User talk:Kingsif

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page watchers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This editor is a **Tutnum of the Encyclopedia** and is entitled to display this **Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, and Chewed Broken Pencil**.

Invitation

Hello Kingsif - I saw your interest in Women in Sports at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Members and wanted to extend an invitation:

Thank you for your contributions to articles related to women in sports!

We'd like to invite you to learn more about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in sports. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Participants page or visit one of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Task forces for specific sports. Thanks!

There are also a several taskforces for specific sports: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Task forces and opportunity to create new ones. See, for example:

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki artic

Good evening, I've seen your messages, yet I don't understand what's wrong with my edits. You asked for sources I added them and it should be ok in terms of English. Can you tell me what exactly I need to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theparkvitaly (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Unseen update

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below.

You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new generally reliable icon (described below).
New categorizations/icons:
- Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
- Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
- Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
- Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as generally reliable, marginally reliable, generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as varied reliability. Note that generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to Newslinger, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
With the addition of the new categorizations, the biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.

Proposed deletion of Danny Deferrari

The article Danny Deferrari has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Actor without significant roles or in-depth coverage in sources; fails notability guidelines (WP:GNG and/or WP:NACTOR

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Meenakshi Pahuja

Kingsif, you were pinged about your offer to review new hooks at this DYK template, but I don't think the ping was done correctly, so I'm posted here in case you weren't notified. Thanks for offering and for checking things out now. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Kingsif, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

What in the actual blue blazes...

...is a backwards trial? Wouldn't have anything to do with Wikipedia's search results for that alien term, would it? I'm no crooked detective, but if I'm being honest with you here, pal, your story pretty much falls apart right there. Not buying it. Not sure a jury would, either, y'know?

But my job is just to get to the bottom of what happens in Wikipedian true crime, hypothetically and friendly-like, then go home to my bottle and my dog, see? And I'm sure you have somebody waiting for you on the outside, too. So let's go back to the beginning and see if we can't help each other out, OK?

Missing people, sure, I get it. It happens to the best of us, nobody's blaming you, have a cigarette. Don't smoke? Good man, I've been meaning to think about quitting myself. "The Devil's Lettuce", my dog keeps telling me. So anyway, backward trials. Do these typically start with an extrajudicial execution, a mock sentencing, false imprisonment...what's the scoop, Kingsif? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the lines of a kangaroo court kept secret. Backwards in the sense of wrong, if you will. I'll have to use more bizarre terms to get these messages (I'm too tired to be creative right now, though) Kingsif (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, primitive, savage, uncivilized...say no more! You're free to leave. Drive safely in Dreamland, and if the bad cop gives you any grief, tell 'em the Hulkster says you have the right of way, he'll know what I mean, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course sir. Praise. Kingsif (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188

Online events:

New: Climate and environment | Public domain
Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest
Year-long initiative: Women's rights
Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020

Other ways to participate:

Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events
Become a member | Opt-out of notifications
Follow us on social media:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excess LGBT articles

Kingsif, I'm completely open to changing the pages I created, specifically LGBTQ representation in adult animation, Cartoon Network and LGBTQ representation, LGBTQ representation in animated web series, and Netflix and LGBTQ representation in animation, but I will not accept them being deleted or having content removed without having the content removed should have a consensus and discussion on the talk pages of each of these four pages. I had the content in each of those articles in longer history pages, like History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2010s, History of LGBTQ characters in animated series: 1990s, History of LGBTQ characters in animated series: 2000s, History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2020s, and History of LGBTQ characters in animated series for much of 2020, but those pages were getting too long, per WP:SIZESPLIT, and the information did not seem as organized as I would have liked. So, I decided to be bold and divide it off into its own pages. There was no opposition to the creation of those history pages in the past, as you can see, if you wan to go through the history of each of those history pages. There's more to the creation and maintenance of those pages, but I can say it has been mostly a solitary venture of mine, although it wasn't my choice to do so. I would like others to join me in editing the pages, but I have not been successful in getting others to help at this point. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: You clearly want to help the encyclopedia but you have a shit attitude and don't seem to understand the issues being pointed out, instead insisting there's nothing wrong and you're being attacked. People have legitimate concerns. I'm not even going to try to discuss any issues until you can assure that you're opening your mind to criticism, and I certainly need you to sort out whatever tells you that you have the authority to demand that I will not accept them being deleted or having content removed. Fun fact: nobody on WP, not even an admin, has the authority to say that NOBODY CAN DELETE OR EDIT MY ARTICLE I SWEAR. Also note that standard Wikipedia practice is to use "LGBT", not "LGBTQ". I have no opinion on this and was not part of any decision to pick the former over the latter, I'm just informing you that this is the standard and at the very least these articles need moving to such titles. Kingsif (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, and I would be willing to discuss "having the content removed should have a consensus and discussion on the talk pages of each of these four pages" and as such, I struck the "I will not accept them" section. Again, I agree that I do not own the pages. Anyway, if the titles to the pages should be changed, then that should be discussed on the talk pages of each of those pages. If someone wants to bring that up, then I'm all ears for that. However, it seems unlikely that you will be part of that, since you said "I have no opinion on this and was not part of any decision to pick the former over the latter." So, yes, I am aware of that "standard Wikipedia practice" and I was planning on a RFC on all pages with LGBT in the name to decide if to use LGBT, LGBTQ, or something else, but I've been caught up with other editing

For a person who says I'm not being civil and invokes WP:CIVIL, you are more of a violator of that than me! So, you called me a "dick," "demeaning," and "spiteful." Yeah, I admit that I should have worded my words differently and I apologize for what I said, as I was caught up in the heat of the moment, but I did not include any personal attacks of you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies as I did not call you any names on there, while you did, so I removed your comment and my previous comment. If you want to cite Wikipedia rules, you are violating WP:NPA and WP:IUC for what you said on that forum. As such, I guess I can't expect any positive contributions on any of the pages I created yesterday. Historyday01 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: can we keep this shit to one thread? You don't have to keep bugging me if you don't like me. You don't seem to know that "don't be a dick" and "being a dick" (Wikipedia:DONTBEADICK) is the casual way editors on Wikipedia refer to a CIVIL-like policy that applies across all Wikimedia, so it's more authoritative than just CIVIL. And it flows better. "Demeaning" and "spiteful" aren't personal attacks, they're accurate descriptors of your rude behavior towards me - am I supposed to say you're being a dick without giving an example? Make it make sense. Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine keeping it on one thread, sure. But, if you don't want to bug me, then we should just leave it at that, and end the discussion here once and for all. Historyday01 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: I've fixed your strikethrough in the top comment; you have a real problem with editing comments to change context, which is disruptive editing, too. Now, you keep saying you believe I won't join in any discussion and yet we are here, on my talkpage, because you don't like what I have to say at discussion. And yes, the current project talk threads are discussions, though your comments also imply you don't think they count (maybe because they were started to point out issues?) When mass article edits and mass article creations are concerned, it's better to deal with it at a project scale rather than repeat the same shit at every article talkpage. You're going to have to get used to how very active Wikiprojects deal with articles in their scope if you'll be creating a lot. Kingsif (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Anyway, can we just end this discussion? I don't have all day to argue with people on Wikipedia. Historyday01 (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: Sure? I didn't see arguing so much as me trying to explain things and you being annoyed, which I guess is reflected in these last two comments, too. For what it's worth, I'm glad a student editor decided to stick around for once, but real ropes (not WikiEd anti-collaborative nonsense) need to be learned at some point. Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, thanks? Historyday01 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Tanya Roberts

On 5 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tanya Roberts, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Amakuru (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Art of Mateo Manaure in the University City of Caracas

Hello, Kingsif. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Art of Mateo Manaure in the University City of Caracas".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital/GA1

Kingsif, I don't understand what is going on with this review except that it isn't complete, no one is responding, and the reviewer doesn't appear to understand the process. They started out by saying they were looking for people to help with the review; might you stop by and do just that? If nothing else, a new post with germane comments might get things moving again, and if there truly isn't anything at all to comment on, saying that might also get things moving as well. Thank you very much, and best wishes for 2021. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" article

Hi Kingsif! Thanks for your brief comment on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol in the "voting" for the name of the article. I'm hoping you can help me structure a !vote of some sort on the title of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol this week. Like I said over Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol in my comments, the debate over the title of this article needs to center on the descriptive term for what happened yesterday. Here's a list that I have, in alphabetical order (vaguely):

"attack" (or "terrorist attack")
"breach" (or "security breach")
"insurrection" (or "attempted insurrection")
"protest" (or "protests")
"siege"
"standoff" (or "armed standoff")
"storming"
something else

It's tough to even order these in "neutral" order, let alone have a talk page discussion about them. One of the commenters implied that this was a dead horse (with the "WP:Drop the stick" comment). It seems timely and urgent to get the title of this article correct now, but the discussion looks like it's going to leave the not-very-neutral "storming" term in the title. What are your thoughts on the structure needed for a good discussion? -- RobLa (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RobLa:, I think a discussion first needs to center around the sources. Before we pick apart neutrality, we want to see what people are calling the event. It can be harder, though, because in times like this when it's 1. confusing, and 2. Wikipedia has kind of built a good reputation, people are now looking to what we're calling the article. Keeping the article title stable and plain for as long as possible for a COMMONNAME to develop is one path. Otherwise, we "build" an article title: Year + location + descriptive noun. And that descriptive noun has to come from the best of sources, not just the most sources, but those which are giving neutral, accurate, sustained coverage. Find those sources, and start a discussion with them as the basis. Argue to change the title based on evidence, not on wanting to change it. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congress members and responsibility for policing of the Capitol

Your overhasty assertion[1] needs explanation. What part of this do you dispute?

Congress members own responsibility for policing of the Capitol 'Is there a place in the article to mention that, given that Congress is the exclusive source of authority for the Congressional officials who constitute the Capitol Police Board, it is remarkable that Senate and House members seem to be willing to blame anyone but themselves for the insufficiency of the Police deployment to secure the Capitol from the riotous break in?' Qexigator (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to be saying that even when police are active, they need to wait for their commissioner to actually do the stopping crime thing, which is just wrong. But the main reason for closure was the fact it is OR, which I pointed out - that is, no sources are discussing how the Capitol police are structured or anything to do with that relationship in respect to this event. So connecting that system to this event is SYNTH at best (source 1 says Capitol police were on the scene, source 2 says unrelated Capitol police operate like this). To then assert that the elected officials did something wrong and seem to be willing to blame anyone but themselves because of this structure is complete conjecture, and thinking it merits inclusion is ridiculous. You can write your own Facebook opinion piece on that if you like, but since there's no source, it's not going anywhere near a WP article. Kingsif (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a look at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 1

An IP user is continually removing an archived section that you closed from the talkpage of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. So far, they have removed it five times in a little over three days. Both User:Elliot321 and myself have taken action twice on this. Would you be willing to put a restriction on the archive and revert them? (Note: As the archive size is over 150k, the protection should not interfere with Lowercase sigmabot III.) --Super Goku V (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I've rolled back the latest edit and brought it up at AIV, so hopefully it'll get some attention. After your explanations, it's just vandalism to remove the discussion even if it was pointless. It might be an important record of how those views tried to influence WP coverage, even. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry for the mistake then and thank you for your help. :) --Super Goku V (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dianna Agron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Ulrich.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP 20

Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!

	GRATITUDE
	THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION IN ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA AND FOR YOUR FRIENDSHIP, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT Naturista2018 (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN requests
Go here
This is a sidebar because I want it to be