User talk:Kiyoweap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


  1. 11 April 2012
  2. 21 December 2012
  3. 7 June 2013

Edit errors[edit]

When you edited Eysteinn Erlendsson on October 27 you introduced major errors. Please check your work carefully before saving --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You are making a hasty accusation. All I did was replace a red link with an {{ill2}} template that indicates a blue link to a corresponding Norwegian (no) article. I typically preview before saving. When you review my old edit (on 14:51, 27 October 2013‎), do you still see this problem? because I don't.
I was perplexed until I read your post in Talk:Eysteinn Erlendsson, because now I have an inkling of what's going on, as I too have seen the phenomenon recently. I will respond there.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Resolved As per Wikipedia:Help desk#December 31 "Why does "File:Michigan state police.gif" (link to AR-15) appear at the top of Courtesy name?" the culprit has been identified as the now blocked SonicTheHedgeFan (talk · contribs) who vandalized the template {{ill2}}. (strikeout, minor edit, {{resolved}} template added)--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ships in Norse sagas[edit]

Category:Ships in Norse sagas, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


I have just reverted your edit to Kelpie; this is a featured article so please discuss any extensive edits you may wish to suggest on the talk page first. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Once the article's pulled from the main page, isn't the normal Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in play? I'm not aware of a priori screening process I have to follow in the Talk page, being that this is an article and not a WP policy or guideline page. I will discuss (describe) the five or six issues I had with the Kelpie#Etymology section, which prompted my edits. I think they were relatively minor edits though you characterize them as "extensive" ones.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Cloak of Invisibility[edit]

Invisible Barnstar Hires.png The Invisible Barnstar
For all your great (and bold) edits to articles based on mythological subjects. Loved your work on Cloak of invisibility which is what prompted this Barnstar. At the start of the year the article stated 'Cloaks of invisibility are relatively rare in folklore', great to see how a little research can prove that wrong. Thanks again. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the kudos. The statement "relatively rare in folklore" was probably an alteration of "rare in fairy tale" quoted from Maria Tatar's Annotated Grimm, a reference source someone had already employed before I tampered with the article. I added the Stith-Thompson index D1361.12, a lead for further information. One reference stated there are parallels in Ireland, China, Philippines, and US as well, besides the Japanese counterpart I added.--Kiyoweap (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Explaining the GAN process[edit]

Kiyoweap, you may want to review the criteria for WP:GA. In short, your comment "I'm not going to fix it and fix it ad nauseum till teacher finally approves" is why you need to let the other editors work on the article. Fixing it until the GA reviewer approves is PRECISELY what has to happen (if you think the GA reviewer is unfair, they will eventually fail the article, you can let it cool for a bit and then renominate). I reverted your one set of edits one time only because you made it worse, but as a GA reviewer, I cannot make extensive edits myself as then I become "involved " with the content. You need to let the other, more experienced editors work on the article; they are both veterans of the GAN process and once they have it cleaned up, if you have some very specific factual points you think need to be raised, AND have the reliable sources to back them up (and by this I mean with links to books available online or highly reliable web sites so I can independently verify this material myself) then I will look at those issues and make a decision. But for the "wikignoming" work of citation cleanup and wording/style fixes, I will suggest that you take second chair on those issues for now. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why you lecture me on renominating after a cooling off period. It's Eric and Sagacious who are the ones trying to promote Stoor worm to GA status. It would be unfair to them, if a reviewer were to flunk the nomination due solely to concerns with MY use of {{citation}}, but it's all academic to me, because it deserves to "go back to the drawing board" anyway, due to content issues.
You couch it in the context of a GA review, but when you engage in reverts you are still bound by WP:BRD process. Your claim that a revert is somehow not an "involvement" but {{citation}} format fixes would constitute "extensive editing" does not wash with me, and I'm sure others would find it implausible.
You are dwelling on this {{citation}} formatting excessively. It's "minor edit" material. I made a good-faith edit to fix the issue where editor and illustrator fields were spliced. If you want to perpetuate, at the very least describe why my cure was worse than the disease as per "MOS". Or find an example page, or drop it altogether, or practice WP:Wikignoming that you mention. If you have a beef with the way the template renders according to MOS, take it up there, otherwise it's textbook WP:POINT behavior, which you accuse me of doing.
This claim of being inveterate at the GAN process rings hollow to me, it just sounds to me like you have had in the past had a number of GA reviews, with no one to hound you for not fact-checking, so you feel entitled to the same cushy experience every time around.
If you checked my edits, you would see provided inline sourcing at each step. You mentioned, Hathi trust link I recently gave out, and the text and notes there are paramount important prim/secondary sources. If you have problems with finding online accessibility to other resources, you shouldn't be complaining to me. You could probably find them by googling. I insert the google links, but Eric and Sagacious delete them for whatever reason. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I am going to recommend that instead of editing the article right now, please use a limited number of appropriate inline tags (i.e. {{dubious}}, {{citation needed}}, etc. to highlight areas where you have a dispute. However, please do not tag bomb. I will tell the other folks that I am doing this, and that I will take a look at what you are tagging. That said, comments such as "with no one to hound you for not fact-checking, so you feel entitled to the same cushy experience every time around" are not winning me over to your point of view. I have worked on about 40 GA-class articles myself, as well as over a dozen FA-class articles, so I know the process from both sides. Montanabw(talk) 20:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Kiyoweap, I'm late to this party, but I just read over the entire GA review and the rest of the talk page. For the record, I've done a few GA reviews myself. One thing that stood out to me was the comment you made about stability, in this edit--I found that odd, since it suggests that the article shouldn't be a GA because it's not stable, and it's not stable because you're making it so. I have not yet looked at the edit history in great detail, though I note that it does appear as if you're editing against consensus. I understand that you know a thing or two about this subject matter, but I accept the same thing about Sagaciousphil and Eric Corbett, and I have faith in Montanabw as an editor and a reviewer. It cannot be that one single editor can derail a GA and destabilize an article; if consensus is against an editor, edit warring is not an acceptable attempt at solution. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies:, I see what you're getting at, and let me start off saying I agree that a "disrupter" making wanton meaningless edits to claim that "5. Stability" is not justifiable grounds to fail GA.
However, this rogue behaviour accusation applies only if my edits were just meaningless games. Note, some of my edits such as the entire /*Textual sources*/ section recently are already incorporated in, and the article is being modified on the basis of these sources, so I feel we have moved beyond the point you drag out from an already collapsed portion.
Another obvious issue is the perhaps suspicious seeming timing of my latest wave of WP:BOLD edits, starting just before Montanabw posted her review. Well, the ideal timing would have been after getting pinged my older BOLDS were being addressed, but that wasn't happening, so the next likely timing was when the candidates where "done for now" allowing others to take a crack. But of course that's when they deem it ripe to promote it from to GA status, so this coincidence of timing was a rather inevitable.
You haven't looked examined my edits, so your innuendos are scurillousyour characterization of what I did is unfounded. If you're basing your assessment just on your implicit acceptance of Eric and Sagaciousphil I must say your opinion is utterly jaundice-eyedprotest prejudice. And plurality of votes, if not successfully advocated by argument in talk, fails to count as "consensus" as per WP:DEM#Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Scurrility and jaundice, well well. A disruptor is someone who continues to drive home a point against consensus. You seem to argue that your edits are exempt from consensus since they are correct. It does not work that way. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Kiyoweap, one more "clueless" remark--or, really, any kind of disruption to the GA process here or elsewhere--and I will block you for personal attacks and a disruptive lack of good faith. I think it is time you left these supposed content issues, which appear to stem from personal issues you have with Corbett and Sagaciousphil and possibly Montanabw, to other editors. You're not the only one who can judge article content. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, surely you are aware of equal and more offensive language spouted from certain other party in this GA nomination, which you don't act on, and I am not sure your applying WP:CIVIL to me on this strikes anyone as impartial. That said, re the two words you take issue with, I admit the choice of words above may have appeared to have gone a bit inflammatory, so I apologize, and will retract/amend my phrasing as above. I said you lodged "scurrilous accusation" merely in the sense of "unfounded accusation based on hearsay" but I see now this may not be dictionary definition ((Wikt:scurrilous) though rather a widespread use (cf. Alpha dictionary). So perhaps this was poor vocab, malapropism on my part, Sorry.
Using "clueless" on the reviewer was more blunt than the "you don't know what you're doing" type comments that I receive, I will cop to that, but it wasn't meant as a blanket label on Montanabw. I don't know jack squat about horse-racing and many other subjects in her experience. In context, I hoped it was rather clear that what I meant was this reviewer was not "clued in" on this particular bit of knowledge (words borrowed from Norse), which was crucial for informed judgment. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Whatever. It's a personal attack. Your behavior in that review is atrocious; fortunately the review is over, and I have removed the comments you added afterward. You are welcome to have a look at WP:GAR to see what other steps you could take. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, deleting other people's comments is blatant breach of Talk page others' comments, but maybe you had a stroke of remorse, and at least you had the courtesy of notifying me. So I am willing to grant a retroactive permission to delete, provided you change your grounds for doing so to something like "this user did not get the point that this GA review was already as good as closed," which I think is within reason, and retract your resumption of baseless accusation once again with your edit summary claiming "outside the scope of this review" and "repetitive and disruptive". If you don't feel inclined to retract, then debate me to defend your accusations while I defend my stance. Also, I request that you use {{collapse top}} apparatus just as the reviewer, instead of outright delete, if you want to demonstrate good faith.--Kiyoweap (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Also, Drmies, your remark that "my behavior in that review is atrocious" comes entirely from the standpoint of nominators who feel entitled to a painless GA pass. But this "wish" is not an overriding concern over Wikipedia's goal to create a decent article. My actions were perfectly within bounds of WP:BRD, and you cannot seriously argue that outside of the review context, my BRD was unduly disruptive.

  • You also discount the fact that I also made various concessions to accomodate this reviewer, which were onerous beyond the usual demands of BRD. I have relented to reviewer's request to edit additional material into the article beyond the "etymology" issue. This meant limiting the issues I would table during review. I also did not fuss over this reviewer semi-deleting (collapsed down) my points of issue, which were dismissed not on substance, but defamatory characterizations. On balance, the others were digressing from arguing the article more than I was. It is true I did not completely cave to demands, such as the reviewer's request to do nothing except add 1 or 2 tags. I wrote up my own red-hilited version of the article, to facilitate the task for the reviewer, dispensing with her having to check diffs on the edits I got insta-reverted on by Eric and Sagacious.
  • It just seems to me you were just lying in wait for me to make one slip up that would justify your threat to block me. But isn't Montanabw labeling me as "disgruntled" cause for your concern? This is an extremely prejudicial term evocative of the stereotypical "disgruntled (federal government employee)" who goes on a shooting spree. It's clear to me that Drmies makes hardly a credible case for being an impartial arbiter so far. If you pretend to be fair, would you be willing to render judgment on specific instance of bad behavior on Eric and Sagacious's part?--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The review was over. Your comments came as mustard after the meal. If you wish to comment on the article, take it to the article talk page, not the GA review. The comments are there in the history; you can copy and paste them yourself as you see fit. My comment on your behavior in that review were not fed to me by the creators; they are my own observation and I stand by them. I am happy to see you qualified one comment (though I don't see much difference between a "blanket" statement and whatever it was after qualification) and struck a few others; thank you. Your reading of "disgruntled" strikes me as pretty narrow. I did not see behavior by Eric or Sagaciousphil that warranted any kind of warning or action; you are free, of course, to find a better admin. One more thing: if I had really been lying in wait just so I could block you, I could have blocked you already. I didn't. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Stoor worm into User:Kiyoweap/Stoor worm. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, thank you for your heads-up. I've added the {{copied}} template you suggested (small=yes) version. There is no one particular oldid that applies, since this is a composite of various edits that had been reverted by these other editors, but the idea is "this oldid plus if prior edits of mine had been kept in and not deleted". The only other local page is User:Kiyoweap/Opium Wars, which has a hatnote which I will take as close enough {{copied}}, since there too, no single oldid is applicable. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Folkung family tree[edit]

Dear Kiyoweap, thank you for your feedback reg the family tree Ihave been working on, I value a lot that someone took time to evaluate the work. I will, within shortly try to complete the work, and submit it to the article. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello Kiyoweap, I was just looking over the Kelpie article and realized that Gary Varner was still being cited prominently as a "folklorist". I went ahead and pulled it again for the reasons I've mentioned on the talk page. I'm also surprised there isn't more of a section on the possibly Germanic origins or, more widely, Indo-European possibilities on the article. You're welcome to assist in fleshing those out sometime. Meanwhile I'm still working on that Odin rewrite... :bloodofox: (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

FAC in need of comments[edit]

Since you were a discussant at Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1, I thought you might consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1, which was opened on December 26 and has had no comments yet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Excellent work. Many thanks for all of your time, tenacity, and hard work! Jim1138 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Speurneusster.svg The Detective Barnstar
For the countless hours spent digging into Japanese and Korean sources, for valuable article edits, and for coping with the continued hearing impairment on the associated talk page. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Kiyoweap. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JSTOR cleanup drive[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3[edit]

I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you were a Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 participant, I am hoping you might give some comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016[edit]

– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you help me test something in Japanese?[edit]

Hello there! My name is Erica, and I am a community liaison for the visual editor team at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm contacting you because we need feedback from editors who can read and type in Japanese. Our main question is, does typing in this language feel natural in the visual editor? (Language engineer David Chan needs to know.) So, would you do me a favor, click here and try to type something? (To make things super-easy, I provided a short sentence that you can try and replicate by typing it on that page). Let me know how that went - you can post a reply on your talk page and just ping me. どうもありがとうございます! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4[edit]

You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi Kiyoweap-san. I hope you are well and in good health? Are you sure you did not cut some valid information in Diff of Providence (religious movement)? Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 21:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I looked at the diff which was harder to tracker, but I also did a comparison of your reverted version (Sept 2015) versus my updated version (Oct 2015) and I dont thinke there was substantive well-sourced content that was taken out as far as i could see.
But I wrote up a report on the diff in Talk:Providence (religious movement)#Updating revert to 24 Oct '15 version fyi. --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Citation errors[edit]

Hello, the ref tags you added back into the notes create errors within the article:

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "jeong-newsnjoy-naked" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "song-joongang" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "song-nocut" is not used in the content (see the help page).

and on the references section:

Song, Ju-youl (송주열) (March 28, 2012). "JMS 정명석, 탈퇴자에 대한 테러 지시" [JMS's Jung Myung Seok ordered terror on defectors]. Newspower. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "song-newspower" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "song-newspower" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

The code should be fixed (perhaps by taking the citations outside of the note) or they should be eliminated as the error messages in an article give a very poor image to readers. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Crystallizedcarbon. Yes I am aware that these error messages pop up. However, I believe they only pop up to users who have the javascript proofing script loaded, and dont affect the total readership. Since I am not aware of any wiki rule barring us from using nested footnotes in explanatory notes, I dont see why I should be getting these error messages.
And when I remove these sets of citations, a different set of citations appear in error messages. That is a sign to me that the script isnt functioning properly and is bugged. What do you think? I've already wrote a section in Talk:Providence (religious movement). --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Nuckelavee Article[edit]

Hey Kiyoweap, I don't have a lot of time to edit Wikipedia these days. Most issues I've found can be solved by simply rewriting an article in line with GA standards, particularly when it comes to folklore. The Nuckelavee article is one of many hack-jobs we've got on the site at moment (albeit at least it isn't a cryptozoology promo piece), no doubt because there were no folklorists involved with the development of Wikipedia's early folklore articles. A shame, really. However, if you start to prepare to a rewrite at any point, let me know and I'll help out when I can. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bloodofox. I didnt realize Nuckelavee made main page in March drawing a flurry of activity.
Since I did have material on its etymology gathered up, I did a rewrite of the section, though it of course got reverted.
I found the link to Jakobsen's Norn dictionary in Danish (1921) hathi trust. I havent accessed the Jakobsen in English (1928), but under neugle in the SND is an excerpt on the description of the Shetland neugle, which says it was appeased by offerings of meal strewn from the mill. I guess smilar info is in Karl Blind's piece too but I'd forgotten details. And I guess this is somewhat similar to the Nisse who loves porridige? Didn't realize Nisse or Nils derived from Nicholas by the way. Interesting tidbit.
Seems you were also backing me on the Stoor worm etymology getting reverted. Thanks for that. I'd misread the definition of storðar-gandr in Cleasby-Vigfusson, thinking it stood for snake, but I now see it is a kenning for either "fire" or "wind". So the Stoor worm article carries a fine piece of misinformation stating storðar-gandr is kenning for the Miðgarðsormr.--Kiyoweap (talk)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
I appreciate your efforts on improving Gog and Magog. It means a lot and speeds up the FA process, so thank you very much! JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Headless men (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pliny

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Great work with the headless men article! I've had it on my watchlist for a while, but had never found the time to get around to it. Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the kudos Matt Deres. Still working on this article. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)[edit]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

eight, it seems[edit]

  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBuitenwerf2007.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFChristensen2002.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFEichrodt2003.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFEnns2012.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGrabbeHaak2001.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFJoyce2009.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFKydd2009.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFRedditt2008.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lingzhi:: Hmm, I dont recognize any of these author names, and I've gone over the article pretty much. It's fine with me if you delete these from the biblo, if they're there. And dont know why my warning message isnt working despite the script being loaded. Thx for the info. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The second line in your common.js disables the error messages; delete the line that says "window.checkLinksToCitations = false". Then you can delete the refs with the errors.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gog and Magog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Meyer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gog and Magog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of days (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Page "Gog and Magog": My Bad[edit]

Dagnabbit, I keep forgetting to turn off "Millennials to Snake People" when I edit WP. I'll fix it. — Texas Dervish (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Kiyoweap. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Perilla[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Perilla—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Diospireiro (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)