Welcome to my talk page.

New messages at the bottom of the page, please. Messages placed elsewhere will be ignored and/or removed.

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

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

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

The edit I reverted offered no explanation at all. The explanation you did offer, in the edit that was reverted by another editor, was woefully insufficient. Moreover, accusations of "disruptive editing" are not in keeping with WP:AGF. You were WP:BOLD, two other editors reverted you, and instead of discussing your change on the talk-page, you accuse people. Not cool. Kleuske (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit you reverted had the following explanation:

removed text from lead that alleged "historical reasons" without specifying any reasons, offered opinions ("misleadingly"), promoted the POV of a source ("in the words of"), did not logically fit in the text, and did not summarise anything from the body of the article

You reverted without bothering to give any explanation at all. And yet you have now twice dishonestly accused me of not explaining my edit. You do not seem to have previously edited that article so it seems you reverted purely for the sake of reverting. You may, if you wish, argue against any of the four separate reasons I gave for removing that text. You do not have the right to undo edits for no reason. Zqzkqzq (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it did not. It said "rv disruptive editor". Moreover, that explanation does not suffice. Apparantly, you do not understand the concept of WP:V and WP:RS. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't play silly games. Make your case on the article talk page if you have any genuine interest in that topic. Zqzkqzq (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was editing on MQ 9 Reaper page on which you have reverted. I was just rearranging according to alphabet. Please see to it. I ame Shears (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@I ame Shears: My bad. Apologies for the inconvenience. Kleuske (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kleuske and MurielMary: perhaps a possible way to go forward here might be draftifying this article for while as an alternative to outright speedy deletion? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will. For Areddu I thought it was clear: it was a blogpost. For more context, this person has been banned from italian wikipedia because he is a serial spammer. For Gigi Sanna, well he is a journalist that prints his fringe theories in a printshop. Anyway I'll be more explicit now, --PedroPistolas (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, i realised that after i made it, Wikipedia is pretty confusing at first. Reading the Tutorial page as we're speaking, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by En svensk med kritik (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I request you to hide my edit history to new users and add a semi protection to my userpage because this guy is psycho and a small kidd he is trying every sigle possibility to mess up with me. Thank you Vikassharmasafidon (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vikassharmasafidon: Sorry. I'm not a mod. I can't hide/protect anything. Kleuske (talk)`

Thanks, where from I can get the list of mods. Vikassharmasafidon (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. I'd be glad to oblige if I were. Kleuske (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am trying to improve the University of Sheffield page. The section about Controversies includes a very subjective section relating to the Archaeology Department. I tried to rewrite this to be more objective but the original author seems to overwrite it with the previous biased entry. The original author appears to have a serious conflict of interest which is apparent in the tone of the piece. The piece includes libellous content in its wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.254.172 (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have a Conflict of Interest and are trying your best to bend the section your preferred way. Failing that, you resorted first to WP:BLANKING, now to blaming others. If you were serious, you would raise the issue on the talk-page, which you have not. If you are wondering how I know that, whois is my close personal friend. Kleuske (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted my revision as of 13:08, 14 October 2021 at Köchel catalogue and asked for a source. Well, I actually wrote the revision according to this page Church Sonatas (Mozart). Apparently it is wrong. Rômulo de Assunção Rondon Mello (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on my page for the company I have a COI with [Life Technology Ltd]. I hopefully have declared it properly. I've not used Wikipedia in a few years and I cant remember my old email (lost account) or username so I started from scratch, but hopefully I will be able to help out the community again. Please let me know if there are any issues and i will do my best to correct them. Ultimatum020 (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ultimatum020: Per the policy: Paid editors must provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services. If such an account is deleted or removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week.

So, no. You did not declare it properly. Besides, disclosing a conflict of interest does not imply you get to promote the business in question. The same rules for verifiability, neutrality and notability apply. Kleuske (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was on De Klerk himself, and it's not as if he's here to be offended, now is he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.73.228.124 (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kleuske, you've noted that i sourced poorly on the wikipage "Shitcoin". I agree and would like to rectify the mistakes I made, but I'm unable to do so as a semi-protection has been placed, and I can no longer edit pages. I will likely be the editor for this page for a good while, so please "unblock" me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Weissmann (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brian Weissmann: I have reverted your edits twice, because your contributions were unsourced and the crypto-coin is non-notable. You ignored that three times and restored an unsourced, non-notable promotional blurb. At that time, an admin concurred with my assessment and protected the page. So apart from edit-warring, you are now suggesting you want to WP:OWN the page. Nah... I think I'll pass. Kleuske (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the welcome wagon :) Do you have an interest in animation as well? 18bwhite4 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really. Good memories of Czech children TV, though. Like Pan Tau. Kleuske (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classic! 18bwhite4 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kleuske, just a quick note to say I've undone the removal of a block notice from the talk page of ENCYCLOBOYS - not your edit, but there has been some back-and-forth that you were involved in and you were one of those who removed it. Please remember that users are more than welcome to remove messages sent to them (with few exceptions which do not cover this - it's not a declined unblock request, it's not a deletion tag, it's not a shared IP notice). This also means that (in my opinion) it's probably not the greatest idea to have used rollback to undo the removal either, as it doesn't give the opportunity for you to explain why. stwalkerster (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you left a message on my talk page that I've removed Twitter link of her but in the guidelines there are social media links are don't allow that's why I've removed ... Can you explain me more about it ??? Truedboner (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Truedboner: In this case the subject of the statement was the tweet itself and (accompanied by another cite, showing relevance) falls under WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:TWITTER. This is, however, much the exception to the rule, so in general, you are right. It's confusing, i know, so thanks for asking. Kleuske (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kleuske so self post Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, also allowed as citation ???

Only if the criteria are met, such as not being self-serving, only about the person themselves and not giving WP:UNDUE weight to the post (or the person). The first criterion alone precludes most social media and the rest are hard to meet, too. But you can never use social media posts as sources for anything (or more importantly anyone) other than the author of that post. As I said, this case is pretty much the exception to the rule. Kleuske (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truedboner is a sock of LTA User:Blogs19. They have been blocked by CU. The LTA editor generally engages in mass disruption of articles in rapidly and WP:GAMING through new accounts. 2402:3A80:6BD:9CEF:55EC:1848:84F2:1DE9 (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here I was, assuming good faith... Damn. Kleuske (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At Lynching you reverted me with the edit summary Don't lie in edit summaries. Thanks. I think that was a clear violation of WP:NPA as well as WP:AGF. You self-reverted, giving Ooops as your edit summary. That's neither an apology nor an explanation. So I asked for an explanation on that article's talk page in a discussion you had already started regarding a different issue. I'm sure that I didn't violate any rules, because a good discussion is virtually impossible while one part accuses the other of lying. That's why had to be clarified before the discussion could go on. Please remember that I wrote that before you apologized. The discussion then went on on my talk page, I made a comment that was clearly trying to end the discussion in a peaceful manner, and then you said, The "I'm not happy with your reaction" feeling is very much mutual. I asked for an explanation, you haven't answered so far. I did nothing wrong, but you did. What is it you keep complaining about, wasting your time and mine ? Rsk6400 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rsk6400: If it's drama you want, take it to the drama-board. If not, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kleuske (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point of noting that dwarves, elves, goblins and trolls are also on the same list as hobbits is in response to Shippey's claim that it's a list of bodiless ghosts, which is untrue. There are many creatures on that list that are commonly held to be corporeal. Plus your claim that "The creatures mentioned are all fairly well known in various mythologies" is untrue, many of them are well-known but many are almost extremely obscure. Moreover, you claimed that the last bit, which could be taken as editorializing I admit, is what you wanted the source for. I omitted it from the second edit (which you noted), but you still reversed it even though I added a direct link to the factual statements made. So since everything written was sourced, it seems you're reversing it for relevance, but it is clearly relevance because it contextualizes the quote from Shippey. Shippey's quote cherry-picks a very small bit of the text and draws a conclusion from it. As it stands now, you're happy to have Shippey's false claim stand. The list of creatures is NOT a list of disembodied ghosts. It is a mix of corporeal and incorporeal creatures of all kinds. Ifyffe (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ifyffe: I reverted the second time, since it wasn't an improvement. You mentioned a number of creatures in your edit, and all of them are fairly well known. The find is mentioned as the source of the word "Hobbit". Whether or not the critters in the other work are "solid flesh-and-blood creatures" or not is fully beside the point.

Shippey's quote cherry-picks a very small bit of the text and draws a conclusion from it. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We try to summarize what reliable sources say on a topic. Wikipedians do not insert their own conclusions.

Lastly. Please keep the discussion in one place. Things get very confusing of discussions are distributed over several pages. Use WP:PING. Kleuske (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The paragraph is talking about binary, so I switched the qualifier "decimal" to "binary." However, it's not true that pi couldn't be written in digits of any base whatsoever. Also, I think it's inarguable that "amount" and putting it in a footnote are incorrect. Also, thank you for the welcome. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wuffuwwuf: Unless you're willing to try base pi, there is no way to write it in any number of digits. If you do use base pi, you're not able to write 2 in any amount of digits. See irrational numbers for starters and read transcendental number next. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does being able to write 2 matter? This is about the edit I made, not 2. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you should read WP:BRD, too. Kleuske (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the welcome! I don't know how often I'll be able to be active, but I enjoy translation and hope I can find some pages on other Wikipedias that can contribute to the English Wikipedia. Copyedit & Translate (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Copyedit & Translate: If it's only a single article about a Basque song poem, I'm happy. So don't sweat it. Wikipedia is not an obligation. Kleuske (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooops. Kleuske (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - I just wanted to follow up since you welcomed me and then my article was rejected and I disappeared. I apparently made a bad choice of first article to translate - I didn't understand that not everything on es.wiki is going to be acceptable on en.wiki. I'm working to understand en.wiki policies better and make some more useful translations. Copyedit & Translate (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re [1]: looks like he did do it again. I've reverted manually. Now what? Thanks. Marnanel (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marnanel: At the moment, this is stale, so nothing. If they try again, report them at WP:AIV. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop restoring the edits on East Timor, they are from an abusive LTA farm. That is why they included really dumb tags. CMD (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Please discuss on talkpage and refrain from POV like this. Also, you are edit warring in several articles. Kleuske (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't discuss it with them, they're both blocked as abusive sockpuppets. CMD (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hard to see how my opinion is any different from a number of 'proper' historians who have ignored parliamentary and other contemporary records in order to add Cromwell's name to their site. There was no military action using heavy artillery in the Eastern Borders in either 1648 or 1650, when Cromwell passed through the area. Fact. The story was generated in the nineteenth century and has been peddled ever since. Cromwell's Letters and Speeches have been course material ever since people have questioned the peddled history. Obviously, I do not have the essential academic credentials to understand Lead (or the affected 'lede') So we will just let the story stand before the thought police react. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromwelled (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cromwelled: What about "New messages at the bottom of the page, please." did you not understand? As to your opinion, that's WP:OR at best and WP:POV at worst. Read the policy. Kleuske (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, Kleuske, this is my fault, I'm won't breaking any wikipedia rules at next time, this account is not a vandalism-only account Plutonium-244 RE 1797-84 (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Fast and fair replier. RKPARAS (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

looked nice and happy :( Sjobenrit (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sjobenrit: Thanks. He was a very nice and happy dog. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It meets WP:A7, tag it for speedy deletion instead. Neither pass WP:POLITICIAN nor WP:GNG. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 15:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tulsi: I interpreted "former mayor and local politician" as just about meeting that standard, but you are more than welcome to nominate. Kleuske (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, my bad. It doesn't meet A7. You are right to place PROD tag. Thank you for allowing me to nominate. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 06:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't need my permission... Kleuske (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. An edit I made in the football section of the De La Salle (Concord, Calif.) High School page has been reversed for not having a source. It concerned a statement which itself is unsourced, claiming DLS played in every CIF Open Division state title game from the division’s inception in 2008 through 2019. That the Spartans run actually began in 2009 is something that can be verified on the CIF State page, among other places. ShakesTheClown46 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakesTheClown46: Source? "Trust me bro", does not fly on Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DwenDisciple#I_am_not_sure_if_you_are_trolling_or_just_lack_competence,_but_your_edit_to_Elder_Evils_was_unacceptable] See my comment. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: Excellent question. I'm not sure, but if I were to place a bet, my money would be on WP:CIR, given grammatical shortcomings. The difference between Troll and CIR may be rather inconsequential. Kleuske (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm tempted to block, but given WP:ANI#Davisisgreat blocked without explanation I'm hesitant. I have no idea why the OP is following my edits and took this to ANI. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can imagine that has a chilling effect, but don't let it get you down. Several experienced mods agreed, so take that as a validation of your modding skills. In this case, let's hand them some WP:ROPE and see if they hang themselves. Kleuske (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1110487246 Vedprakash Singh VPS (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vedprakash Singh VPS: With what? If people try to delete sourced content, lest it might cause offense, point them to WP:NOTCENSORED, but from my side of the keyboard, it looks suspiciously like you have a content dispute. Since I am utterly unfamiliar with the subject matter (both Bollywood productions in general and this film in particular), all I see is some parallels to Monty Python's Life of Brian. I don't really see what I can do. Kleuske (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1110668287 Vedprakash Singh VPS (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yikes, I just noticed, and revised the edit and summary.... thanks for watching. It does get just a little hair-raising from time to time. Haploidavey (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

I have edited several articles and would like to discuss your edits.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_auction

I would like to supplement the sentence "There are also auctions that are open to the public in a few states like New Hampshire and Pennsylvania" with the fact that in addition to these states, open auctions for the public also operate in other states (about Canada, I agree - a new paragraph is needed ).

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_title

Here I wanted to add information that there are relevant auctions, I think it would be interesting. After all, I didn’t even highlight any links, the information was presented, in my opinion, quite unbiased.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Used_car

In external links there is a site "Vincheck". At the bottom of their page there are links to other sources, I wanted to supplement the Wikipedia article with these sources.

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_welding

Very sorry for the removal of the link. ABAGY really has a lot of good materials, on the basis of which the article about robot welding was written.

Could you tell me how to fix this carefully so that my edits are not deleted?

I hope my English doesn't bother you - it's not my native language. Ekaterina Mosolova (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ekaterina Mosolova: First off, do not insert links to commercial websites. They are hardly ever reliable sources, since the objective is to sell you stuff. Then do not repeat that behavior after you have been warned about it. Also, it may be a good idea to read up on some basics, like how to create a link, instead of how to use a ((cite web)) template to WP:Refspam various articles. Kleuske (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that my idea does not comply with the rules, but still I want to talk about it. In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_welding in external links there are many links to commercial projects, for example, ABB, FANUC. At the same time, their sites do not have as much really useful and interesting information as the ABAGY blog (https://abagy.com/blog#!/tfeeds/949749039321/c/Technology).

Moreover, my link was to the blog, and not to the entire site.

May I return the link to the blog? Ekaterina Mosolova (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kleuske (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would appreciate it if you stop adding back incorrect information that has been leading to the image abuse and trolling of this artist Deborah Gray. You are not an expert on this person nor have the right to add to the abuse of her reputation and information on line Edenleaf (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Edenleaf: You open with "internationally best selling author" (no source), deleted quite a lot of sourced material from the article and now you try to guilt-trip me into acquiescence? That's not how things work on Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk)

Hey there! Regarding your recent revert on Edilli, did you look into the content that was removed? Azerbaijani government sources (which are not reliable) had been used as a basis to create a "Mass graves"-section for the geographic article that was twice as large as the size of the other content. I replaced the recently added material with a shorter, more neutral mention from a third-party source. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I did. Not just that, I looked at the sources, too, and non-Azeri sources exist. One line in the lede does not quite cover it, especially since it sweeps much under the rug. Hence the WP:WHITEWASHING label. Kleuske (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is "whitewashing" described here [2]? Can you pinpoint your criticism a bit more? There were two non-Azeri sources yes, but they largely parroted the government narrative, so I chose a source (Israel Hayom) that described the findings in a more neutral, careful and factual manner. Is it your opinion that the version you've reverted to is a neutral and factual depiction? The event has also not been included in the lead in any version, I added a mention in the History section, if you've seen depictions of catastrophes, accusations of war crimes and massacres on other Nagorno-Karabakh articles, they are usually depicted with a shorter mention (examples: [3], [4], [5]). AntonSamuel (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From your source: As an example of war crimes, or crimes against humanity, most of them had their legs tied with wire and rope. Strangely your edit does not mention that, even though it is, by your standards, properly sourced. I am not opposed to a rewording, even if it’s shorter, but failure to mention things like that, even though they are mentioned in your preferred source, is not acceptable. Kleuske (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I do think that mass gave deserves its own section. Kleuske (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about "On 4 October 2022, mass graves from the First Nagorno-Karabakh War were discovered in the village, consisting of three sites of graves of Azerbaijani military servicemen, most of them having had their legs tied." is that inclusive of the context enough for your approval? AntonSamuel (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your source quotes it as evidence for war crimes. So without mentioning that, no. Kleuske (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right, I'll use that wording along with an attribution then. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s been reported by multiple sources, so no. Call a spade a spade. Do not beat about the bush. Kleuske (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's clarification out of carefulness considering the problematic political situation of the region, with government propaganda, cherrypicking and historical negationism being widespread, not beating around the bush. The examples I linked earlier do not include words like "war crime" and "crimes against humanity", while those examples included massacres against civilians. The majority of news reports covering this incident have been either Azerbaijani government sources or those parroting them. Please assume the good faith of fellow Wikipedia editors. I've added the revised section now, feel free to modify it if it's still not clear/fair enough in your view. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED/WP:SPADE. If you have sources for war crimes, crimes against humanity and general massacres and do not report them, without beating about the bush, my assumptions of good faith go out the window. That, encyclopedically speaking, is evil. Kleuske (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've already explained how similar instances have been described similarly on other Nagorno-Karabakh articles - I would say my version was quite generous. Please stay civil, you've now reverted me twice justifying it by throwing around Wikipedia guidelines/essays. If you have a preferred version of your own - please take the time to present it, instead of reverting, be specific what needs to be done. The current version of the page that you revert back to is highly problematic to say the least. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction. You find it highly problematic, because you declared all news outlets of an entire country non-reliable. Reducing this (reported by multiple sources) to “some guy reported” is WP:WHITEWASHING. If you did the same in other articles, that’s “highly problematic”. Kleuske (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not said that all Azerbaijani sources/news sources are unreliable. What is problematic is content from propagandistic nationalist sites or sites parroting them [6] You still have not addressed the actual content of the article. Can you present a proposed version of your own? What specific part of WP:SOAPBOX (which WP:WHITEWASHING redirects to) are you referring to? AntonSamuel (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El C: Hey, I was wondering if you could perhaps help out here? I've made two attempts to improve the article Edilli [7] [8], from the current revision [9] - in October a large amount of material about mass graves was added, mostly sourced using Azerbaijani government sources or those parroting them. I used a report published in Israel Hayom as a replacement and trimmed down the section. Kleuske reverted my edits calling my attempts "encyclopedically evil" pointing to WP:NOTCENSORED/WP:SPADE and WP:WHITEWASHING (which redirects to WP:SOAPBOX), and that he does not hold my edits in good faith as you can see above. Am I totally off here? I certainly don't intend to whitewash and I think I've explained myself clearly. If you don't have the time to look at this, could you perhaps point me in the right direction? AntonSamuel (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, start by raising your concerns on the article talk page where they belong—an article talk page that at the time of my writing this has never been used before—rather than tucked away on a user talk page. Don't PvP it; PvE it. That's something to keep in mind beyond this one specific incident.

Because, generally, when an admin sees a user engage another about a content dispute they're having, but sees them doing so only on that user's talk page (narrow forum) rather than on the respective article talk page (wider forum), that'll always make them go hmm. And, of course, doubly so when said article talk page is a blank page.

Which tbh should be rather elementary for a veteran editor (so, hmm). Anyway, I wish you both success in resolving the matter amicably, which hopefully, a wider forum will assist in (i.e. by bringing in other editors). If it concerns primarily the reliability of certain sources, you may also try WP:RSN. HTH. El_C 09:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El C: I didn't have any specific intention regarding the choice of venue, I don't mind raising the issue on the article talk page, though WP:WHITEWASHING seemed to be an odd justification as the only justification for a revert in the edit summary, so perhaps I thought it was more an issue to be hashed out directly adressing the other editor. Sometimes it's the other way around - I've heard calls of "taking it to the user talk page" if the conversation gets too long for example. You don't have any further input on any of the other points I've raised? AntonSamuel (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AntonSamuel, it's not too long when it's blank. Anyway, wider light is better, also for (quantum) optics. I'm not sure what the purported WP:WHITEWASHING is about. I haven't read the above discussion. It's too long and I just can't spare the time, sorry. El_C 09:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El C: Ok thanks, I'll post a proposal on the article talk page then instead, and will look for input from another admin regarding this issue if needed. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, if you could provide a more detailed explanation of why you are removing the "List of Exmor sensors" section that'd be great. There's no other list like this on the internet and it's a great resource when you need to look up specs of a sensor and what phones they are used in. To me it doesn't seem like there's a good reason for this to be removed. Clearly others think so also as they keep reverting it. Gamesrule 0 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gamesrule 0: It is an excsssive list of product details of interest only to a small group of developers and not much outside of that. In short, it's WP:FANCRUFT. Wikipedia is anencyclopedia, not a free website to host self compiled, humongous lists of obscure sensors. The Website of Sony would be an appropriateplace for that. I suggest you take it up with them. Kleuske (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those arguments are not valid for every entry you deleted, even by your own admission. Removing information indiscriminately is akin to vandalism. LSeww (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LSeww: There's a discussion on WP:ANI concerning just that. Maybe you should take that opinion there and see what others think about that. In the mean time, please read WP:VANDAL and WP:NPA. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yea I don't buy your reasoning for deleting this list when there's plenty of other lists like this. What about all the lists of Intel, AMD, or other processors, camera sensors from other manufactures, and other chips. I'm sure there's plenty of other lists out there that have nothing to do with technology and are just as obscure as this and are still up. There's no actual reason for this Exmor list to be removed besides it being your opinion that it should be removed. This page does not match the definition of what should be deleted as Fancruft under the "Policy relating to fancruft" section. Gamesrule 0 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't give a hoot about what you buy or not. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for some reason why. Kleuske (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you tagged an article for A7 [10] just one minute after creation. Doing so is strongly discouraged, especially for certain criteria such as A7, as the creator might still be actively working on the page and such a hasty tagging could be perceived as a WP:BITE. In general, unless a page is patent nonsense (G1), vandalism (G3), attack (G10), or copyvio (G12), it's often appropriate to wait at least 10–15 minutes, and sometimes at least an hour, before adding a speedy deletion tag. They might very well improve the page such that it no longer qualifies for A7 during this time, and won't be discouraged from doing so. Cheers, ^Complex/_Rational 15:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ComplexRational: It does not take 15 minutes to read two sentences and fifteen minutes later I will have forgotten about this. We have (A7) for a reason. Also please elucidate on the policy you are citing here, since none come to mind. Inquiring minds want to know. Kleuske (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This practice is outlined at WP:New pages patrol#Care: Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense for deletion shortly after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor. Outside these exceptions, articles less than an hour old should not be nominated for deletion, blanked and redirected or moved to draftspace. We do have A7 for a reason – to bypass AfD/PROD for articles about subjects that have no credible claim of significance and probably can't be improved to a point that such a hypothetical AfD might close with a keep (e.g., one's own vanity page, or an "article" someone writes about their pet). ^Complex/_Rational 15:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok.

A) I'm not a new page reviewer.

B) That's not a policy or guideline.

Kleuske (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello- You provided some information to me about proper posting and conflict of interest and reverted the postings I made back to the original. However, the "sports bra" page is missing information that has been there for a long time. I'm not sure who first added it, but the line is:

'"The first commercially available sports bra was the "Free Swing Tennis Bra" introduced by Glamorise Foundations, Inc. in 1975."'

Could this please be added back to the posting as it was before I made any changes? Thanks for your help! Sremo44 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done And please do not post boldface. It's not cute. Kleuske (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I wanted to leave you a note about why I declined the U5 on User:DutchTB. U5 was recently revised in this edit as a result of this discussion. The key part of U5 at issue is that it requires that the editor have "few or no edits outside of user pages". DutchTB has 26 edits outside userspace here on EN, and quite a few on other projects such as nl and commons.

That said, that userpage is concerning, and more concerning is the comments he made about it which, if we take them at face value, indicate an inappropriate ownership attitude and an admission that the content is "not related to the purpose Wikipedia serves" (although I'm wondering if that's an error due to missing words or language barriers).

I did do a bit of a search to see if Tom de Beer is a real person who ran in the 2022 Municipal Council Elections in Laarbeek or not, and I couldn't find any confirmation, but given I was searching English language media I'm not surprised.

At any rate, I would suggest you consider taking the page to WP:MFD, as it may need discussion by the broader community. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stand corrected, apologies to @DutchTB:. I done screwed up, as the saying goes. Kleuske (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the damn text, Kleuske, before replying. read it all. Grrr. well, MfD it will be. Kleuske (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ONUnicorn: I checked. he is local politician, who really was a candidate in local elections. Nowhere near notable, but still, WP:BLP applies. Kleuske (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that I didn't write it in a equal or third person perspective but the sources i gave where pretty much reliable.. It was his own youtube page....okay i could understand the reddit part not being reliable, But the youtube page were Floppyboppy (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Floppyboppy:

Your sources were:

• The youtube video of "DougDoug" buying a bunny-suit
• A Reddit thread,adding no further details
• A report by ABC10, which is inaccessible to me.

In what universe do those support the statement "This should show that one of dougs fans are either god or prophets"? Inquiring minds want to know. Kleuske (talk)

well can you put everything back except the god part Floppyboppy (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Everything is essentially unsourced. WP:V, WP:BLP. Kleuske (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please have a look at the Chekavar page as well, there's a lot of paragraphs there saying that they were:

A "warrior surname", "exceptionally talented martial artists", "they were a warrior caste who fought for their rulers", "formed the army of the Chera Empire", "During the British rule, seeing their chivalric fighting skills which can be attributed to their Chekavar lineages," etc.

Seems like many unsourced sentences there, kindly remove these to improve the article.

Warm regards TheWanderer9 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheWanderer9: Do you think I'm here to cater to you? Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was only a friendly request from one user to another to improve the article, since you had taken the effort of reading all of the sources attached to both articles. No need to take it personally, paper tiger. TheWanderer9 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read up on WP:NPA and stay away from my talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have an Wikipedia account. I already downloaded Wikipedia app. I have approx. 250 EDITS on wikipedia. I am "logged on" in wikipedia mobile app, I wanted to create a page but I was having some trouble editing in the app, so when I tried to log in to create some pages in the web browser, I got a warning in red letters above, so I read it. I went to log out of my account in the app, but in no time I got a message that I have been blocked. I am innocent, now you say that my only mistake was to help create a Wikipedia page. I already sent an appeal for unblock.

Help me Kleuske! Akashkumar39 (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kleuske! As per your suggestion on my talk page within the welcome message, I decided to turn to you for help. A month ago (more or less) I created a draft dedicated to Dario Scannapieco, the CEO of Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (here), starting from the translation of the existing Italian article. I was wondering if you could give me an opinion, whether it would be okay or what needs to be improved. I would like to do everything I can to improve the draft and to be fully compliant with Wikipedia rules, since I have a conflict of interest with the topic. Thanks in advance! Silvifan (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see that you reverted some of my edits on the Bending Spoons page because of WP:PROMO. While I could improve on this edit, yesterday's diff is merely an updated on outdated company information, and not promotional by any means. I'd work on the edits to fix them, and revert to this version in the meantime if you're fine with it. What do you think? FarewellTransmission (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your contributions to that article are promotional. I also think that "company missions" with a generic blurb of the CEO have no place in an encyclopedia and that even non-relevant "awards" should at least be sourced. And last but not least, I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a product catalog. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there,

I have been attempting to update the page for Sense Scotland as I had noticed the information is out of date. Would you possibly be able to proofread this and publish if you agree with the changes? You can find the draft here.

Apologies, I am new to editing on Wikipedia so I may not be using the right process to request this.

GabeWiki2023 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GabeWiki2023: Given your edit summary, you are a WP:PAID editor, with a obvious conflict of interest, which is "not done" on Wikipedia. For good reason I might add. On the plus side, you reverted yourself and avoided being blocked as an undisclosed paid editor. Which I appreciate. However, I am about to go out, and won't be available for the rest of the day. I suggest you discuss the shortcomings of the article and suggest improvements on the talk-page, which is the appropriate procedure. Good luck. Kleuske (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dear, you have undone my edits about malegaon, as there is no reliable source as per your decision, no worries i just wanted to add missing info so i have added the data, i was born and brought up in malegaon and i am also owner of malegaon live news channel (https://malegaonlive.com) so i think i have better knowledge of city. anyways its all up to you ! thanks Jayyogeshpagare (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jayyogeshpagare: Opening with "dear" does not bode well. I am mrs. Kleuske to you. Verifiability is not some rule, but a core policy of Wikipedia, one of the Five Pillars on which the project was founded. If you cannot cite any sources, do not add claims to Wikipedia. I do not care what websites you manage. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mrs kleuske, till the time you told me i was unaware about you, your gender etc. you might be unaware that while interacting with anyone in india we use the same word which reflects respect and value in it.

may be you learnt something bad from the word Dear, its problem with the education we both received at different places. no worries i am taking my word back and also exits from this talk page Jayyogeshpagare (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-Indians-call-people-Dear Jayyogeshpagare (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you don't understand that addressing complete strangers as "dear" is condescending AF, we do have a difference in education. Kleuske (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kleuske

I would like to ask, if you don't mind, why you undid my revert in the above named article. A simple and quick analysis of the cited sourced shows two of them, Curta and Madgearu do not say what the editor claimed they said, and a third one, Transylvania and the Hungarian-Romanian problem it's not even written by the author the editor claimed. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aristeus01: You claimed WP:NPOV violations, I saw none that were obvious and suggested you, CriticKende and OrionNimrod discuss thing on the appropriate talk-page.

The edit-history of that article is atrocious. All I see is nationalistic POV-pushing and there's no serious attempt, from any side, to come to some reasonable compromise on the talk-page.. The three of you are involved in a slow burning edit-war and I'm seriously tempted to take this to an appropriate forum. Kleuske (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kleuske. I'd like to note that I never deleted anything that was sourced, and I added a lot of non-controversial material to the article (mostly that). I only interjected into a divisive topic when only one side's position was displayed, then I added the other side. When there was a debate I mostly conceded, as can be seen in the Chronicle of Venice and Magna Vlachia. He did not take a counter-opinion. I hope you understand that. CriticKende (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps I was inaccurate with the reasons for my revert. I opened another discussion on the talk page, yet I do not have high hopes in reaching a consensus, nor do I want to participate in a soapbox debate. I'll stop editing that article and articles where my edits are contested by the two users and let other editors express their opinion.

Thanks for the reply. Aristeus01 (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CriticKende: I do not give a rats ass about the content of the article or your dispute. If the three of you are unable or unwilling to reach some sort of sensible compromise I will take this to an appropriate forum. Kleuske (talk)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Exmor".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

— AP 499D25 (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors § Inclusion of prices in the tables. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there! I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing in general, and was browsing Bruno Peres' page, and noticed the link to his FIFA stats is down, so just updated that to a new link, and thought the small paragraph about his FIFA card was a nice addition so went ahead and added it to a few more players. All of them were reverted so I assume I did something wrong. Just wanted to reach out and check what it was so that I can work on it in the future. Thanks! Andyabihaidar (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyabihaidar: These are real, living people, not assets in some stupid video game (WP:BLP). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a resource for aforementioned stupid video game. Kleuske (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Geniac. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ruthika, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Geniac (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am trying to update his biography. You are constantly undoing it without any particular reason. May I know what's wrong with it? StallinEditor (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@StallinEditor: You added more promo to an already promotional article. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view, which this hagiography definitely lacks. Given your persinstance, I would urge you to read WP:COI and WP:PAID. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have gone through WP:BOLP and others which you mentioned. Pretty sure following neutral point of view. Not sure what about raising a round or building a community comes under promo. These are facts nothing more. I will need time to mentioned about Hike messenger was closed; this is just a starting point. StallinEditor (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure you did not. Under Mittal's leadership, RGU has grown to include a community of over 3.9 million gamers and has distributed over $251 million in winnings annually. That's WP:PROMO. Kleuske (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kleuske, I'm MichaelBotts. I tried to edit the history of the Kirtland Temple on the list of temples, including a reference. Why was this deleted? The present reference to the Kirtland Temple implies that the temple belongs to the LDS church, although the temple is owned and operated by the Community of Christ. MichaelBotts (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MichaelBotts: Because it was unreferenced. If you think you did, then please point it out. Vague remarks on the TP do not count as actual references, BTW. You have now included one, albeit not a very good or accessible one. Kleuske (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s like playing whack a mole on that page. He is notable enough to warrant one, but he’s treating it like his personal resume. Talk page notices have been ignored.Afheather (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Afheather: I noticed. I sure hope nobody leaks this to Reddit or somesuch. might damage his reputation. Here on Wikipedia at some point this should end up on one of the drama-boards. My gut says WP:NLT will be invoked at some point. Call it a hunch. Kleuske (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Afheather: reviewing the whole matter, I took it to AN/I. Just a heads up. Kleuske (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. I am never quite sure if something warrants that approach so I tend to avoid it. Afheather (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not keen on reporting myself, but it's good you can. And this is, without even the merest hint of a shadow of a smidgen of doubt "chronic and intractable". Kleuske (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And disruptive to boot. Kleuske (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know who this Ryanitlov person is, but they're adding that stuff back in with no references. Either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Afheather (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is AIV on you watchlist? How did you know i did that? 208.184.20.249 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All your edits are public. Just don't do it again. Kleuske (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Westlake High School (Texas), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kyle Adams and Scott Spann. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kleuske,

We are Youngsters wanting to bring work of good NGOs in limelight. This NGO is doing remarkable work and this article is written after visiting their workshops and seeing their work as a neutral person. 

If you just point out the words or sentences which you feel is a misrepresentation or 'marketing', we can remove that text.

You have removed the entire work without any explanation. 

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards, 

Saurabh SDhivar (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SDhivar: That's WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. However noble your cause, do not promote it on Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are not promoting. Just stating the facts. SDhivar (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what everyone claims. Kleuske (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“Don’t take your organs to the heaven for God know they are needed here” is promotion and it's far from the only example I could cite. I wish the NGO all kinds of success, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. Kleuske (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are ready to cooperate with you. Will immediately remove this statement SDhivar (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please let me know what sentences to remove. SDhivar (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You want to know what you can get away with? That's not how it works. The page is on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on it. Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, we will do the edits which will not be promotional in nature, and you can review again. Thanks SDhivar (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For example, in the reference there is a source numbered 3: mid-day.com/news/2004/jan/74640.htm which is not available. The current page does not have complete details regarding the organization and is not organized properly. SDhivar (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I think there may be a mistake. As mentioned in the note I left explaining my edit, I have directly quoted John Maus' joint words, from his own website. The source is therefore impeccable.

John Maus is a political philosophy post graduate, so has an informed political vocabulary. Him going to the trouble of listing 'progressives' as something he is 'against' is revealing, as the term is well defined and highly relevant to contemporary political debate. Many people are indeed against progressives and progressivism, and the partiality here is his, not mine. I was not displaying bias by pointing out this stated view of his, but was being helpful. This is because John M has been somewhat opaque about his political leanings over time, which is of interest, hence the topic already constitutes a subsection of the wikipage.

Very happy to discuss this further. Am not clear how I have displayed a biased point of view (and wonder if my motives could be being confused with the political partiality John M has displayed). Am genuinely not clear how I have infringed any Wikipedia policy, so would appreciate clarification and to know whether & how you still think the edit wasn’t in order. Cheers, Enlightenment fan.

Enlightenment fan (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Enlightenment: You gave your own interpretation of some unattributed quote and hence violated three core policies on Wikipedia: verifiability, original reasearch and a neutral point of view. Moreover, since this is a biography of a living person and the edit is contentious there's little to discuss. Either you cite a reliable source stating that or forget it. Wikipedia is not a platform for political opinions.

P.S. I strongly urge you to read the articles i linked. They are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am aware Wikipedia has policies. I just don’t understand how my edit failed to adhere to any of them, so would be grateful if you could engage with me and show how it has (rather than assert it).

I did not cite an unreliable source but an impeccable one – joint comment by the person in question, John Maus, and his long-time music collaborator, Ariel Pink, from their joint website ‘Demonstration Bootleg'. As noted when I originally explained my edit, ‘Demonstration Bootleg’ used to be John Maus and Ariel Pink's own record label and was relaunched as their joint merchandise website in 2020. (Should you have any lingering doubt, John Maus’s twitter account promoted the website as his and Ariel Pink’s at the time: https://twitter.com/JOHNMAUS/status/1334969899605581825. Tweets of his from this account are referred to elsewhere on the Wikipedia page).

My interpretation of his comment simply displays understanding of what the words mean. I put no spin or slant on them. Contrary to your suggestion, I also did not display any political opinion of my own whatsoever.

While of interest, I don’t consider the comment to be contentious given the person in question and their co-author are already known to be Donald Trump supporters (indeed, their comment is in keeping with that). Furthermore, it is incorrect to suggest a contentious edit about a living person can’t be made. They can, we just must make sure such edits are correct and well sourced. While I don’t think the edit is contentious, directly and fairly quoting a person in question, from their own joint website, clearly is a reliable source.

Again, I am wondering if you are overly concerned because the topic is political but, if so, I don’t understand why you should specifically object to my edit given there is already a subsection on the John Maus Wikipedia page about his political beliefs. Again, if you don’t like John Maus’ comment, then your complaint is with him, not me.

As shown, my edit is verifiable, from a direct and published source, and it displayed a neutral point of view. I have not displayed any personal political views and have not promoted anybody else’s, but merely highlighted someone’s because they are a matter of existing interest.

If you still don’t agree, then please explain how Wikipedia policies have been infringed and not just list them. For example, can you explain:

- how the comment from the famous person in question, on their own website, is not a reliable source;

- why their comment about politics shouldn’t be taken at face value when it a topic 1) they have a thorough understanding of (John Maus has a PHd in political philosophy) and 2) when the comment is consistent with other political stances they hold. Enlightenment fan (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You post a link to some merch, draw conclusions from it in the edit summary. The link to the merch itself is WP:UNDUE, Your comments in the edit summary violate the rest of the policies I mentioned. Posting this wall of text (TL;DR) on my talkpage seems to indicate WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a possible WP:CIR issue. If you have a reliable source supporting any political leaning, you can add it (citing that source). Until that time, just don't. Kleuske (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To paraphrase myself from another page: You found a link, you drew conclusions from that, which you then posted here. That is the very definition of WP:OR. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip website and not a political platform. Kleuske (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not at all gossiping, refusing to get the point, or lacking in competence – please stop making this needlessly personal.

Nor am I quoting ‘some merch’. I am quoting from a list of things the famous person in question has decided to put in the public domain about what they’re ‘for’ and ‘against’. Much of the list is religious, philosophical in nature, and esoteric, but it is also political. I am quoting the political insight because it’s a topic 1) the Wikipedia page and thus others are already interested in and 2) to provide greater clarity, as there has been some uncertainly around the person's politics. Uncertainly and the evolution of their beliefs are presumably reasons why the famous person decided to upload their list.

More importantly, Wikipedia defines original research as ‘… material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.’ I have directly quoted the famous person and not some throw away comment, but from a written list they have decided to publish. This is simply not my original research, but from “the horse’s mouth”.

As I have shown, the website I have quoted is in fact a reliable published source. I am afraid in this instance you have got the wrong end of the stick, which we call all do occasionally. Enlightenment fan (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A merch website is not a WP:RS for anything. Your addition lent WP:UNDUE weight to some merch, you drawing conclusions from it (in the edit summary) is textbook WP:OR and a violation of WP:BLP. Your whining continued complaints here about not getting your way is a prime example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and makes me wonder if you are incompetent or just plain WP:POVPUSHING. If you disagree, report me to WP:AN/I and see what other experienced wikipedians think. Now for the love of gawd, sod off and stop wasting my time. Kleuske (talk)

...Pmnedus criticized your writing style. It took it upon myself to reply that in the face of obtuse persistance, "Just stop it" was a valid comment. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@David notMD: Thanks. He's nothing if not persistent. My WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE concerns are growing. Kleuske (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I'm adding is from the transcript of the source. 94.66.59.9 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@94.66.59.9: Write that in the edit summary. That's why we have them. Kleuske (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies. My favourite site, Fragrantica, which I used for refs, has a little section called "great deals at EBay" which I tend to overlook (since it's Ebay, not Fragrantica itself). After a little argue, I was told there is an issue with that and therefore, my edits looked as some kind of promotion. I accept that point. I am going to revert my edits only to carve away unnecessary links for modern fragnances - and leave Fragrantica entries for older, mostly discontinued fragnances like Fumee or 1937 feminine Old Spice. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do appreciate you candor. Kleuske (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks and best wishes. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

You removed most of my edits to sections Significance and Relativity in the page Electromagnetic tensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor#Significance).

Those were nothing but generalizations of math already available in page Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations_in_curved_spacetime#Electromagnetic_field).

Elementary math of covariant differentiation means that one of Maxwell's laws in tensor notation is always homogeneous (${\displaystyle \equiv 0}$).

I think that it is very important to draw a conclusion here. Physically, that means that the classic (not quantized) EM field theory leaves no room for magnetic monopoles or currents of such to act as sources of the field. That is because the EM tensor is an exterior derivative of the EM four-potential.

I recall my high-shool teacher saying that the classic Maxwell equations written in terms of 3-vectors permit non-zero density of magnetic monopoles and non-zero current density of those, but we haven't found such experimentally (yet).

Four-tensor formulation and the nature of the EM four-tensor guarantees that there cannot be magnetic monopoles or currents of such.

Another important remark that I had added was that the expression relating the EM tensor to the EM four-potential is preserved in curved spacetime (the covariant derivatives are reduced to partial derivatives as in the Minkovskian case, yet the expression transforms as an absolute four-tensor). That means that the components of the curved spacetime (the connection coefficient terms from the covariant derivatives that cancel each other) do not affect the values of the EM tensor; those are defined solely by the underlying four-potential field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.yordanov (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yordanov: In that case, I strongly suggest you leave some note to that effect in the edit summary, instead of assuming the average reader will immediately grasp a bunch of unreferenced math (MOS:JARGON). Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a physics textbook.

Moreover, WP:Verifiability requires your contribution be verifiable and demands a source, if only to show this is mainstream physics and not WP:Original research. Your solemn pledge it is not, will sadly not do. Kleuske (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reported the user for their username just thought you should know the username is part of an LTA pattern: WP:LTA/HOY. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lavalizard101: I'll keep an eye out. I should pay more attention to LTA's. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

You have reverted most of the edits I have made over the last month or so. The information that I had updated the Marina Centre page can be retrieved from the official government agency website responsible for zoning in Singapore.

As such, I would like to reup my edits on the Wikipedia page. Please let me know what the issue was for the edits to be reverted. Placemaker joshua (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had edited the introduction section keeping the wikipedia guidelines on puffery and neutrality in mind but I see that any changes I do you only undo the efforts without any explanation. What is the point on having a wikipedia page when it is not allowed to add relevent information as time progresses. I feel this is more of a personal attack and has nothing to do with the credibility of the information that I add. I am unable to find any common ground for discussion on the way I add information. If you could elaborate on what is going wrong here... SDhivar (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Narmada Kidney Foundation, established in 1993 by Dr. Bharat V Shah and Dr. Mita Shah in Mumbai, is dedicated to educating people about kidney disease prevention and providing support to patients. The foundation, named after its founder's mother, Narmadaben Shah, has conducted numerous prevention camps and educational programs, and has published educational materials. Additionally, they provide subsidized medicines and promote cadaver transplantation. Over the years, the foundation has positively impacted the lives of thousands of kidney patients by raising awareness and offering essential support. "Life shared, life lived" is the Foundation's guiding principle

Apart from words like numerous prevention camps and phrases like 'Over the years', where is the fault line? For the last sentence - "Life shared, life lived" is the Foundation's guiding principle, I had added the citation to this quote as well, which was taken from their official website, which adhers to citation guidelines. Any introduction section is supposed to be an summary of the details that is presented after it, which quantifies the sentences in the introduction section. SDhivar (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SDhivar: You did not cite any sources (WP:V) and your edits were promotional (WP:NPOV/WP:NOT). Kleuske (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

citation for the sentence - "Life shared, life lived" is the Foundation's guiding principle is the following - About Us | Narmada Kidney Foundation which I had added in the citations. SDhivar (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That leaves the promotional bit. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kleuske. This was mistakenly posted at the Commons Help Desk, and it appears to be related to a ((welcome-coi)) template you added to the OP's English Wikipedia talk page about a month ago. Just notifying you as a courtesy just in case you want to follow up with the OP on their user talk page. My guess is that the OP hadn't logged in until yesterday, perhaps to add another photo to Commons, and only then saw your post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, please consider switching to the new Move To Draft script. It is fork of the script that you are using, but has some bug fixes, important warnings, and some feature enhancements. Happy editing! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why was edit removed? WillLikesScience (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WillLikesScience: Wikipedia requires a source. It's explained in the welcome template I added to your talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My error! thank you for clarification. WillLikesScience (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. We all started out as noobs. Kleuske (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I did a ton of editing on Energy medicine including adding a lot of government sources and citations, and you delete these in favor of one or two sentences you favored. Is that worth reverting over 3,000 words? There was a whole lot I did to that page and I ask for this to be reviewed. Also, I did not delete the "pseudoscience claptrap." I added more to it actually and added more citations to the proper section. Please stop being so hasty to annihilate a substantive edit in its entirety. Be respectful, please. DivineReality (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well... There's WP:V, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE... Your pseudoscientific claptrap just does not meet the standards Wikipedia has. Kleuske (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not my pseudoscientific claptrap. So let's be careful who you attribute things to, as if this entire topic is my own personal idea. No, sir. I like what you cited - it backs up my position and refutes your own self, actually, if you have the humility to simply accept it. What I did was not say "this is 100% valid science." Rather, I made it more nuanced based on, like WP:MEDRS says, secondary sources in favor of primary sources. The refutations cite a lot of primary sources. What I did was simply use secondary sources in the header and moved the refutations to a more concise place in the article. That is all, good sir. Let's not get personal in our attacks here - you sound like you have a personal vendetta to so quickly accuse me, on such a personal level, of "your pseuodoscientific claptrap." I hold a Bsc in Nutrition and I am a healthcare professional myself, just so you know. So be careful just throwing stuff around. Do you have any professional healthcare education? Have you done hospital rotations? No? Then be more respectful, that is all.

So what did I do? Literally verbatim what the guidelines are:

"Avoid primary sources[edit source]

Per the Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, articles need to be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. "

Government websites are secondary or tertiary sources.

Another heading:

Summarize scientific consensus

Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in scholarly monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported.

This is verbatim what I did, and for people like you who may object, I still included it under a refutation heading which is excellent work I think. I used multiple government sources from multiple Western countries. These are high-quality tertiary sources, are they not? Is the AMA not a high-quality source? So please undo your erasure of this, my work leaves the article in far higher quality and standards than it was prior to this. Thank you and be more respectful and get yourself more informed on the very guidelines you yourself cited. Read through this entirely, read my citations, and read the citations I moved, and do the math sir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS DivineReality (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The pseudoscientific claptrap you added (or, rather, tried to add) to the encyclopedia is your pseudoscientific claptrap. No walls of text will change that. Kleuske (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the 1930/31 football season. I could cite the evidence from Everton's club history sources, but this is easily verifiable because every season has had its final tables published on Wikipedia. I don't mind including a source, but isn't there a policy about LEADCITE? Hope a Dope a Rope (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hope a Dope a Rope: Please do. See WP:Citing sources for a quick guide on how to do it. Kleuske (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just done it. Hope it better conforms to standards now. Hope a Dope a Rope (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much better. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Why are you draftifying (Draft:Martha Tracy Owler) an article on a notable woman journalist that I just started? Please revert yourself. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosiestep: I did not delete the article, I moved it to draft space, so you can work on it in peace. I did so because you copied a Wikisource article verbatim. The article I moved lacked a neutral tone, included irrelevant details (her liking to play on the attic as a child) and generally was not written like an encyclopedic article. In short, it's not ready for Wikipedia main space. Kleuske (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the ((in use)) template before you moved it. I can work on it in peace in mainspace. It is common practice that when an editor includes a large piece of PD content in an article, that they place it unchanged in the subject article before they edit it. I would have started editing it at minute #4, but you moved it at minute #3. Please WP:AGF. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi sorry for that just I want to know why you change my edit in the us state of oregon. I just want to add land borders. Neonbanana (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kleuske wikipedia black lists links to Kickstarter campaigns. So not sure how I’m supposed to source his collection on over $25,000.00 and failed to produce a book or return money. Here is one of the photographers posting about her disappointment in Anthony and his failure to return the money to all of the pet parents. 📸 Look at this post on Facebook https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02GMsD6eh6mhMFq8foWRD65ma9cH9vtfKDnVLUQKMxBrNbhfQYu1GZpToUnxrZcQPql&id=645017438&mibextid=xXumFJ Dogsarebetterthanpeople (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dogsarebetterthanpeople: You're supposed to find a reliable source. If you cannnot find a reliable source, leave it alone, it's not suited for Wikipedia. Before you ask, Facebook isn't a reliable source either. Also, you've been at it for some time, it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a reliable source. I paid him money on the Kickstarter. I know one of the photographers that shot pics and wasn’t paid. Everyone needs to know about this because he is still collecting money on his personal page for this nonexistent book. Kickstarter url can’t be added to Wikipedia. I won’t let this go. He is a crook and a thief! Dogsarebetterthanpeople (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

www.kickstarter.com/projects/1412511573/canine-couture-book-by-anthony-rubio Dogsarebetterthanpeople (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dogsarebetterthanpeople: Sorry. That's still not a reliable source. Kleuske (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I linked his very own Kickstarter campaign and his personal website where he is still collecting money for a non existent book. Over $25,000 collected just on the kickstarter alone. Please do tell what you consider a reliable source? Dogsarebetterthanpeople (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's bad, but kickstarter is still not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. There are venues that specialize in than kind of thing, but Wikipedia is not one of them. As to what does constitute a WP:RS, read the &@(&#$! article. Kleuske (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Kleuske

You banned my topic about KushScan - mobile app that recognizes weed by photo. There are a lot of references on independent sources regarding KushScan in my article. What should I fix so you accept the article? Yulika13 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yulika13: First off, I did not ban anyone or anything. I did, however, requested speedy deletion under CSD G11, that is, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Kleuske (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before publishing the article I have read all Wikipedia rules. The article is not an advertisement etc and it follows Wikipedia rules and contains a lot of links to external independent sources. How should I change the article so you do not delete it? Yulika13 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yulika13: The deleting adming does not seem to agree on that. First off, show notability by citing reliable sources, independent for the subject giving significant coverage of the product. Some product reviews in stoner mags won't do. Then write about it neutrally, avoiding making unsourced claims (such as, "this product actually works"). Personally, being a software developer, I'd take bets that product cannot distinguish between kush and kale, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try it and debunk your doubts!) Yulika13 (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, thanks. Kleuske (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]