JezzaHehn (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure. Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I made an edit, and left a clear justification in the edit summary. You undid that edit without bothering to explain why, and then left me a talk page message falsely accusing me of not giving a valid reason for my edit. Kindly explain why you did this. Zqzkqzq (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)