Extended content

Sir, My work is an original done through painstaking reasearch of the subject for max authencity and full fledged and not a copycat work. Please note, hence, your merger proposal is not acceptable. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj2021c (talk • contribs) 14:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] Welcome![edit] Hello, Klbrain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Getting started Introduction to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page and How to develop articles How to create your first article Simplified Manual of Style Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((Help me)) before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 10:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply] Your submission at Articles for creation: International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience (June 3)[edit] Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Please remember to link to the submission! You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors. Fiddle Faddle 10:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hello! Klbrain, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Your submission at AfC International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience was accepted[edit] International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Fiddle Faddle 11:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply] Channelomics[edit] Not sure why this is to be deleted? Dies it have to be? I'm not great with these things so perhaps you could help? Thanks RBJ (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply] Thanks for getting in contact. No, it won't necessarily be deleted, but you should definitely put your argument why it should be kept by editing the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channelomics. Use that page just like a talk page, but make sure that you start your entry with your recommendation, like Keep, and then your reason for doing so. I don't make any decision from here; it's up the admins (in 7 days time) based on the arguments put on that talk page. There's already someone else saying Keep, although I confess that it's not me! Klbrain (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Concord Prison Experiment[edit] Case is important for category names - Category:Clinical Trials is different from Category:Clinical trials. Please check your work and, please remember to leave an wp:Edit summary describing your reasoning for your edit. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for the prompt, reminder and correction; I did get this one wrong and will watch more carefully. Cheers.Klbrain (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Mason[edit] I copied from the wrong template; thanks for catching it. It's now fixed (filmbio-work-group).-- FeanorStar7 11:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Great work in fixing links in lots of random pages recently! doncram 22:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content

dabbing[edit] Hi Klbrain -- Thanks for your prolific disambiguating work recently! I am trying to catch you and Niceguyedc but it's tough going: 1. Niceguyedc 1734 fixed 2. Klbrain 970 fixed 3. Doncram 845 fixed 4. ColRad85 645 fixed 5. Midas02 522 fixed Even if we could combine points we'd barely be ahead of N. :( The point is to improve the Wikipedia of course. And it looks like we'll both get some kind of award anyhow.  :) By the way yesterday i browsed some of your scoring edits as we can do and found them all good, in fact I noticed you have some nice ways of doing and saying some things that I oughta emulate. It was then occurring to me that we could for fun run a small peer review among any DPL editors with more than 100 edits say, who want to participate, to give feedback and bring up some examples to share about. This could be done very systematically, easily, randomly assigning a short list for each to review from that scoring history, so that we'd each evaluate (write a few comments) and be evaluated based on, say, 10 or 15 dab-fixes, with the point being to note differences in our styles and learn a little and build a bit of "how-to" material for training. And I happened by your user page now and see you're in a kind of peer-reviewing business already. Would you be willing to participate if a few others would, sometime like perhaps mid next month? No problem if not. --doncram 22:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for your very kind comments; more than happy to have edits checked and suggestions for improvement are welcome (I'm not that experienced here, but I'm trying to learn). The rather random sampling has been entertaining and educational. You've quite correctly spotted my Pharmacology area of interest, and I do flit between random disambiguating and something more focussed (currently reviewing pages through the relevant Categories; just getting an idea of what's there, and doing some dusting along the way). I'm going to get busier as the month progresses, so don't give up on the chase! Regarding the competition, work gets busier for me in October, so I won't have much time; but I'd be happy to contribute in the way you suggest; your proposal looks like a good one to me.Klbrain (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Ok, thanks! I see u're progressing along. I may try for lesser goal of doing enough so that "ur score + my score >= N score", which is barely true currently. By the way, you can combine 2 edits into one, and possibly do a little more, in your update edits at wp:DPL, if you started by selecting "edit source" on the "September 2015" higher level section (i.e. edit Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/September 2015), rather than editing its "To do" subsection followed by editing its "Done" section. In the same edit it is also possible to update two running counts at the top of the section, as in this combination of 3 edits: 2 of urs and one other's. It's absolutely fine what you've been doing; don't change anything if it would slow you down. I have the impression you are new in this dabbing; you may not know but I am too. I have a lot of other experience but July was the first time I ever did any mass dabbing, and August was the first time i got listed in the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguator Hall of Fame. Sometimes in the past I noticed my being listed on the wp:MDC leaderboard but only with a few dozen disambiguations. I am still trying to figure out this area. For example I think i am doing okay by editing from the monthly list at "Dab Challenge September" as I imagine you are, but I am curious how editor Niceguyedc works so fast. He is using a different tool, Wikipedia:WPCleaner, which I haven't figured out. I will comment about that at the DPL talk page probably if/when i do. I'll share: frankly, I'm not quite sure of the value of the manual update/tracking process, at least if the toolserver "Dab Challenge September" is available as it is now, which more accurately shows the current status for each of the 1000 dabs. I would think that a program could also more accurately measure (count up) the cumulative progress each day or hour, but maybe that is not easy. (In fact there is a daily automated estimate provided within the The Daily Disambig, but towards the end of last month I could tell it was dramatically off, on the low side. Maybe it only increments by the same credits we get in our individual scoring, i.e. maybe it sees the individual, direct fixing edits, but misses any multiple-page-fixing edit at a template or by changing a dab to a set index article.) Also, I saw it was handy to have the manual tracking process at the beginning of this month when toolserver was down for a day or two. And it serves other purposes, allowing us to see progress on our watchlist and to communicate about tricky ones sometimes. I will try to stick with this process, anyhow, unless/until there's some discussion and consensus to change it. I am mainly meaning to say that I am new and learning too; you are not alone if you thought you were. I won't burden your Talk page with any more long commenting like this, tho I probably will see and respond if you ask me anything. Again, keep on truckin' or whatever and i will too.  :) cheers, --doncram 16:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] He'd be faster if he used my Dab solver tool instead of doing it manually. — Dispenser 02:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Agreed; I'm looking to get more automated, but thoughts I'd use the manual option this month in order to get more of a feel for the range of options; Dab solver tool looks good.Klbrain (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Disambiguation[edit] I have noticed your great work on disambiguation. Just a quick question: why don't you update the progress counts on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/September 2015? Hamish59 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for your kind words. Regarding updating the progress counts - I might have missed something - I do move term from "To do" down to "Done"; is there anything else that is needed? Do we need to manually edit the 'Progress bar'? Sorry if I've missed this.Klbrain (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] That is exactly it: there are two numbers to be manually updated in the Progress section [//tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/disambig_links.php?limit=1000&offset=0 top 1000 disambiguation pages] as of August 31, 2015, out of a total of 8,067 links, approximately 6,428 have currently been fixed. ((Progress bar|6428|total=8067|width=60%)) which renders as as of August 31, 2015, out of a total of 8,067 links, approximately 6,428 have currently been fixed. 79.7% completed (estimate)     Hamish59 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for pointing this out; sorry I had missed it (I had assumed that that step was an automated process). I'll make sure that I do this for here-on-in (and will also aim to check the current count (a bit trickier)).Klbrain (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] No worries. Hamish59 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Ubique[edit] I have undone your edit to K Battery Royal Artillery where your edit summary was Unlinked: Ubique; no evidence for notability for this honour. Just to clarify, Ubique is the only Battle Honour of the Royal Artillery, Royal Horse Artillery and the Royal Engineers. The Royal Artillery was present in nearly all battles and would have earned most of the honours awarded to cavalry and infantry regiments. In 1833, William IV awarded the motto Ubique (meaning "everywhere") in place of all battle honours (see here). Hamish59 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for the helpful correction; I had made an error there and am happy for it to be corrected. The only problem is that it is now an ambiguous link, and there is no link to the honor itself. Perhaps we could link to the definition on wiktionary, ubique. That would at least give a sense of the meaning of the term. That it is a battle honour doesn't need to be clarified, as it is clear from the position in the box.Klbrain (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Clarification: ah - already linked to Ubiquitous; that's even better.Klbrain (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yes, I copied what you did on P and Q Batteries. Fully understand the need to disambiguate. Hamish59 (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Congrats![edit] I tried to chase you down, but couldn't catch you in the October Dab contest. Nicely done! PKT(alk) 00:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Congratulations yourself - I confess that your efforts have spurred me on over the last few days! Anyway, we've both made the list for the month! Klbrain (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Low Bergish Platt[edit] Thank you for unlinking Platt in Low Bergish. I had been contemplating the same - or creating an article explaining Platt - but since it is a Dutch and German word, not an English word, an English explanation would become too much a wordbook entry. There is a German article de:Platt, however, explaining why so many vernacular languages from Denmark to the Netherlands and Thuringia call themselves "Platt". Might it be worth a footnote for those understanding German? I am hesitant. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Perhaps we could link from Platt to the relevant German page - using the interlanguage link (as you have used). I've tried adding this relatively simply, but I am not a language expert on Low Bergish, so would be very happy to go with any suggestion you might have.Klbrain (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Fine for me :-) There is a very brief English summary of the German article at http://www.omegawiki.org/index.php?title=DefinedMeaning:Platt_%281599378%29&action=edit if you care. Thank you again. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit] Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edge of Tomorrow (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mastermind. 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) 10:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Recent edit to Radial[edit] Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! CatcherStorm talk 17:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Rather than reversing the edit, and returning to an ambiguous link, can I suggest that we just unlink "radiate"? "Radiate" does seem to be sufficiently simple English that it doesn't need linking.Klbrain (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Poor guesswork fixing dabs[edit] I am concerned about the quality of your guesswork fixing these. All those for vitreous were wrong, and very obviously so to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject, or (I would have thought) even anyone who had bothered to read the first paras of the various articles concerned. I looked at some of the population structure ones, and I think it pretty unlikely that several of them are correct. I was rather dubious about the atropine thingy pharma ones too, but you claim to know something about the subject, and perhaps you do. Please stick to ones you actually know are right, and don't have to guess. It is much better to leave a link to a dab page than to "fix" it incorrectly. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Your opinions are noted. I did get some of the vitreous links wrong in the context of stoneware/ceramics, which I will review. I am surprised, however, that despite your expertise in the field of ceramics you have chosen to maintain an ambiguous links, noting for example your ambiguous edit on Faience. Regarding scopolamine, this is a topic I know rather well.Klbrain (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] I reverted your bad edit, and improved the rather crap disam page itself. I repeat, links to disam pages are not themselves a very bad thing, and you are hardly in a position to point fingers. None of our destinations for this are ideal. However, I see you have corrected it to a decent one. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thank you for bringing your specialist expertise in art to those pages.Klbrain (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Bangladesh[edit] Please can you correct as 1971 war as "Bangladesh Freedom fight " instead of indo-Pak war. (82.132.228.153) I'd be happy to, but can't find the page you're referring to. Could you let me know?Klbrain (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] A tip when disambiguating[edit] Hello Klbrain; to make your disambiguating easier, here's a tip that lets you move a link from "To do" to "Done", and to update the count information in a single edit, rather than 3. If you click on the [ edit source ] link next to the current month, just above the Progress Bar, you then have access to move the item you have finished from wherever it is in the "To do" section to the bottom of the "Done" list. On the same edit, you can add the number of links for the item to the Progress for the project. Remember to add the link count in two places - one for the text and the other for the Progress bar. I hope this is helpful and is reasonably clear - if not, please drop me a line on my talk page. Cheers! PKT(alk) 01:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for the helpful tip; I was editing sections separately in order to reduce the risk of editing clashes on the sometimes very busy editing of that page. However, I think that on balance this isn't a strong enough argument, so I'll switch to editing from the 'month' as you suggest. Cheers. Klbrain (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Beatus[edit] Please stop disambiguating this. You have no idea what you are doing. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for the feedback, but I can't see your better solution to the link I've suggested. For example, on Votive Mass you've reversed my edit without leaving an explanatory comment, and also left the term ambiguous. That is the only one of Beatus edits you've corrected, so I'm surprised at the energy of your comments.Klbrain (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] I've thought about this again, and have checked the context with a Catholic chaplain, and am now convinced that the initial disambiguation was correct. The sentence in dispute is Nor may it be said of a Beatus, unless this is allowed by special indult — Votive Mass , which I interpret as a saying that a votive mass cannot be said of someone who has only been beatified, but not cannonised. Hence, to link Beatus (one who has been beatified) to beatification (the process of making a Beatus) seems reasonable to me and consistent with Wikipedia style, given that there is not (and need not be) a separate Beatus page. An alternative might be List of beatified people, but this seems less informative. Klbrain (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] No, this one is also wrong. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] I agree that that one could be better, but again you haven't provided a more specific solution. Perhaps a link to Beatus of Liébana#Biography which describes the set of (derivative) medieval manuscripts would be appropriate. Klbrain (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] You mean that one could be right, as opposed to plain wrong! The bio link is just likely to confuse people. Often items are best left linked to the disam page, for various reasons. Sending people to the wrong page is much worse than leaving them at a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Beatus of Liébana#Biography section clearly defines the relevant use of Beatus in that context, specifically The Commentary was popular during the Middle Ages and survives in at least 34 manuscripts (usually called a beatus) from the 10th through the 16th centuries — Beatus of Liébana Another option might be write a new page, along the lines of Beatus (medieval manuscript). Klbrain (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Clarification for other readers: we are discussing the use of 'beatus' on Medieval art. I've just seen Johnbod's new link to Commentary on the Apocalypse; I agree that that is better! Klbrain (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content

More bad attempts at de-disambiguating![edit] Stone carving is almost never the right piped link to "lithics" etc. If it is, then the text is probably by a 2nd-language speaker, and the word should probably just be changed to "stone" with no link. For Stone Age tools, which are normally the context of the term in English, lithic reduction is usually best. Please stick to areas you know about! Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for your correction. On this occassion, lithic reduction is (I agree) better; elsewhere I had seen "lithics" used in the sense of "stone" and had linked to rock (geology). Klbrain (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Great Goddess disambiguation[edit] Hi, I see you've disambiguated Demeter as a possible Great Goddess to Great Goddess hypothesis. Not appropriate, as the last deals with a non-standard, indeed somewhat fringey and slapdash speculation more or less invented by Marija Gimbutas. "Great Goddess" is not a hard-and-fast term, so I've re-linked Demeter as Great Goddess to Mother Goddess instead; it's a more appropriate target though I can't, with the best will in the world, really describe it as "better". Haploidavey (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for pointing this out; I should have paid more attention to the Mother Goddess page! Klbrain (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Reply[edit] Are you talking about my talk page? No, users can remove anything from their talk pages except block notices by administrators. Here is it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for pointout out WP:OWNTALK, which I don't think that I had read. I'm sorry that I had missed it. It does have helpful comments about the spirit of the use of user talk pages (in addition to the policies). Klbrain (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit] Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Modern recession of beaches into Beach evolution. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] You might have missed that this was a merge rather than a copy; note that Modern recession of beaches was redirected to Beach evolution by me; the merge was indicated in the edit summaries (for example, see my edit at 15:35, 23 April 2016‎ on Beach evolution). I've now also documented this on Talk:Beach evolution to make this clearer. Klbrain (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yeah, I saw that edit summary, but it was rather incomplete, as it did not say what the source page was. Have a look at my edit summary as an example of how you could do it better in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Checked my edit summary: you're quite right, I did miss that - thanks for spotting it. Not my usual practice. Klbrain (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] 2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit] The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director. Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics) Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks![edit] Your merge of Gender performativity into Social construction of gender is much appreciated! Did you consider Doing gender as well? It also has a merge tag; I'm wondering if the tag should be updated or removed. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yes, I was going to do it, but it looks like it could be a big job: I was pausing for breath before making a decision on that one! Feel free to do it if you prefer; I have a medical background, but not a specific gender expertise and am more than happy if you want to have a look at and decide one way or the other. Klbrain (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] I undid your cut n paste move[edit] Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Indoor roller coaster a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into List of indoor roller coasters. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for your comments; you're quite right - I was cutting corners there! The "List" name already existed as a redirect to Indoor roller coaster, hence why the Move option didn't work. I'll use the "request move" procedure, as you recommend. Klbrain (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Lobosa & Lobosea[edit] Hi, Klbrain. While I understand the logic of merging the articles, I think it would be better to retain the article on subphylum Lobosa and possibly redirect Lobosea to Tubulinea. For one thing, Lobosa is a more widely used taxon than Lobosea (a search in Google Scholar turns up about 5 times as many occurrences). Also, subphylum Lobosa is the more comprehensive taxon, and includes not only class Tubulinea (a synonym of class Lobosea), but also the lobose amoebae of the class Discosea. Since amoebae of Discosea and the recently proposed Cutosea are lobosean, in the loose and traditional sense, they should not be excluded from an article that discusses the sensu lato "loboseans." More importantly, taxoboxes and navboxes within Wikipedia are generally structured with the subphylum in mind. So, if you look up Tubulinea, the taxobox there shows it to be a class under subphylum Lobosa; however, if you click on the link for that subphylum, you'll now end up at a page about another class-level taxon, Lobosea, which happens to be identical in composition! The same goes for navigational templates such as template:Eukaryota, which link to the subphylum Lobosa, comprising Discosea, Cutosea and Tubulinea/Lobosea). Since class Lobosea is a synonym of Tubulinea (see Ruggiero et al, 2015), it should probably redirect to that page (there's already a decent article on Tubulinea). The contents of the Lobosea article can be judiciously moved to Lobosa (particularly the passage concerning the informal use of "loboseans", a common term for amoebozoan organisms that produce lobose pseudopods). Deuterostome (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Sounds good to me. Klbrain (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Nastaliq[edit] @Klbrain:: Will you look into the template of Nastaliq, is not working. For example if i am using, "رنگ" in Nastaliq template it will generate this: "رنگ". Results are same, it just happened today. I checked last time it was working fine. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 19:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] I have recently edited the Nastaʿlīq script page, but not the Template:Nq. There was a template edit on the 5th September by @Great Brightstar:, who in their edit comment notes "Firefox must be used, see: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=projects&item_id=graphite_firefox". I'm not sure whether or not this helps?! Perhaps Great Brightstar can help. Klbrain (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Well, recently I added Awami Nastaliq font, but this font uses Graphite feature only for complex layout, you need Firefox if you want to use that. I will check whether my edit (or other revisions before me) break that. --Great Brightstar (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] This template works fine to me. Which font do you used for that? --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] I use Chrome, not Firefox and mostly users use Chrome. The template works fine but results are the same. For example, the Template:Nq produces "رنگ" into this "رنگ", which is exactly the same as it was before using template but just bigger in size, this is not Nastaliq. Have you seen the pictures in Nastaʿlīq script article, the template was producing that style. So, what should be the solution to this.This link will clear you what Nastaliq font previously this template was generating, Nafees Nastaleeq. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 13:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] It was not work for me. I also use Chrome 53.0, this font works fine to me. Maybe I can try previous version of Nafees Nastaleeq.--Great Brightstar (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] They are all works fine to me. Maybe you have a bad extension or wrong setting affect you, check it out. --Great Brightstar (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Attribution while merging[edit] Hey Klbrain, thank you for helping with the merges. Just a small suggestion that when you place the ((merged-from)) on the talk pages, please place it on the top of the page (above any of the sections). This is for attribution purposes. Place it in the section (like here) might lead to it being archived and the attribution is not visible. It would also be helpful if you add the ((merged-to)) to the source article's talk (or alternatively used the ((copied)) and paste it on both article's talk). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for the feedback. I've been placing those merge templates either at the top, or in the relevant talk section (where there is one!), favoring the latter because it helps to indicate locally the completion of the merge? Archiving discussion stops additions to the discussion, but doesn't remove the template, so doesn't remove the traceability of the attribution for anyone who is interested. I agree that it reduces its prominence, but perhaps that is small price to pay for not having other reconsider a resolved merge discussion. I accept that a formal close discussion (in addition to the merge template) would also achieve this, but that does require an extra step. You're quite right that I could use ((merged-to)) more frequently, tending only to use it where the merge discussion is on the paged merged from. Klbrain (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Actually a formal close isn't really necessary. I just put the merge template on the top and add a ((done)) at the discussion And all in the same edit :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] I do like the ((done)) suggestion; I'll certainly use that! Klbrain (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] I have some other thoughts as well to improve the accuracy of the merge (thinking of proposing this at the WikiProject): If only one of the pages has been tagged, it might be preferable to tag the new page and update the dates on both - rather than removing it. For example Hjuksebø and Hjuksevelta are actually the same place, though only 1 was tagged. However, removing the merge template essentially makes it harder to figure out which was the duplicate page. Would it be good to leave a message on both talk pages when a stale merge template is removed? What do you think? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Regarding your first point, I agree that if only one page was tagged, then it is preferable to tag the other rather than just remove the template. However, I think that it would be better to use the initial proposal date - the date of the proposal hasn't changed, it just hasn't been advertised in the correct places. Regarding your second point, leaving a message on just the page linked for discussion would seem sufficient; as long as you also leave an edit comment on both pages when removing the template. However, when there has been no case made for the discussion, and no comment (over a reasonable length of time), I don't think that additional time should be commenting on someone's unjustified tag-and-run. Those with an interest know to look at the page history. Klbrain (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hephaestus Books[edit] You're correct, they are a notorious republisher. Really a scam. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks; good to know. Klbrain (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Taal, manjira, kartal[edit] Thanks for merging these redundant instrument pages. I believe I was the one who suggested the merge way back when, and I recognize a lot of the material from my earlier fidgeting, but I never had the wiki skills to merge that many things together. You seem to have done so seemlessly. Hats off to you, sir. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] You are very kind to say so! I'm sure that there are still refinements to be made, but at least it is better to start with the material together. Klbrain (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Characters of Blake's 7[edit] An unclosed merge request from three years ago, abandoned with clear opposition and no consensus to merge is emphatically not reason to merge ten character articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] I've responded at Talk:Characters of Blake's 7#Merger proposal; the bottom line is last two arguments were in support of merges plus WP:SILENCE reads as consensus to me, noting that consensus does not equal unanimous agreement. Klbrain (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Dissolution Testing and USP Dissolution Apparatus Merger Discussion[edit] Hi I am reaching out to editors who have recently edited USP Dissolution Apparatus 2 because I feel that the discussion for merging the article is not getting enough attention. If you would like you can join the discussion --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Replied there - looks fine to me. Klbrain (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thank you for your help[edit] I just wanted to say "thanks" to you for your help in resolving the "Hindu Views on Monotheism" issue I had. You've restored my faith in the essential decency and sense of fairness of Wikipedians. So, again, I say thanks! Svabhiman (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for your very kind comments; you made a very clear argument, with a simple and clear proposal - what wasn't to like! Klbrain (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] A kitten for you![edit] Thank you again! Svabhiman (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for your work resolving some of our old mergers! Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bramah N. Singh (July 22)[edit] Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Shadowowl was: This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bramah N. Singh and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.  » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 15:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Brit Awards albums[edit] Hi there, I see you've redirected the page for Brit Awards 2015 (album), which I proposed and fully agree with your move. However, that still leaves us with Brit Awards 2014 (album), Brit Awards 2016 (album) and Brit Awards 2017 (album)... do you think the same redirect to their respective awards is in order (I do)? The editor who created these articles, Hadji87, is the only person who is likely to object to their merger, but seeing as he doesn't provide any sources other than the track listings from the Brits own website, I don't think there is any real reason for these standalone articles to be kept. Richard3120 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Richard3120:Yes, I agree that those other merges (the albums into the corresponding awards) are a good idea, just as for the 2015 page; thanks for suggesting it. I think that one of us (or anyone else) can boldly do it. Hadji87's talk page makes for interesting reading. Klbrain (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] He's well-meaning and undoubtedly sincere in his desire to improve Wikipedia. But he just doesn't understand the difference between encyclopedic content and trivia, and he exasperates several other British editors. Every page of "201x in British music charts" from 2011 onwards is cluttered by an absurdly long "summary" which details each week's new entries, highest movers, etc. and it just isn't important or interesting... I doubt there's anyone looking to find out who the highest climber from just two weeks ago was, never mind in Week 17 of 2013. The chart summary should be more like the one for 2010 in British music charts, so for example for 2017 it should highlight important achievements: Ed Sheeran's long-running stints at no. 1 with "Shape of You" and ÷, "Despacito" making a worldwide breakthrough for reggaeton music, Harry Styles scoring no. 1s with his debut single and album, Sgt. Pepper returning to no. 1 fifty years after its release, Stormzy scoring the first no. 1 album by a grime artist... these are all important achievements, and very likely sourceable as well, unlike the trivia Hadji adds. His other major additions are creating articles for every Now That's What I Call Music album – I feel that there are almost no compilation albums that deserve their own article, and a simple list at the parent Now article will do... yes, they all reach no. 1 on the compilation chart, but as nobody buys compilations any more due to streaming and making their own playlists on iTunes or Spotify, it's not much of an achievement to reach no. 1 on that chart these days (the three annual Now albums now account for 75–80% of all compilation sales in the UK each year). Richard3120 (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Your submission at Articles for creation: Bramah N. Singh has been accepted[edit] Bramah N. Singh, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] A page you started (Rabat Tepe) has been reviewed![edit] Thanks for creating Rabat Tepe, Klbrain! Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you: The image should have a caption to provide context (and if you can add a description to the original file on Commons, all the better). To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page. Learn more about page curation. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] My thanks for the review, and also to User:Joe Roe for sorting out the image caption before I got to it! I agee that that was needed. Klbrain (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of resolving of mergers. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Tom (LT) submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Klbrain as Editor of the Week. I have only interacted with this editor briefly, but I have been highly impressed with the merge work that they are dedicated to, which is tireless and often thankless. A quick review of edits reveals a very active editor with a friendly and collegiate manner, who edits to content space, responds to talk messages, and is very active resolving WP's stale mergers (in many different fields to boot!). Klbrain deserves this merit as one of many unthanked editors on the website and I hope that other editors will have a look at their work and agree.

Symbol for a Merge Vote

Klbrain

Editor of the Week for the week beginning October 8, 2017

Impressive merge work. An active editor that conveys a friendly and collegiate manner while editing content space and responding to talk messages.

Recognized for

resolving stale mergers

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 13:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Buster7: Thanks for the great news, and to Tom for the completely unexpected and very generous nomination. The world of stale merges is indeed rather buried, so thanks for descending to the depths! Klbrain (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings Dr. Brain. I notice that at the moment you don't have the autopatrolled right on your account, so your articles go into the review queue. Would you be happy for me to nominate you for this right? As I can tell you know what you're doing I'd be keen to put you in this group if an administrator accepts it to reduce the number of articles that must be reviewed manually. You can nominate yourself if you prefer. Blythwood (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Blythwood: That's very kind of you to offer; if you could nominate me, that would be great. Klbrain (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Klbrain, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content

Genome editing[edit] Hi. I made an executive decision and merged genome engineering into genome editing. Hope you don't mind that I didn't wait for you to respond. I was planning on nominating Genetic engineering for WP:GA and didn't really want the tag at the top. If you disagree just revert and we can work something else out. AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Aircorn:Sorry I was a bit slow on that page; it was a significant job, so thanks for doing it! I think that that was a perfectly reasonable think to do. Klbrain (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Comment[edit] Merges[edit] Hi Klbrain just trying to clarify some aspects of merges - think it's come up before. As long as a merge proposal has not been opposed there's no reason to remove the proposal. Another editor can come along later and perform the merge. Often the merger proposer is the editor who will make the merge. Sometimes the merge wanted is so 'unopposable' that it can be carried out without a proposal. Often a merge tag is placed when there is just isn't the time to cary out the merge, and this leaves it open for somebody else to later perform the merge or the proposer if they're still around - if it's unopposed of course. So it really helps if the merge tag is left - otherwise if a time came when the merge was wanted to be done it would have to wait a month after re-proposing for any discussion to take place. Hope that makes sense - all the best --Iztwoz (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] I agree with the sentiments but also note: WP:MERGEINIT Step 1 is "Create a discussion", a step missed by many drive-by proposers. Missing this step slows the progress of merges as it means that the others have to work to harder to interpret the case. WP:MERGEINIT Step 4 "If there is a consensus against the merger, or if there is no consensus or no discussion and you don't believe that it is appropriate to merge the pages, then please remove the merge proposal tags". So, the absence of a discussion (particularly over more than a year) is sufficient to close the proposal. I'm a frequent bold merger of pages, even when there is no discussion (for example, yesterday, Revista Brasileira de Engenharia, Caderno de Engenharia Química into Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering), but when the case to merge is arguable then I think the proposer really should make a case.Klbrain (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Closing of Merge Proposal for Juice Plus[edit] Hi. Noticed you closed the merge proposal[1] on the basis that there was "no consensus for merge" and that there was "uncontested opposition".[2] In fact, 4 experienced editors supported the merge proposal and the only dissenter was an SPA, with a total of one edit to date (the TPG comment), who merely stated "I know NSA but never heard of Juice Plus", which is a superficial assertion of an immaterial non-fact that required no opposition. Also, as you probably know, SPAs, especially an SPA making their first edit, would generally not be given any weight in such a discussion. Rather than there being no consensus for the merger, I would argue that there was a clear consensus; it was just awaiting someone to act on it. On that basis, I'll ask you to consider reverting your edit. Thanks! Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for your comments; I've had a look back at the talk. There is one comment opening the proposals that argues that NSA is only notable for Juice Plus, which wasn't supported by my reading of National Safety Associates which demonstrates activity in the 70s and 80s in other products, potentially notable if only for the legal actions related to some of those products. The following 3 comments were poll-type responses, adding no arguments. The final 13 October 2016 comment was a clear oppose from MemBrain (talk · contribs), directly contradicting the only case made for the merge. Given that this comment was unopposed for 15 months, I applied WP:SILENCE and closed. I still think that that's reasonable. I hadn't checked MemBrain's contribution history, so hadn't noticed that it was an SPA; thanks for pointing this out. However, I have re-opened; perhaos you could comment on the substance of the proposal over there? Klbrain (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Merging[edit] Hi, I see that you do a lot of cleaning up of old merge tags etc. That's good but I have come across a few recently that suggest to me that you are more concerned with emptying a maintenance category that producing a useful outcome at the articles. For example, your merge into the Komati caste article is nothing more than a dump of content from Arya Vaishya, which aids neither article nor reader. I think there is more to merging that just copy/pasting and, certainly with caste-related articles, it might be better not to bother unless you are going to do it "properly" because the scope for setting off some sort of wiki-war is quite high. Just a thought. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for your frank opinion, with which you might not be surprised to know I disagree. My belief is that there is a role for copy/paste merging as an incremental step in the evolution of material on Wikipedia. By placing relevant information in one page, expert subject editors, who may be unfamiliar with the process of merging, are then able to refine the content of the page in one place. In fact, editing heavily while merging confuses authorship of the material being merged. Even further, heavy editing creates a great risk of edit warring because the newly-synthesised material has not withstood the years of uncontested scrutiny that most Wikipedia material has withstood. Klbrain (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Then you obviously haven't got a clue about the problems with caste. Do it again and I will see you at WP:ANI because that topic area is subject to two sanctions regimes. To clarify further, the notion that "expert" editors would be unfamiliar with merging may have a very small element of truth to it but the notion that they do not know how to copy/paste, which is all you are doing, is absurd. - Sitush (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] In fact, for the avoidance of doubt, I will let you know about them now. See below. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. @Sitush: Thank you for the reminder; I accept and agree that caste is a particularly sensitive topic that needs to be handled with care. Klbrain (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] UB40[edit] Thanks for merging the articles on the three band members to the main article – only yesterday I came across them again and thought "I must get round to doing those merges tomorrow"... but you beat me to it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks; they've been there a while, but I know that there's plenty to do elsewhere too. Wasn't sure about the best solution for multiple infoboxes - might be nice to have a 'gallery', but that would have the problem of dissociating the infoboxes from the relevant sections. Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Participation of women in the Olympics[edit] Hi Klbrain! Thanks for moving Participation of women in the Olympics into the mainspace. You also reviewed it, which is amazing! It is a great coincidence that you completed the merge today as I had also planned to do it today! You beat me to it by a couple minutes! Once again thank you for your cooperation in the writing and publishing of this article. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for your generous comment. I don't have specific expertise in the field of sport, but have been involved with plenty of merges; that one was carefully done by you via draft (over a 4 month period), which is a helpful way of proceeding that should allow collaboration; came up with a good result, although its a pity that there weren't more people around to help you! There may be some comments from others about material they think should be included that didn't come across with the selective merge, but that's OK; I'm sure that it can all be worked out on the new page. Klbrain (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] I've submitted the article for peer review. My goal for this article is to get it to GA status. PR is probably the right place to go to get some input. Once again, thank you for all of your help and advice! Regards, Jith12 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Syrophoenician woman merger[edit] I see that you went ahead and completed the merger of Syrophoenician woman into Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter. The problem is, you are an WP:INVOLVED editor; you had previously !voted "support". There were a number of "oppose" !votes, and no clear consensus for the merger. So, please undo your merger, and ask an uninvolved editor to close the discussion; perhaps post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Other types of closing requests. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Remember that merge discussions are discussions, not votes. The preceding argument at Talk:Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter#Merger? from 22 January 2017 was in support of the merge, and received no refutation over 13 months; so, I could have merged it on 7 February 2018, as an uninvolved editor. Nevertheless, I pointed out the policy and waited 3 weeks to ensure that there were no objections. So, I believe that the merge was valid on the 7th Feb and therefore also reason (given no objections) on the 28th. Nevertheless, given your objections, I am happy to reverse the merge.Klbrain (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks. But remember - an unanswered argument doesn't automatically "win". StAnselm (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Physicochemical merger[edit] After your change of Physicochemical, the difference to Physiochemical is not explained anymore. I think we need the following sentence to reappear somewhere: Not to be confused with Physiochemical which refers to Physiological chemistry. RolfSander (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] You're absolutely right; sorry I had missed that (I had meant to include it). I've now added the hatnote to the top of Physical chemistry. Klbrain (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks :-) RolfSander (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Do you use the search results page a lot?[edit] Just curious.     — The Transhumanist    14:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC) P.S.: please ((ping)) me if you reply. Thanks. -TTReply[reply] @The Transhumanist: The advanced search? Sometimes; not 'a lot'. Klbrain (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Regarding article Smart City Indore[edit] Hi Klbrain. You merged the article Smart City Indore with Indore Municipal Corporation. I'd like to request you to revert the merger, since those two are separately different articles. Smart City Indore is an initiative, Indore Municipal Corporation is the municipal body, therefore the merge does not make any sense. Other 'Smart City' articles too have separate Wikipedia articles, please see Smart City Pune for instance. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Smart cities is an initiative of the Indore Municipal Corporation. Some other cities do have their own separate pages for the smart initiative (which in my view should also be merged). Also, the merge occurred after an unopposed 2015 merge proposal, with discussion on a prominent page at Talk:Indore#Merge Proposal. More than 3 years with no objections to the idea that a stand-alone page wasn't warranted doesn't seem unreasonable (with 2 different targets considered). I also note that the merge completed more than 2 months ago, in which time the page has been edited by others, making a reversal awkward. Nevertheless, if things have changed, please feel free to formally propose a WP:SPLIT. Klbrain (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Manchester Lit & Phil[edit] This was yet another poor merge by you. I realise that you are trying to clear a backlog but your enthusiasm for doing so is creating more work for others. You should not just dump the content of one article into another. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Sitush: Thank you for expressing your view; however, I can't see your point, particularly for that edit. What is your specific concern about that edit? It seems to be completely consistent with WP:FMERGE. Klbrain (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Some bubble tea for you![edit] Merged and moved Khatushyam and the Khatushyam Temple Please take a look and feel free to update and improve. thanks. DBigXray 22:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] @DBigXray: Nice job; I was somewhat regretting suggesting that re-arrangement of material, as the pages were hard to work with ... Well done for being determined enough to do it! Klbrain (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for your kind appreciation. I wanted to hear opinions from Jain individuals as well. My understanding of this topic was from a Jain friend in childhood. So I concur that Khatushyam is a common name than Barabarik. hence the rename. --DBigXray 12:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] PS: There are these two really interesting articles on Integrated marketing communications and Marketing communications ...  ;) Klbrain (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] ok I may take a look sometime. hate to be called a canvasee. --DBigXray 12:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content

Thanks for the merge work done on Gyrator-capacitor model[edit] Just wanted to say thanks for merging the Gyrator-capacitor model pages. Constant314 (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks! Klbrain (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] A kitten for you![edit] Thanks Klbrain for deleting the page List of cities in Iran. Catfurball (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for the kitten; of course, it was a redirect following a merge of relevant material (just so people don't get worried ...)! We still have List of cities in Iran by province. Klbrain (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] A kitten for you![edit] Thanks for taking care of those category pages in Iran. Catfurball (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] A kitten for you![edit] Thanks for taking care of both of the Category pages that I asked you to take care of. Catfurball (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Talkback[edit] Hello, Klbrain. You have new messages at Talk:Fenway Park. Message added 16:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template. — Newslinger talk 16:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Expressing my thanks for a discussion closure by an uninvolved editor! Klbrain (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit] Hello, Klbrain. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Merging Request Alert![edit] @Klbrain: The article Central Valley General Hospital and the article Hanford Community Medical Center need to be merged with the article Adventist Health Hanford. They are the same hospital owned by Adventist Health. I'm including the website for Adventist Health which lists all the hospitals that the company owns.[3]Catfurball (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Catfurball: sounds like a reasonable thing to propose; free free to follow the procedure at WP:MERGEPROP. Klbrain (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Klbrain: I'm sorry, I'm not really interested in merging the three articles. And I'm way to busy, so much to do in the Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church. List of Seventh-day Adventist being one of them that I've done the majority of my work on, so many names with no references Some of them were in the wrong place, still some are in the wrong place. I suggest that you tag these three articles that I told you about, with my reason to why they should be merged.Catfurball (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Merge into Judgment (mathematical logic)[edit] Hi, it seems you merged logical assertion into Judgment (mathematical logic) but this seems to be entirely incorrect; they are unrelated concepts, as best as I can understand them. Or are you sufficiently an expert to be able to explain how they are the same? The problem is that the judgment article is absolutely horrid, a mish-mash of gobbldy-gook; as far as can tell, a judgment is supposed to be a "type judgment", as in type theory. For example "t is a term". See Talk:Judgment (mathematical logic) for details. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks for the feedback. I was responding to unopposed proposal posted at Talk:Judgment (mathematical logic)#Merge proposal and Talk:Logical assertion#Merge; that proposal was unopposed from when it was written on 13 August 2016 until my merge on 7 May 2018, and seemed a plausible argument to me. I don't mind being corrected, however, as this is not a field in which I have particular expertise. Klbrain (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Stale merge proposals[edit] Hi, for really obvious cases like this (or like the Hindu month from a few days ago), I don't think it's reasonable to expect that the proposer should have started a discussion, or that others should have voiced their support. The burden of proof here should really be on those, if any, who would claim the two topics are distinct. And I don't think a proposal from 2016 is "stale": this is an out of the way topic area without any really dedicated regular editors that I know of: it might take much more than two years before anyone with the necessary comepetence comes around to performing the merge. – Uanfala (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] A few points in reply: What is obvious to you might not be obvious to others, which is why a case should be made on the talk page; in both cases I was following the delisting rule on the grounds that the merge was not obvious to me, with the additional condition that the proposer of the merge did not start a discussion for the merge. I do regularly perform merges where there is no case made and I feel that the case is genuinely obvious - see, for example, this merge. So, if the case isn't blatant, can I encourage you to start a discussion? The "one-year stale" rule is part of the Stale merge proposals guidelines. If a case is both obvious and in an out-of the way area, can I encourage you to be WP:BOLD or aim for concensus via WP:BRD. Consistent with this, I don't mind my merge closures being reversed if you feel that they warrant further consideration; or of course you can just propose them again! Klbrain (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Fair points, but if that's how things are currently done, then problems are likely to come up again. A merge often requires evaluating content, choosing stuff to keep or to discard, rewriting parts of the text, etc: it's a content matter. When I propose a merge, then obviously I do that in topic areas with which I have enough familiarity to be able to identify the duplication, but in most of these cases I don't have the subject expertise necessary to confidently perform the merge itself. When I place the tag, I expect it to be followed up by a suitable editor (or hopefully, a suitable reader who's not yet an editor), one that has more subject expertise than me. I don't expect that to be acted on by someone with less. Of course, there are plenty of mergers that can be carried out by any good editor, but that's not by any means all, and any workflow based on this assumption is probably not quite fit for purpose. – Uanfala (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Update to NerdWallet Page[edit] I haven't heard back on the NerdWallet talk thread [4], so wanted to ping you directly to see if you saw it, had time to take a look, and if it's something you're interested in. Thank you. Julianne at NerdWallet (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] Multiplayer game listed at Redirects for discussion[edit] An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Multiplayer game. Since you had some involvement with the Multiplayer game redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 15:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The theological use at least as old, even if it is not as widespread. Here is proof of my claim: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=efficacy&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cefficacy%3B%2Cc0 If separate sections is really a problem, then why not make efficacy (medicine)? Since intrinsic activity makes for a third one, I guess a disambig could work.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with that suggestion that much of the existing medical content should go to efficacy (medicine), that efficacy should be DAB and that other uses of the term (which may be equally or more important) should have their own separate pages. Perhaps we could continue the discussion at Talk:Efficacy#Theology, as it keeps the relevant discussion with the page. Perhaps we could formally propose a WP:RFC there? Klbrain (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I somehow missed the merger proposal, but Lackawaxen and Lackawaxen Township aren't the same place; Lackawaxen is just one community within the township (that happens to share a name). This map shows seven other, different communities in the township, some of which (Greeley, Rowland) have separate articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the helpful clarification. The pages I merged, though, were both for the 'township'; that is Lackawaxen Township, Pennsylvania and Lackawaxen Township, Pike County, Pennsylvania. The lede of the current article does mention Lackawaxen Village; perhaps just putting this in bold to make it clear that the page covers both the township and village might be sufficient? I've done that anyway, in case this proves sufficient. Klbrain (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the issue of the other pages, its fine for them to exist if they have notability independent of the township; the question then is whether Lackawaxen Village has a history which is independently notable of Lackawaxen Township, and even if it does there is an argument that such a distinction is best made on one page. Klbrain (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referring to Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania, which wasn't for the township (and was about Lackawaxen Village). Communities usually do have an independent history from their townships; the reason I like to keep them separate is that otherwise the community's history tends to get tangled up with the township's history on the township page. As for independent notability, this book has a whole chapter on the township, which includes several pages about the village's history in particular and a few about the other villages. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake; you're quite right that Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania was about Lackawaxen Village. The source you quote does indeed have a section on Lackawaxen Village (p.955) which is part of the chapter covering the township Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania (starting on p.954). That is, the history of the village forms part of the history of the township, so I can't see that this establishes independent notability; rather, the reverse. It's certainly a good source for the history! Also, the former village page (Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania) was a long-standing stub and I also felt, and feel, that it is better discussed within the township page. However, given that you have swiftly objected, I'm very happy to reverse the merge. Perhaps we could then take the discuss the relevant merge discussion section? Klbrain (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. And yes, the talk page makes more sense for this discussion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did this appear in the article heading?

"The Moors were simply Maghrebis, inhabitants of the maghreb, the western part of the Islamic world, that extends from Spain to Tunisia, and represents a homogeneous cultural entity."

Spain has never been part of the Maghreb, Spain is part of Europe. What do you think?

Blade and the rest (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know who wrote this (you could check the history of the page to find out), and it wasn't my edit which included it. I note that your edit which shows that you removed a referenced comment. 'From Spain' does not necessarily mean 'including Spain', so I don't think that original text was grossly in error; perhaps the intended meaning was 'from the borders of Spain' (although that would have to be a sea border!). Klbrain (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Purile Humor Award
	For this edit EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are very observant; I had thought that my edit summary was sufficiently subtle to be missed; perhaps the ellipsis was a step too far. Or perhaps I shouldn't be editing after midnight ... Klbrain (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you closed the merger discussion on this page as it had been silent for a long time. It appears that the discussion for merger was pretty much uncontested. Perhaps it would have been better to merge the pages before closing the discussion. What would be the best way forward regarding merger? Tindy1986 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're referring, I think, to Talk:Sikh philosophy#Merger Discussion, where you said merge 6 times, there was a don't merge from User:Smaines then a year of silence. So, in the presence of uncontested opposition and no support over more than 15 months I think that it was reasonable to close (about 8 months ago). What might be best in order to gather other expert opinions (I'm not an expert in Sikh philosophy) would be to put together a new merge proposal, add the templates in the usual way, and then request opinions at the most relevant project (WikiProject Sikhism). You could do this by posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sikhism a summary of your argument a request for comment (so, make sure that you link to your new merge discussion). I also recommend watching the relevant talk pages so that you can respond to comments. Klbrain (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't merge. Clearly, I have not availed myself of the opportunity to engage here in a timely fashion. I apologize for expressing an interest, then letting things drift.

The article Sikh philosophy should be deleted. It is itself a meager stub with no real thought about what that topic should encompass. Merging these other articles will not accomplish that compass, and is not the proper way to address their shortcomings. As it is, the article is misnamed: if it were worth keeping, it should be titled Philosophy of Sikhism, or Sikhism (philosophy). As a rule, the target of a merge should be sufficiently finished to validate any proposed merger. Merging into the void is unsound. It is premature. Prepare the merge target first.

I agree the small articles proposed for merger require attention. In particular, Prohibitions in Sikhism should evolve a bit further beyond listhood and controversy, else let it be merged outright, but into Sikhism.

I do remain convinced that the others should remain as separate articles. Compare treatment of Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, including the redirects.

-SM 00:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On July 4, 2016, you redirected Far East Shipping Company to Fesco Transport Group, with the edit summary "Bold merge to Fesco Transport Group following October 2012 proposal; not discussed in almost 4 years, but seems reasonable given the close relationship and short length of the pages."

Today I started the article on the Vasiliy Golovnin (ship), another FESCO vessel. I was going to add it to the list of vessels operated by the Far East Shipping Company, but I couldn't, because you had redirected it.

I don't think your redirection was a very good idea. Geo Swan (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not add it to the Fesco Transport Group page? All of the content that was on the Far East Shipping Company page was moved over to the Fesco page, so I don't think that anything has been lost. There's also the gallery of ships at Fesco Transport Group#Gallery. Klbrain (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for catching and fixing my rookie mistake of posting the merge template on the talk pages instead of the articles themselves; appreciate the help! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all; that's something that happens somewhere a few times a week, and it's on my gromish list of tasks to fix. They're easy to spot as they turn up as undated talk entries at Category:Articles_to_be_merged. Klbrain (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Klbrain, I recently nominated four articles for merging and wondered if you know how long it usually takes for proposed mergers to be discussed and/or happen? Cheers, Theo Mandela (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Times for completion are really variable; if it's a well-watched page, and there is someone who is familiar with the process (or willing to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging#Step 5: Perform the merger), then it can be done in days. Otherwise it can take up to 18 months. I've been specializing in the clearing the backlog (there used to be more than a 3.5 year tail), but we still have a way to go before this gets under control. You can see the list of outstanding proposals at Category:Articles_to_be_merged.

I suggest that if you've had no objections over the course of a month, then it would be fine to do it yourself. If there's clear support, then it could reasonably be done within a few days of proposal. Klbrain (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess that you were referring to Rigano, Majorana and their friends. Please also note that when proposing multi-page merges, you should add an explicit discussion link in the template: otherwise the discussion can be spread over multiple talk pages, which doesn't lead to coherent discussion (in this case, I've added the discussion template). You should also start a discussion on the talk page; I've started one, with an oppose, explaining why. Klbrain (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted, and many thanks for all your help. Theo Mandela (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your removal of the merge proposal flag from Mandarin orange cited in the edit summary a closure of a formal proposal as No consensus. No such formal closure ever took place of the discussion of a possible Mandarin orange/Tangerine merge, the majority of which is found at Talk:Mandarin_orange#Tangerines. You were perhaps misled by an entirely separate merger proposal between Mandarin orange and Mandarin orange (fruit), which did indeed proceed formally and was closed, yet even this was closed in favor of merging the articles (since performed). The informally-proposed Tangerine merger was never addressed in the formal proposal, discussion and close that you cite regarding the (fruit) article. Agricolae (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right that I hadn't seen the discussion from October/November 2018 discussion because it was in a section which arose from a stale 2007-2012 discussion. I also note that this was re-started in that location after the 2018 discussion (Talk:Mandarin orange#Merger discussion), in which you also participated, was formally closed. I'm happy to reverse my merge template removal and continue discussion; perhaps that October 2018-ongoing discussion could be moved into a new section and placed in chronocological order, as it is a separate (2018) proposal rather than a continuation of the 2007 proposal. Klbrain (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I realize it was confusing. I came to it from the flag on the Tangerine page, after the other discussion closed, and you are right, it probably should have been restarted and the tag modified to the new target, rather than just going where the flag took me. Probably ought to be formalized, just to get it off the table, one way or the other. (I suspect it will indeed end in no consensus.) Agricolae (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, created a new section for the October 2018 onwards discussion; now at Talk:Mandarin orange#Tangerine 2. Klbrain (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for fixing my misuse of templates on the Macaulay2/Macaulay merge. (I'm pretty new!) Since it had been a week with only a positive comment (and since these pages aren't so high profile), I went ahead and performed the merge. Perhaps you'd be willing to look and make sure I didn't make any more mistakes? Thanks! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were quite right to push on with a merge, having had support, no objections, and having left the templates for long enough for interested people to see them. The merge looks good; you've also done the right things with the templates on both talk pages. The only addition (which I've added) is to format the phrase of the redirected title in bold at its first appearance in the target. This is so that readers can understand why they have been redirected to this particular section (by seeing this name/phrase they've just come from being highlighted in the text). In this particular case, I think that its fine to just put Macaulay in bold rather than Macaulay computer algebra system. Klbrain (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Long_combination_vehicle#Potential_merge_candidate is a one liner from 2+1/2 years ago that nobody responded to. If you are serious about merging then you should at least restart the conversation with your own reasons why it should happen.  Stepho  talk  22:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another way of looking at it was that it was uncontested proposal with the merge proposal still open (I just added the template to the page that wasn't already tagged; it was already present on Long combination vehicle). The stated case seemed reasonable, if briefly expressed; the two terms seem to be synonyms. Klbrain (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Regarding your merge proposals, I have merged STCC The Game as it absolutely fails WP:GNG and isn't worthy for a standalone article.

On the other side, GTR Evolution seems like a clear keep to me, which surprised me. I have found numerous reliable sources (either listed in WP:VG/RS or foreign magazines) in multiple languages: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and that was within 5 minutes of me searching.

Race On...eh. I found 4 reliable WP:SIGCOV reviews [18], [19], [20], [21]. Not as notable as GTR Evolution, but not as non-notable as STCC is. Not sure.

Anyways, tell me your opinion about these two, but I certainly oppose the merge for GTR Evolution at minimum. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm quite relaxed about keeping the pages separate given that you've found notable sources (non-routine reviews) independent of the gamemakers. So, I'm very happy for you to oppose the merge given the above cases, and then agree to keep them separate. Klbrain (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I have done some work on GTR Evolution by adding some of those refs in, expanded the table, cut a huge amount of WP:GAMECRUFT that included list of cars and such, with some gameplay info in. Will try to get back to Race On when I have some time. Cheers, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've undone your merge on this article. The sole comment is "Not notable in itself" which is an incredibly weak reason, and easily refuted by me expanding the article fivefold in about half an hour. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't agree with you that notability is unimportant; the first line of Wikipedia:Notability is: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. So, there is no better criteria for determining whether a page warrants its own page than notability. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: as surely you know ... Klbrain (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not what I meant - I meant "It's just not notable" is an argument to avoid in these sorts of discussions. I've seen Edwardx write a lot of London article stubs, and I'm usually confident that what he starts can be further improve to a comprehensive article. There's pages and pages of listed building information in the National Heritage List for England that hasn't been sourced yet too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the distinction between current page content and true notability. My argument was that there isn't material on South Audley Street (which you've expertly expanded over the last 24 hours) which couldn't be just as easily discussed in Mayfair. However, I accept that there is no one solution to the lumpers-versus-splitters problem. Despite appearances, I do try to avoid being a mergist! I'm also not very impressed by the someone slept here 150 years ago as something worthy of encyclopaedic attention. Klbrain (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mean Caroline of Brunswick, that's not really fair - her residence in South Audley Street is documented in the NHLE, there is a famous picture of her there in the National Portrait Gallery, and a further print in the British Museum. If that's not "worthy of encyclopaedic attention", I don't know what is! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not questioning that Caroline of Brunswick is notable. Of the pictures you link, the first doesn't mention the street and the second doesn't show the street; it does, however, show a shawl. That does not, however, mean that Caroline of Brunswick's shawl deserves a Wikipedia page. Klbrain (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well of course it doesn't; I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I was simply disagreeing with (what I thought was) your opinion that a temporary residence for a Queen Consort shouldn't be mentioned on the South Audley Street article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Help add citations and copy edit. Thanks you. 115.78.230.128 (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not my area of expertise, I'm afraid. Klbrain (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't suppose you can close out the discussion at Talk:London Ringways#Merge_discussion? It's been stalled for months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not just yet; the merge templates weren't put up on the 4 ringway pages, so I've added them in order to generate further discussion (and to ensure that the merge isn't contested given that it wasn't posted on target and source pages). Klbrain (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Klbrain! Thanks again for updating the Baskin-Robbins article per my recent edit request. I was wondering if you'd be willing to review my request at Talk:Baskin-Robbins/Archive 1#Updates_to_History as well. The article is a bit outdated so I'm trying to suggest a few improvements. Thanks again! EC at Dunkin' Brands (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, User:Klbrain! Thank you for all your help so far in getting the Burson Cohn & Wolfe article in better shape following the merger of the Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe articles. I have a final request to complete the merged article, after which the article should be much more clear. As an employee of BCW, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is why I'm requesting assistance from others. I would appreciate it if you could review the request because you are familiar with the work on the page so far. Thank you for your consideration! BCW Editor (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 24 November 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Stephen Cleobury, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Kees08 (Talk) 22:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 11:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Christmas! Klbrain (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Lussekatt
	Happy holidays, here's some Swedish lussekatter to thank you for your great work on the merge backlog! Even though I haven't been helping out much the last few months, article mergers have a special spot in my WikiHeart and your work is what keeps it going. If you ever need any bot or template help feel free to ask me! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! So regarding this edit summary, I thought the IP was agreeing with me in that the "rectangular" page shouldn't be a standalone article, and thus that it should be merged into the main "short-time" article? Enterprisey (talk!) 05:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did hum and ha about this one ... I think that 2602:47:D41C:EB00:9CF9:7351:89AC:6EA0 was just annoyed at the template cluttering the page. They say That article isn't even notable, but that's also a reason for deletion rather than merge. My interpretation of their comment was that content on Rectangular mask short-time Fourier transform wasn't helpful, and so merging into Short-time Fourier transform would make that page worse; there are no inline references, and the one reference isn't to a reliable site (looks like Jian-Jiun Ding's National Taiwan University site for a collection of tutorial problems). So, my reading was that the IP user removed the template (without completing the merge) because she/he didn't think that the merge was warranted. Should we tag Rectangular mask short-time Fourier transform for deletion; or do you think that a redirect without a merge would be better? Or another suggestion? Klbrain (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoever merged Scottie McClue and Colin Lamont pages has made a massive error of judgement as the two are totally separate entities creatively and culturally. This needs looking at and reversing the pages were right for many years. It also makes a mockery of Wikipedia as when one searches for Scottie McClue one gets Colin Lamont which will mean nothing to them. It should be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.16.243 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry that that merge has upset you. That merge was completed about 9 months ago, in response to a 2017 proposal (see the October 2017 version of Colin's page) which was uncontested for two years. I'd expressed an intention to merge (given that there had been no objections over the course of 15 months), which you will have seen at Talk:Colin Lamont#2017 merge proposal. That seems to me to be a reasonable course of action.

Also, I can't agree with your claim that when one searches for Scottie McClue one gets Colin Lamont which will mean nothing to them, as Scottie McClue is linked to its own Scottie McClue section of Colin's page. The first sentence is then the referenced: "Scottie McClue is the on-air persona of Colin Lamont". This makes the association very clear to uninformed readers; while it may come as a surprise to some fans that Scottie McClue is a persona, Wikipedia has taken a policy against the use of spoilers as it is an encyclopaedia rather than an in-universe fandom.

Regarding the request for a reverse, I don't think that this is appropriate given the 9 months of editing which has occurred in the interim. Perhaps you could propose a SPLIT. Klbrain (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's continue this on the relevant article talk page section: Talk:Colin Lamont#2017 merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Scottie McClue Vandalism of 2 pages and refusal to put things right again Again it makes absolutely no sense to merege these pages as one is an relatively unknown academic while the other is an international broadcaster. Why on earth did you merge them in the first place? as I say it makes a mockery of Wikipedia. If I am searching for a subject I don't expect to get something totally different. Given your reasoning any 'pseudonym' ot 'nom de plume' for writers should throw up another name. in that case each incidence of this should be changed but a credible reason should be given. These pages existed for about 8 years without conflict until your unsolicited editing. perhaps you could provide some explanation for your actions and idicate if similar 'vandalism' is going to occur on the pages others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.143.9 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your constructive feedback. You're referring, of course, to Scottie McClue. You've also copy/pasted this comment onto the relevant talk page (2017 merge proposal), so it might be best if I responded over there. Klbrain (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. Wow, you made short work of the long list of links needing disambiguation at WT:MED. Thank you so much for dealing with the entire list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are too kind! Klbrain (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Klbrain, You removed tags related to notable alumni of James Ruse Agricultural High School. To be included in the list each name needs a reliable source that confirms they attended the school. You added some citations but they do not seem to mention the high school. I've restored the tags. Perhaps I've missed something. If so please let me know. Gab4gab (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of those on the list have their own pages, category tagged with the school and each with their own set of references. It does seem rather inefficient to duplicate such content. This also doesn't seems to be the policy elsewhere; for example, the nearby The King's School, Parramatta has an alumni list where most of the alumni don't have reference on that page demonstrating their training at the school. Is there a particular alumnus you object to? Klbrain (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just a note to say that we like to put citations in Title Case not ALL CAPITALS. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for spotting that issue in my edit on Ammonoidea; I absolutely agree. I had used an automated importer, and would usually change the case, but am on a device where that is more difficult. I'll try to be less lazy! Klbrain (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm surprised that you tried to improve the IP's edit - the source didn't discuss domestic terrorism, let alone compare right and left wing domestic terrorism. Ping me please if you reply. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: I did think that it was a jolly marginal contribution by the IP (on Domestic terrorism in the United States), and was indeed about to delete it. The issue for me was that the claim was referenced; I checked the reference, and it certainly supported the tenor of the statement of the IP, which I attempted to soften. However, I accept that the word "terrorism" was not used in the article. So, I don't mind being reversed on this one. Klbrain (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That's word we need to use very carefully and only with strong sources. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   While I hold a deep and sincere respect for those in what I infer to be your profession, my experience has shown me that the talents that make its practice possible do not guarantee omniscience. And I’ve concluded that you have not edited here for ten years without deserving respect as an editorial colleague. On the other hand, I also have been personally mentored, albeit briefly, by Dr. Andrew S. Grove, probably significantly affected the course of ITT Corporation’s disgraceful collapse (by displaying more integrity than the manager above me, in the conglomerate’sattempt at emulating the innovation unit known as Bell Labs — even if I left no mark at General Electric’s R&D Center.    

JerzyA (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for continuing to improve Wikipedia; I certainly hope that you continue to do so! I think that your concerns relate to me reversing this edit of yours at Dupuytren's contracture. If you look at that diff, you can see that you broke a reference, there were a few punctuation problems, and you expanded the text without significantly changing the meaning. Having concise text is helpful for readers. So, perhaps on this particular edit our opinions differ, but I certainly support your overall attempts to improve the encyclopaedia. Klbrain (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, Klbrain You have been recognized as the quarterly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the quarterly ending at 2020-04-02. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. By the way, we currently have no different barnstar image for different level (weekly / monthly / annual) champion, if you are interested in help designing, please help us. Thank you! Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content

The WikiLoop Battlefield weekly barnstar[edit] The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar Congratulations, Klbrain You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the week ending at 2020-03-23. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. By the way, we currently have no different barnstar image for different level (weekly / monthly / annual) champion, if you are interested in help designing, please help us. Thank you! Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 17:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] The WikiLoop Battlefield weekly barnstar[edit] The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar Congratulations, Klbrain You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the week ending at 2020-03-30. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. By the way, we currently have no different barnstar image for different level (weekly / monthly / annual) champion, if you are interested in help designing, please help us. Thank you! Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 02:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] The WikiLoop Battlefield monthlyly barnstar[edit] The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar Congratulations, Klbrain You have been recognized as the monthlyly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the monthly ending at 2020-04-02. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. By the way, we currently have no different barnstar image for different level (weekly / monthly / annual) champion, if you are interested in help designing, please help us. Thank you! Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] The WikiLoop Battlefield weeklyly barnstar[edit] The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar Congratulations, Klbrain You have been recognized as the weeklyly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the weekly ending at 2020-04-06. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. By the way, we currently have no different barnstar image for different level (weekly / monthly / annual) champion, if you are interested in help designing, please help us. Thank you! Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 08:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confused by your edit! Your summary is “Students is correct in this context; proper noun to distinguish from students”, but the change you made was from “Students” to “students”. Would you undo that? Moonraker (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done; sorry about that; I must have been asleep ... Klbrain (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't give miss information. Sanjay Bhoiya (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misinformation? Can I check what your usual account is, as you seem to have contacted me from a single-purpose (single edit) account (noting your contributions). Klbrain (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a question for you at Talk:Preregistration. Also, thanks for editing medical articles on Wikipedia regularly, and thanks for taking up administrative tasks like merges for these articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for directing me to that discussion; I've responded on that talk page (yes, I have reversed). Klbrain (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You signed a boilerplate Wikipedia welcome on my IP-address talk page for some contributions I made to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact at 15:08 (UTC) on 20 April 2020.

In an effort to look for a way to reciprocate your act of kindness, I came here (to your talk page) where I found the following sentence:

"I don't consider myself neither a mergist nor a separatist [sic], but do consider than [sic] long-standing problems should be resolved one way or another."

Since I cannot edit your page (I tried), and since I think the sentence above could be better, I'm sending you this message. At the very least, I suggest the following two changes: (1) avoid the double negative construction "don't...neither...nor"; (2) "than" is a typo for "that".

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.1.239 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You signed a boilerplate Wikipedia welcome on my IP-address talk page for some contributions I made to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact at 15:08 (UTC) on 20 April 2020.

In an effort to look for a way to reciprocate your act of kindness, I came here (to your talk page) where I found the following sentence:

"I don't consider myself neither a mergist nor a separatist [sic], but do consider than [sic] long-standing problems should be resolved one way or another."

Since I cannot edit your page (I tried), and since I think the sentence above could be better, I'm sending you this message. At the very least, I suggest the following two changes: (1) avoid the double negative construction "don't...neither...nor"; (2) "than" is a typo for "that".

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.1.239 (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the problems here; that sentence was written some time ago, in a hurry, and certainly needed fixing. Klbrain (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Klbrain, per the discussion about habit cough (helpful, thank you!), I have just noticed that your area is pharmacology and the autonomic nervous system. After a two-year collaboration involving dozens of editors, I have dementia with Lewy bodies about ready to submit to featured article candidates. Could I entice you to look it over ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Klbrain. Thanks for taking on the merger. Could you expand your closing message to say what the two articles are that are not being merged? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure (noting that this relates to Bosanska Krajina and Turkish Croatia); WP:N; I've added that. Having read through the many comments, the key theme is that while these are overlapping areas, they are not identical and have independent notability. I note the accusations of canvassing there, and that this is obviously a very contentious topic, but I certainly can't see a consensus for a merge, and there has been nothing but opposition for some time. Klbrain (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston: Looked a little more into this; I note that one of the merge templates was taken down on 14th April with this edit; not with the most transparent edit summary there. Quite a minefield. Do you think that reversing the close and going to the Administrators noticeboard would be better? Klbrain (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the merger discussion has been open since August 2019 I don't see the need to reverse the closure. But still, your message at Talk:Bosanska Krajina#Merger discussion ought to say in so many words that Bosanska Krajina and Turkish Croatia are the two articles that are not being merged. The underlying issue is messy, but as the closer, you can't be any more decisive than the participants were. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @Klbrain: and @EdJohnston:, this discussion closure is long overdue. But, please, if I may, let me point to one aspect of this messy affair, which you acknowledged but didn't dwell on it to much, although problem is much bigger than this discussion reveals: editors Silverije, Čeha and Mikola were very active in canvasing, using Croatian wikipedia project as particular sort of forum for solicitation of support in this situations and other like this one. Also, note how neutral/uninvolved maybe even just simply passing-by DraconicDark inserted comment in form of alert addressed to me. For whole picture on canvasing see my own comprehensive analysis of this practice ongoing at hr.wikipedia pages - it may look overwhelming in scope but I felt it may be necessary (it has English translation; EdJohnston, you just recently asked Sadko if he could provide some translations on some passages from Croatian/hr.wikipedia, so, maybe you will find this report of mine intriguing). Only two opposing editors were neutral and uninvolved, as much as I am able to discern, and one of them actually opposed "Deletion" and suggested "Merger", so I had to comment on his vote-post simply to point on that misunderstanding. All other editors who opposed came from hr.wikipedia, responding to solicitation. Thanks, and take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Santasa99: Thanks for the clarification; something of that sort was clear. That conversation was so swamped with oppose arguments, which I felt had some merit, regardless of canvassing, and so few for, that I didn't think that there was consensus to merge, nor was there likely to be. I respect the work you're doing! Klbrain (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the newly merged article Safe and Sophie Germain primes -- more work is needed to complete the merge; there are references that point back to the article Sophie Germain prime, and the "modular restrictions" and "properties" sections surely should be merged, and maybe more. --JBL (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the pointers; I've tidied further. Klbrain (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! —JBL (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Klbrain,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Swan Hill—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jonathan O'Donnell (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.. for moving the merge template to the proper place in the article N*gga. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem; it's a common issue I screen for from time to time. Klbrain (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Klbrain,

You have been top contributor of reviewing Wikipedia edits leveraging WikiLoop DoubleCheck (formerly WikiLoop Battlefield), we recently roll out some features, as you may notice them, most specifically the new feed mechanism and action panels. We wonder if you have any feedback because power users like you probably knows the best. Thank you!. Developer of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 22:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Klbrain, I saw that you merged matchbox into phillumeny. What do you think about merging it with matchbox (disambiguation) instead? We don't have much more than a dictionary definition of "matchbox" at phillumeny, and I think the disambiguation page would be more useful as a first destination for those searching for "matchbox". Tim Smith (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely agree that it only a dictionary definition, which is why it doesn't currently warrant its own page. The problem with a redirect to a disambiguation page is that there is a primary meaning for matchbox, and hence redirecting the term to a disambiguation page shouldn't be necessary - that is nothing ambiguous about the current matchbox links, in the sense that the authors of the 70+ referring articles had a precise meaning in mind. I'll add a template:Other uses to that phillumeny section; perhaps that suffices? Klbrain (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is an improvement, thanks! Tim Smith (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Klbrain,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Hello, Dear Klbrain,

I just noticed that you merged these four articles which listed here :

• National School of Computer Sciences
• Faculty of Medicine of Sfax
• Tunis Preparatory Engineering Institute
• National Engineering School of Gabès

I didn't get any notifications about these merges. However, education system in Tunisia is a bit different, these "universities" such as (Manouba University, University of Sfax and University of Gabès..) was mainly built for bureaucratic oversight for each governorate. There is already a previous discussion about these universities and this topic here, and as it was mentioned in WP:NFACULTY "If some faculties or academic colleges have significance and others do not, it may be the case that the institution's academic programs as a whole are notable". For example the National School of Computer Sciences was established in 1984 despite that the Manouba University was established in 2000 which doesn't make sense. Each of these articles that i mentioned above already have notable separate articles in french Wikipedia. Well, the merge suggestions was made long ago and the articles already been reviewed and i guess the merge discussions were not closed for each article. I think Mccapra also knows about this thread.

Withal, in case, is it possible to undo the merge, and do all the necessary ? your help is appreciated.

Best regards -- Metalmed ^Talk.. 13:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a little confused, as you seem previously to have expressed support for some of the merges. For example, see your 23rd January comment at:

Talk:Manouba University#Proposed merge of National School of Computer Sciences into Manouba University

For all of these pages, the same WP:NFACULTY argument applies and my view is that this is very valid; they remained unopposed for more than 6 months, and relevant discussions had been started with a relevant policy argument. Therefore, I'd suggest proposing a WP:SPLIT if this is something you feel strongly about. My view is that this isn't warranted, as the currently available material is so brief as to be best discussed within the context of the wider organizational structure. Klbrain (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Klbrain (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes indeed, you are totally right about the confusion, i wasn't used to the policies and guidelines at that time in January, and i didn't even know what merging was about. Anyhow, my main focus is that all these articles potentially passes the WP:NFACULTY as mentioned in the discussion, providing the definition of these tunisian "Universities"'s main purposes and meaning, contrary to the usual meaning. They clearly remained unopposed because they weren't checked by the project members. However these schools/institutes/faculties meets with the actual english meaning of the word university, were established way before and more notable than these so called "universities" such as the University of Manouba. However, we might keep it merged if it's suitable or maybe do a WP:SPLIT proposition, i will wait for more opinions from the project members (Moumou82, Mccapra ) to open a further discussion about this topic in the project.

Many thanks Klbrain.-- Metalmed ^Talk.. 20:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. It might also help to build the case for independent notability if the article was expanded using references independent of the source(s). At the moment they're very small, so the merge reason "short text" also applies. Klbrain (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think a merge makes sense when the previously separate articles were so short. This does not mean this cannot evolve as Kibrain pointed out. Moumou82 (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes i agree, so we keep expanding these within the main article and once an article is fully expanded and long we make a split in the future. Thanks -- Metalmed ^Talk.. 14:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi thanks for pinging me. My view is that when each institution was founded us not that important. What matters is how much coverage it has received in reliable independent sources is what counts. There’s no objection to de-merging in future if the sections expand and demonstrate sufficient notability. Until then I think keeping them merged makes sense. All the best Mccapra (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Klbrain. Based on a previous comment you made, I'd greatly appreciate your feedback in Talk:Data-driven journalism#Merger Discussion. Veritas94 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i support removing the merge label i think the articles should remain separate i did not know it was being discussed i ams sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs) 09:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all! Klbrain (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HI Klbrain,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Hi, I just added another comment regarding the proposed merge of Organizing for America and Organizing for Action. Would love to hear your thoughts: Talk:Organizing_for_Action#Discussing_merge_again. Llightex (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commented. Klbrain (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I believe that the Rocky Hollow Log Ride Ride article should remain as a article and not a redirect. The Rocky Hollow Log Ride is a famous amusment park ride in the Australian state of Queensland that had been operating for almost 40 years therefore I believe that it deserves its own article. I believe that the merger request was directed at the Rocky Hollow article as that was the themed area that merged with Gold Rush Country Thanks ThePoi (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proposal to merge had been open since March 2020 and had received only support (see Talk:Gold Rush Country#Merge proposal; however, feel free to formally propose a split. Klbrain (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a way for me to improve the article instead of proposing a split or can I only improve the article if the proposal succeeds? ThePoi (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can certainly improve the section where it is, then propose split, having demonstrated more strongly that there are reliable references that justify separate coverage. Klbrain (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Harees, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://365daysoflebanon.com/2016/11/07/the-art-and-beauty-of-hrisse/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Harees and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Harees, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Harees. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Harees with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Harees saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Kamilalibhat (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kamilalibhat: Thank you for your welcome, but you're about 40,000+ edits and 10 years late. I'm familiar with CC licenses, but perhaps you might want to look at WP:MERGE and the edit history on the Harees page. Klbrain (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Klbrain: Sorry for my mistake. Now I have seen that you have merged that page. I'm really sorry. I have stuck on this problem from the last 10 hours. I tried so hard but couldn't get any solution. Now, wish you to join me in finding out the actual author of the copyrighted material. It will be very helpful if you will look into the matter. – Kamilalibhat (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem; easily missed when you're focussing on something else. Alas, no time at present to help on that copyright quest, but if it was from the other page and introduced with the merge, try the history page at Harissa (dish): history. Klbrain (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kamilalibhat: OK, you've got me intrigued ... I think that that website, or at least chucks of it was a 2016 copy of the 2015 version of Harissa (dish). Klbrain (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Klbrain:: No I couldn't find the actual author or someone else who wrote it in chunks. Or, maybe, it is written by many people and it will be a coincidence that they are copying from the same website. I don't know what to do now. I really got stuck. – Kamilalibhat (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that that site copied from older versions of Wikipedia, so the violation is from that site, not from Wikipedia authors. So, I recommend closing the copyvio case, marking discussion page with Backwards copy. Klbrain (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you performed the merge using the argument "Closing 2020 merge proposal; uncontested opposition and no support"

I clearly opposed to the merge, see Talk:DHSC (football_club). Which means 1 vote in favor and 1 vote against the merge. So, why was the merge performed anyway when there's clearly no consensys, and on top of that, a false argument for doing so listed? --Sb008 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems I misinterpretated your statement. You only closed the discussion and didn't perform a merger. --Sb008 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem; I agree with you that there was no consensus for the merge, which is why I closed it without merging. Klbrain (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello
Thank you for finding the merge discussion for this and fixing the merge tag. Interestingly, the discussion pre-dates the tag by about two years: Go figure... Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like someone added a comment on the talk page without adding templates on the article page, and this was spotted 2 year later. Klbrain (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Aspect (religion) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Linking these together appears to be WP:OR. Article does not appear to have a clear and well-defined subject, though one does exist described at d:Q25351772 . Very poor quality, so WP:TNT also applies.

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. Daask (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notice; responded on the article. Klbrain (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you removed a merge proposal last year saying "Closing stale 2019 merge proposal; no case made, no support over almost a year)". I'm not sure what you mean by "no case made". There were six sources all clearly saying that "Algebraic normal form" and "Zhegalkin polynomial" are two names for the same thing. There was no opposition to the proposal. A different way of summarizing the merge proposal and its discussion would be: "Unopposed merge proposal supported by six reliable sources."

The main problem here was, I guess, that the proposal wasn't sufficiently publicized. I daresay that anyone who knows anything at all about Boolean logic would immediately see that the two articles are talking about exactly the same thing with only a slight difference in notation.

I would have appreciated the courtesy of a ping when you closed the proposal. I guess I missed the news in my Watchlist. At this point, I plan to be WP:BOLD and go ahead with this merger... when I find the time. --Macrakis (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I note that you've linked to an archived discussion page, so you'll know that the discussion was archived as stale long before I saw it. The talk page is blank and there is no archive link on the page; archive bot says that its set for 365 day archiving, and there is no archiving link. So:

• When you make a proposal, I suggest that you manage it on a timescale faster than a year
• That you take into account that archiving means that your proposal will no longer be visible to readers/editors, unless they go hunting the archives.
• That you watch pages you've put proposals on.

In order to help manage that page, added a template:Archive list to the talk page you've used, so that other readers can find the archived content; it wasn't otherwise easy to find. Klbrain (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was certainly my error (as I said) to have missed the changes on my watchlist (which has thousands of pages on it).

I'm not suggesting you did anything wrong -- it would just have been nice to get a courtesy ping. --Macrakis (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/* Scottie McClue */ someone had vandalized the pages by merging them into one so that when you search Scottie McClue you get Colin Lamont which defeats the purpose of Wiki and causes terrific confusion to searchers can this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Great Rivers (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there is any conceivable way someone would be confused, let alone a researcher. Scottie McClue redirects to a clearly described section Colin Lamont#Scottie McClue. As you know, the merge was discussed at length, resulting in a consensus to merge; noting also that yours is a single-purpose account. Feigning ignorance, and pretending urgent surprise, is inconsistent with your edit history at Talk:Colin Lamont. Klbrain (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Merging Barnstar
		For singlehandedly reducing the merge backlog ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kvng: Thanks for the barnstar; you've recognized my obsession too! ;) Klbrain (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lauren Bloomstein. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 2#Lauren Bloomstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping; responded there. Klbrain (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have assessed consensus. This has waited for a simple close for far too long. It is closed as Merge. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the close, and clearly outlined justification. Klbrain (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

try reverse foundation dates, which you didn't re-order (by one year), minor, the latter schools are also reverse order (already) Dave Rave (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry; I should have been more systematic in my approach! Correct now to be more consistent and correct. Klbrain (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I'm curious. So what's the difference between an antagonist and a blocker? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Traditionally, the term blocker was used (at least in UK Pharmacology) only for ion channels, but the clinical world the term beta blocker became widespread (for what I was taught to call beta adrenoceptor antagonist). The term antagonist, however, applies to all receptor sites include those on ions channels (see International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. XXXVIII. Update on Terms and Symbols in Quantitative Pharmacology), which uses antagonist and doesn't define blocker at all.

Rang,^[1] the textbook most widely used in the UK for teaching undergraduate pharmacology, in chapter 2, when describing drug action, uses only the term antagonist (not using blocker at all). In the chapter on ion channels, 'block' of ion channels is used, but even here blocker isn't, as it's seen as a colloquialism.

Over the last 10-20 years use of blocker has spread for all receptors, particularly among clinicians, and the dying breed of pharmacologists doesn't stand much of a chance in stemming the tide of nomenclature drift. Neverless, at least where I teaching in the UK we make clear the historic distinction, which acknowledging current trends. Klbrain (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]