User talk:Randy Kryn

For entertainment porpoises only: (new comments on bottom of page please)

Now you know

• Saverland v Newton.

Maybe my best geek edits

Remembering five of the last eight Earthlings to travel to the Moon, four of whom were murdered soon after their return.

A five cushion bank shot: Italicizing Star Trek and Buffy the Vampire Slayer links on Wikipedia's Klingon language page.

If you've never seen...

. . .Veiled Christ click on the image two or three times to enlarge it. This almost unbelievable 1753 sculpture ("how'd he do that?"), carved from one piece of marble, is the only Wikipedia article which has to prove, with sources, that it is not the work of an alchemist. And don't miss the crown of thorns and other torture things down by his feet, carved from that same block of marble. Literally a few steps from that statue sits another "how'd he do that?" piece also carved from a single block of marble (or created by alchemy).

Write on!

Don't kick the Ouija board. Which may also result in Hillary v. Gandhi, Obama et al..

Best vandal nominee for...

Much ado about nothing (this doesn't work as well with the red code that showed up awhile back, imagine it without the red code). Then, for best poetically sexist edit.

This one time at band camp I vandalized a page

The docents ask people: "Find the cat". Letting the coolness of it lead me to break my oath as a Wikipedian, I now self-identify as a vandal.

My nom for Best Vandal Edit in the categories of...

• Best Romantic edit, Edit per topic, Edit per user name, Language, Language placement, User Name placement, and Single-Edit user.

This one is always interesting

See and listen to Wikipedia edits as they occur. Designed by Stephen LaPorte and Mahmoud Hashemi of hatnote.com, the link was copied from a user page, don't remember where, but it's deservedly on quite a few as well as having its own article. Just who is making all this noise? Well...

...the size of our stadium

Here is another user's subpage about how many Wikipedians can dance on the head of a pin.

************************************************

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Tempest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sorcerer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

White Tiger (China) -> White Tiger (mythology)?

Hello Randy Kryn. Do you want to add your opinion at Talk:White Tiger (China)#Follow-up? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

International Day of Peace

Hi Randy, I've put a note on the talk page of the International Day of Peace. When you have a chance could you take a look? Thank you. Adams1peace (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The capybaras

Maybe we have a telepatic connection? Just a few minutes before you supported EvergreenFir for adminship per the capybara image on her page, I had stolen it for my edit notice carousel.[1] Can't resist the capybaras! Bishonen | talk 12:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Giving nature its due, capybaras use inherent camouflage. Can you find them in this discussed photograph? Disregard the spinach.

Nobody can. Unless they're bit in the midst of a massive capybaras attack (it's not pretty). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

As long as they're mummy capybaras with babies, bring it. Bishonen | talk 15:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC).

We need t-shirts…

…that read: "Deletionists Paradise of Portal Deletions." Rdzogschen (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A logical and profitable idea, Rdzogschen, but while t-shirts promoting Wikipedia (such as the simple and to-the-point "Edit Wikipedia", which I'm not sure exists) give solace to fellow Wikipedians, the variety you suggest may be torn from the backs of innocent bystanders by deletionists seeking a quick fix. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletionistas are so '90s! Am I right? Rdzogschen (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No, most "deletionists" do their work and care about the state of the topics. My comments, aside from the ease with which many articles have been removed without a sound-in-the-forest where few editors roam, concern the mass deletions of hundreds (if not thousands) of portals. An important point is the few portals which other editors care about and say they are willing to work on. At that moment the editors could turn the sense of the topic around, and devote some time in both fixing the problem they perceive and helping others understand the process of fixing them. Instead, a doubling and tripling down in an intensity to remove the portal often occurs. I'm not an expert on portals and have never worked on their deep coding, and the few times I've commented on these deletions that is pointed out. Yet I do know that these portals, many on very major subjects, were built by competent and caring editors and are read by readers on a daily basis. Active wikiprojects could potentially make an effort to save their attendant portals. But I take it that in most cases the WikiProjects are not alerted and are unaware that the portal is nominated, and then it is gone. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Physical Earth

Template:Physical Earth has been nominated for merging with Template:Earth. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — hike395 (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scrooge (musical), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christmas Present (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting a PROD

Hi not sure what you mean here by "notice is up for edits" but my redirection of the article is the same as dePROD'ing it, so the PROD shouldn't be restored. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and happy whatever holiday it is where you are. The notice said that the seven days were up December 2. Is it common practice to erase a page and redirect it even if a seven-day notice for rescuing it is put on the page? I didn't realize an instant erasure and redirect is a deprod. Have put it back and it is still an operating article, and I'd object to its removal. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The point of a PROD is to give a notice that the article will be deleted in seven days unless someone does something/anything. Redirection is a perfectly fine outcome to happen when an article is PROD'd. If your goal is to keep the standalone article, the action should be to either remove the PROD tag (if eligible) or to undo the redirect and add the sources that were originally missing. czar 19:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as an outcome after seven days. You deleted it well before that period was over. Redirection means deletion. So it was deleted well before the notice stipulated it would be deleted. I don't look at the list of Prods, it's one of those down-the-dark-hall areas of Wikipedia where too much wheat is thrown out with the bathwater. On a daily basis. Deletion, in many different forms, is a big part of a lot of editors lives here, and I try not to make it a part of mine. This one again draws me in (the book is the pioneering 1990 book on its subject, quantum psychology, which apparently has become a "thing", so of course its pioneering material should be saved), but if deletion is one of the allowed responses to a prod which, when applied, keeps it for seven days if nobody edits it and says "then" it will be deleted, then it's worse than I thought and also points out an odd kind of Wikipedia Catch-22. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of NFL players by games played, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clay Matthews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

CRM template

I added it because it was on Mitchumch's list of article's to create for the CRM. But, I do see your reasoning too. I did think however that his hiring by the NAACP was for a case that the NAACP thought would have lasting impacts on the CRM. Am I off the base on that? I know I haven't added that to the article yet, but from the news I was reading it did seem that was how it connected. Thoughts? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Coffee, and your new edits on CRM pages are a testament to wikibreaks. Welcome back! The CRM template is one of the two or three places on Wikipedia where the CRM label means the 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights Movement (the upper case one, which can be easily defined and sourced as an understood beginning-and-end dated event), so hired to provide a defense in a 1925 murder case falls outside the time limit and outside an organized movement. Even if a CRM movement template went back to 1925 (maybe a pre-1954 template would be a way to go) the entry seems tangential to me, and in addition, after Mahoney was hired Clarence Darrow came in as lead attorney, so arguably Darrow would also be included on a CRM template, which would also seem tangential. But better yet, it's nice to discuss these matters with you again. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me... hence why I'm happy to have deferred to you on this. Well, gladly I've at least found the next CRM article I want to slowly bring up to GA (besides the CRM article itself): Dorothy Cotton. Truly glad to be working with you again too Randy! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

And you as well. Dorothy Cotton is a fine subject to be eventually brought to good or feature status, her career and place as an inner-circle leader of SCLC was equaled by few. Good choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well RK. MarnetteD|Talk 03:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MarnetteD!, and may Santa be carrying so much stuff that he has to make two trips to your place (so leave twice the ration of cookies and milk). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome RK. Thanks for the reminder - gotta run to the store and get more cookies - chomp chomp :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Johnbod, and a very happy Christmas and surroundings to you and yours too. Nice painting. Women who wear a cymbal as a hat have all the luck. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Randy Kryn, 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 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Tis the Season

	Holiday Cheer
	To Randy Kryn, best wishes to you and your family for a joyous Holiday Season and a happy and healthy New Year. Ewulp (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2020 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはRandy Krynたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Season's Greetings
		Happy Holidays Randy Kryn and best wishes ever for the New Year!!! Coldcreation (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Looking forward to working on more CRM articles in the New Year with you too! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

It's a Wonderful Wikipedia Christmas

Clarence is eternal and an eternity spent in Mr. Potter's company upon anyone who would dare to propose Clarence for deletion or merger. But the stats cannot be denied — Christmas is definitely Clarence's time to shine brightest just like Christmas and holiday wishes for you and all those you hold dear. All the very best for the 2020s and beyond. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Lede

The current lede sentence is much worse because the content about Sanger and Wikipedia is undue weight to place it in the first sentence. There is also original research and failed verification content in the current lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

See the Jimmy Wales article: "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales[1] (born August 7, 1966) is a British-American Internet entrepreneur.[2][5] He is a co-founder of the online non-profit encyclopedia Wikipedia[6] and the for-profit web hosting company Wikia.[7]" It does not go into detail about Wikipedia in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight? Sanger co-founded, named, and set many of Wikipedia's policies. Those three things are far and away his most notable accomplishments, unless he goes on to be the first person on Mars or something. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Later on in the proposed lede it discussed in detail about his involvement with Wikipedia. It flows better to place all that content together. Do you support the body of the proposed draft? QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

See "...formulating much of the original policy,.." That's failed verification content. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't know yet, haven't read past the first sentence. I'm sure you've done a lot of good work on the draft, and will read it and the comments at some point, but for Sanger the first sentence is where his notable Wikipedia accomplishments belong. Whatever else he's done, founding, naming, and setting much of the policy here defines most of his eventual and present day (the Ghost of Wikipedia Past and Present) notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

See "Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/;[1] born July 16, 1968[2]) is an American Internet project developer,[3] co-founder of Nupedia,[4] co-founder of Wikipedia, and the founder of Citizendium.[5]" The first sentence should be concise. More content about Wikipedia can be found later on in the proposed lede. For example, see "He served as Wikipedia's community leader in its early stages[12] and formulated its original policies such as "Verifiability".[13]" QuackGuru (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

See the first sentence of Denis Diderot. That's the equivalent. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence of Denis Diderot is unsourced. It is hard to judge unsourced content.

See "Jean-Baptiste le Rond d'Alembert[1] (/ˌdæləmˈbɛər/;[2] French: [ʒɑ̃ batist lə ʁɔ̃ dalɑ̃bɛːʁ]; 16 November 1717 – 29 October 1783) was a French mathematician, mechanician, physicist, philosopher, and music theorist. Until 1759 he was co-editor with Denis Diderot of the Encyclopédie. The article on the other co-founder does not mention Encyclopédie in the first sentence. It depends on who is editing the article what it will say. QuackGuru (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Then d'Alembert's first sentence should be edited. Am concentrating on a sporting event while editing, so I'll get back to this on the 'morrow. Thanks for defending your point of view and work so well (as always!). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

People who regularly edit Wikipedia tend to know a little bit more about the history of Wikipedia. Editors should be careful not to add too much detail in the lede about topics involving Wikipedia. We should not say Sanger is best known for co-founding Wikipedia or overstress any particular topic in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Aha, will leave my game viewing to answer this one. When editing a topic like Larry Sanger editors who know the history, who realize the historical and cultural impact that Wikipedia has made and will make, can objectively see that the early team of Wales-Sanger brought something unprecedented into society. Wikipedia came out of nowhere with a ridiculous premise - that humanity had within it hundreds of thousands who would give of their time, expertise, and knowledge to freely share with the world a fact-based accumulation of something-or-other (and let it fly with a nearly-impossible trust in the human race). With full objectively, the notability of Wikipedia (a monster that devoured the unchallenged King: the now advertising-laden disaster that Britannica has become) seems obvious, both for what it has grown into and what it has proven about the way people unselfishly could come together to accomplish such a task. Objectively, because of what Larry Sanger accomplished in his relatively short time with Wikipedia, he is one of the most important individuals of the early 21st century. An importance which should find adequate description up-front, first sentence written in stone, in an encyclopedia worthy of the vision. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

People who are too familiar with Wikipedia and edit Wikipedia can sometimes be overenthusiastic and add too much content to the first sentence about Wikipedia or add details about Wikipedia that should be not in the lede. It is like someone who has a COI. You moved the content to the first sentence. I reviewed that edit and made no changes to the wording to the draft back in July. See "Sanger served as Wikipedia's community leader in Wikipedia's early stages but became increasingly disillusioned with the project and left it in 2002."[2] That is junk writing. Neutral as well as sourced content is: "He served as Wikipedia's community leader in its early stages[12] and formulated its original policies such as "Verifiability".[13] He ended his participation in Wikipedia in 2002 because of a lack of quality control.[14]" The draft especially the lede content is far better in every way. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Under your analysis there would be an inaccurate non-emphasis on Wikipedia and its notability. I think the present lede sentences work well in topic context, you don't. In agreeing to disagree let's continue our comments, if any, on the subject's talk page section concerning your rewrite. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "Don't know yet, haven't read past the first sentence." The first sentence fails verification and other sentences in the lede fail verification. Under my analysis there would be an accurate and concise content about Sanger's involvement with Wikipedia. The current article downplays Sanger's role in Wikipedia and rewrites the history of Wikipedia. I think this is a behavior problem to dismiss the BLP violations and fails verification content. That's why I am discussing this on your talk page. If you really "Don't know yet, haven't read past the first sentence." then that suggests you have not evaluated the problematic content I discussed in detail that is against BLP and verifiable policy. You did not make any specific rebuttal or comment about the problematic content. QuackGuru (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Responded at the Sanger talk page. Hopefully more editors will join in there, and I'm surprised that you've gotten a low response rate so far. Maybe this is one where a request-for-comment note at Wales' talk page would be appropriate to attract more editors comments to the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I have not gotten a response because editors read your initial comment which killed the RfC. There is content in the lede that is uncited. The content in the body repeats it including the content you moved to the first sentence but there is a lot of content in the body that fails verification. The draft fixes those problems. There is a book written by Wales' friend that is overcited. It is not a better source. You and others are still not commenting on the specific policy violations I raised. I understand following Sanger's policies is difficult for most editors except for IAR policy. QuackGuru (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If so then I hope my clarification will help. Yes, more editors should be commenting, and I'll post a note on Wales' talk page to see if that helps (not as much canvassing as getting responses from people who have interest in Wikipedia matters). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't post a note. QuackGuru (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You think the encyclopedia was Wales's idea, not Sangers? That's rewriting of history. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Already posted. Please take it down if you wish. And that it was Wales' idea is confirmed by Sanger. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It was Wales' idea is confirmed by Sanger, according to what source? QuackGuru (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The idea for a collaborative project, first with Nupedia, was Wales' according to Sanger. Sanger built off of that. I've clarified that I meant the idea of the late 20th century collaborative encyclopedia was Wales, Nupedia not Wikipedia itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The idea for Nupedia was largely Sanger's idea. For example, see "Basically, he had registered a domain name, nupedia.com, and he had the vague idea that it would be a free encyclopedia built by the users."[3] Also see "I moved to San Diego, and was given the job of starting this project for Bomis [the dot com company]. Jimmy didn't really talk about specific plans for the encyclopedia, but he gave me a few things to read. When it came to what the general outlines of the encyclopedia, how to organize it, and all the rest of that, I was pretty much on my own." [4] The Larry Sanger article severely downplays Sanger's role. The draft fixes all those problems. You may disagree with the lede sentence or others sentences in the lede but what about the body? QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

There could be option C. You can copy the draft and move content in the lede and summarise the body using sourced content in the draft and propose your own version. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your sourced material in the body seems fine and gives the proper weight to Sanger's role. My only criticism was the lede sentence and paragraph, which I think should contain more emphasis to Sanger's time and influence with Wikipedia and then quickly focus on Nupedia where the initial process occurred. That may be seen as more of a journalistic approach than encyclopedic (or what journalism used to be), and is a difference in style. The Neil Armstrong page, for example, should cover his "first man" notability up-front, first sentence, and not bury it a bit in the lede or body. If my comment has stalled the RfC then that's only because I commented first, or it may also have stalled because multi-tiered A, B, C type proposals seem confusing to some and cause editors to move on without forming a mental-picture of what is being asked. On top of that, I would guess (only a guess) that many editors fear to tread upon Wales-Sanger material, which is why better sources will be added at some point when Wikipedia's history is more fully written (and your arrangement of sourced material will be an asset for those future writers, if competent, in coming somewhere close to the historical facts). Maybe you can boldly edit-in your changes to the body and see what agreement or push-back you get on individual points instead of offering a major total rewrite of such an important topic on a "yes-no" multi-tiered basis which overrides many other users edits. I'm all in favor of giving Sanger the credit he deserves, and most of your sourced edit suggestions seem to do that well. As a wall of text leaning against the right side of this talk page, I'll finish by saying that you've covered Sanger's accomplishments very well, just a matter of where and how to include them. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I need specific proposals for the lede content. This is the place to experiment. You can copy it and do whatever you want with it. I think it would be nice for the co-founder article to only include 100% sourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/;[1] born July 16, 1968[2]) is an American Internet project developer,[3] co-founder of Nupedia,[4] co-founder of Wikipedia,[5] for which he coined the name,[6] and wrote its original policies such as "Verifiability",[7] and is the founder of Citizendium.[5]

Is that the way you want the first sentence presented? QuackGuru (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems fine if you don't mind (although most of the cites could be downpage and not the lede). And I realized I put the notice on the wrong page (Wales' article page and not the user page), but took it down and won't add it. Realized an obvious reason why the discussion hasn't grown - the timing of Christmas and holiday week! Most editors are busier than normal during these two or three weeks, family (and dogs) and such, drinking and other holiday cheers, so page views and edits drop off quite a bit. Should pick up after this week. I've enjoyed our talk here so far, and getting to know you a bit (we haven't interacted very much as I recall, although I run across your edits and comments). In lieu of going to your page, my wishes for a wonderful and joy filled new year and decade to you and yours. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There is only one citation per claim in the lede. When I update content in the lede it is easier when the citations are in the lede. The RfC is dead in the water. All that reading and edits are flushed down the toilet and forgotten. It would be more joyful if someone would copy the draft and do what needs to be done. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

See Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/;[1] born July 16, 1968[2]) is the co-founder of Wikipedia,[3] for which he coined the name,[4] and wrote its original policies including "Verifiability".[5] I think you may like this better than the current lede in the article.[5] QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just came on for a few minutes. No, the RfC is not done, what it came up against is Christmas, New Years and Hanukkah. Please wait a couple more days to let the roaring '20s settle in! Randy Kryn (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing to wait for when there is a wall of oppose votes including your oppose vote. Your not telling me what to do with the text in order for you to change your vote and you have not edited the other draft and you did not comment on this edit. Without guidance I don't know what you want me to do with the text. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Because I was first to comment you are saying that I've influenced the discussion. Right now let's celebrate New Years, drink or imbibe happily, and will get back to this in the next couple of days. You know that some of your edits were fine and improve the page, and those should be taken individually (not as a total rewrite of a long-standing page), and of course I am ready to change my comment with the suggestions you've made. I'll strike my oppose (remember, it was conditional on further comments, and you've made your case, at least on this talk page which few will read), and when the dust clears the article will be much better for your attention. A toast, to Mary being put into the lede of It's a Wonderful Life, and more. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not a total rewrite of a long-standing page. A large part of the proposal is going back to a previous version before two editors were edit warring and one editor who started the edit war reported me for edit warring to try to get me blocked. A significant amount of the changes to the current article were forced in.

See "Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/;[1] born July 16, 1968[2]) is an American Internet project developer,[3] and co-founder of Wikipedia,[4] for which he coined the name,[5] and wrote its original policies including "Verifiability".[6]" This is very similar to the current lede.[6] I noticed every editor is not commenting on the policies violations I mentioned on the talk page. Every section of the article is littered with failed verification content. The article does not even mention Sanger co-founded Nupedia. He started Nupedia from the ground up. He did not join Nupedia. He created it with Wales is the background. Wales was very hands-off and did not know how to create an online encyclopedia. If it were not for Sanger there may have never been a live Nupedia website. See "He formulated many ideas and policies for Nupedia before it went live on March 9, 2000.[37]" What did Wales do? Very little, yet he is receiving award and honors. Wales says he founded Wikipedia. This like the baserdization of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

See, that's what I mean, your attention on this will improve important history. And if the Nupedia material checks out as you say then eventually this will get cleared up, but...not on New Year's Eve. Go, have fun. Seriously, the happiest of 2020 to you, this will be a great decade! Randy Kryn (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I did put a link on the talk page to the past discussion. If editors oppose and continue ignore the policy violations then that could be seen as disruption and not collaborating. Wikipedia is not a vote. There are other ways in dealing with this other than Arbcom and AN/I. If it happens then I can let you know. QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Here Sanger credits Wales with coming up with the idea of an opened source internet encyclopedia, in this case Nupedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

See "Wales e-mailed Sanger back to invite him to work on his idea about an encyclopedia instead.[24]" Also see Draft "Wales, who had gotten the idea from DMOZ, wanted it to be a free-content encyclopedia, using volunteer editors.[34]" The current article does not give Wales credit for the idea. The draft gives everybody credit where credit is due. There is nothing missing from the draft. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The draft also says Sanger was hired as editor-in-chief but it has the missing content not found in the current article. Without the background content leading up to Wikipedia there is a big gap in the story. For example, see "It was founded by Jimmy Wales and Sanger[4] and was underwritten by the company Bomis,[31] with Sanger hired as editor-in-chief.[32]" Every sentence and paragraph especially the body of the draft has far better written content. There is even a lot of missing content about Wales. See "Sanger had first come into contact with Wales in 1994 when he subscribed to Wales' mailing list entitled "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy".[10]" There is not some of the content that is better written. It is all the content is better written.

What we have is not accurate and balanced content. Failed verification content and original research content is not balanced content. There is a list of policy violations on the talk page. There is a lot more policy violations I did not mention. Wales gave Sanger credit for the wiki software. See "Wales stated in October 2001 that it was "Larry (who) had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project."[59][60]" That was in the article last year but it was deleted from the article with a misleading edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Those are good arguments for a few changes. Why don't you present much of the above language and examples to the talk page and get some of this kind of thing in in incremental stages. What you put up was too big to take in all at once and required much study. This one is easy to understand. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Theses are arguments for all the changes and all the draft. I already provided specific examples of problems with the current article and no editor is doing anything about it or commenting about the specific problems. It is not too big to take in all at once. They don't want the article to change. Failed verification content I mentioned is not being fixed. Not everyone believes policy is important. If people believed policy was important then there would not be so much failed verification content in the article. Did you check the article history? Sourced content was replaced with unsourced content and failed verification content. You think the editor or editors who caused the problems are going to acknowledge there are any problems? Not even one editor has stated there is any problem with any sentence in the current version. The question is how to enforce policy when nobody enforces policy. QuackGuru (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest taking it one sentence at a time. Pick your strongest example, start a new section on the talk page, and discuss just...one sentence. If you can focus on and prove that one sentence should replace another sentence, that would make a good discussion and not a full-on oppose (which seems to arise from some discussions you editors had, I'm not going to read that, sounds like a donnybrook. So, you have my non-expert suggestion. Discuss just one sentence. Okay, off you go, I'm edit bouncing and will comment on the talk page eventually if you do that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

See "Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/;[1] born July 16, 1968[2]) is an American Internet project developer,[3] co-founder of Nupedia,[4] co-founder of Wikipedia, and the founder of Citizendium.[5]"

The first sentence is missing other things Sanger has done. It is concise without overpromoting Wikipedia. This is encyclopedic rather than a journalistic first sentence. What do you think? QuackGuru (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

George Bellows, North River (1908), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.		Best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2020.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That picture is a beauty, that's one I'll upload to somewhere in the innards of the computer (where do they go? where do they come from?, Gauguin would ask if he had had a laptop). Thanks BoringHistoryGuy, and best sentiments for a great new decade to you and yours as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Aha, that's a painting, not a photo. Top-tier photorealism. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. A related Bellows painting recently sold for a record price.[7] == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Bill Gates tossed some money towards one of his paintings too (from Bellows article). Because of you I'm in the process of doing a BoringHistoryGuy-inspired template on Bellows as we "speak" (a smallish template, only six paintings, but at some point someone will go on an editing binge and toss up a dozen more articles or so). North River is not on his page or gallery (on a quick look), please do the honors if you wish or I'll pop it in there after the template. I've seen most of his other pages here, but didn't recognize the style from your card and really thought it was a photo (didn't read the "bottom line"). Randy Kryn 13:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Have added the image to the Bellow's page and the Penn. Museum of the Fine Arts page, where it is held. Thank you for the inspiration and introducing me to this masterpiece. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Randy Kryn!

Happy New Year!

Hello Randy Kryn:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, ★Trekker (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, and to you and yours as well. Give your favorite liquid or substance a run for its money on New Year's Eve! Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Hotel Clarence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bedford Falls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The template

Thanks for catching that... it got removed because the spammer apparently placed it into the same line as their spam addition and I didn't catch that while deleting the line. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Saw that. Silly spammers. And Happy New Year! Randy Kryn (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)