• An editing respite
• Something useful: If you haven't tried it, microwave an ear of corn for four minutes, with the husk left on. If two ears, double it to eight minutes. You'll see what I mean when you peel off the husk and eat the thing. You'll thank me later.
• Now you know: Saverland v Newton
• Remembering five of the last eight Earthlings to travel to the Moon, four of whom were murdered soon after their return.
• Maybe my best geek edit: A five cushion bank shot italicizing Star Trek and Buffy the Vampire Slayer links on Wikipedia's Klingon language page.
• An IP upon realizing that birds are dinosaurs, and a related edit to honor our dinosaur brothers and sisters.
• Write on!: Don't kick the Ouija board, which may result in Hillary v. Gandhi, Obama, et al..
• An IP's inadvertent poetically sexist edit, which they quickly corrected
• Perhaps my best one-word edit
• A sci-fi short story plot (dibs)

. . .Veiled Christ, a statue in Naples, Italy, depicting a knobbly-kneed Christ in the tomb, maybe click the image two or three times to enlarge it. This almost unbelievable 1753 sculpture ("how'd he do that?"), carved from one piece of marble, has one of the only two Wikipedia article's which has to prove, with sources, that the topic was not the work of an alchemist (the second, Anatomical machines, exhibited at the same site). Step right up, and don't miss the modern looking couch, the two pillows with tassels, or the crown of thorns and other torture things down by the feet. All of that carved from the same block of marble. Then literally a few steps away from Veiled Christ sits another "how'd he do that?" piece also carved from a single block of marble (or created by alchemy).

Watching Secretariat's 1973 American Triple Crown races in order while knowing these things: 1) that his trainer and jockey finally realized, before the last race, that their horse could run at full speed from start to finish, and 2) although being drastically held back in his first two runs, Secretariat still holds the fastest time in all three Triple Crown races. An added keep-in-mind bonus: Sham, the horse that Secretariat trashed like a dancing bear in the Kentucky Derby, still holds the Derby record for the second fastest time.

Here's the Kentucky Derby...holds him back...holds him wayyyy back, then the Preakness...holds him back, holds him back, and finally...the Belmont "he is moving like a tre-men-dous machine".

• My nom for Best romantic edit, edit per topic, edit per user name, edit by a single-edit user, and the winner of the 2017 "Shakespearean dramatic romantic tragic tale in six words" Heisman

• p.s., July 7, 2022: an IP proposes marriage on the same page, the probable winner of the first category above. Wikipedians have a romantic side, even the bots, so nobody reverted. I finally did after two hours with a note saying it should be enough time, and wished the editor luck (I now wish I'd waited to see how long it would last). If an honest proposal, possibly unique (does anyone know of a previous proposal on Wikipedia, and on such a good page for it?). Fictionalized, it would make a fine film scene - Hallmark, are you listening? - although that would require that the page be forever protected as, like love locks on a bridge spanning the Seine in Paris, people would emulate it.

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

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

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

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Barnstar of Diligence to you. They called him Marius (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Book 4. Since you had some involvement with the Book 4 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm curious why you decide to remove some of the ((More citations needed)) tags from these pages since a lot of them still have quite a few unsourced entries. Ionmars10 (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ionmars10, hello as well. The tags I removed were from articles which already had dozens of references, and in some cases over a hundred (one had 172 references). These tags seemed to be put on solely because some information in them wasn't cited. Others were from pages which asked for more references with tags from 2009 or earlier and where references had been added since. Almost every one of the six million articles on English Wikipedia could arguably be tagged with a morecites needed tag. When a page already is well cited, especially list pages such as these which hopefully have page watchers who patrol for vandals, spammers, and incorrect entries, they seem to deserve a noncluttered introduction. A page by page decision as to when to tag for morecites does of course help the encyclopedia, yet pages with 40, 70, 80, or 172 references have enough, in some editors opinions. At some point we have to trust that the overall page is fine and doesn't need the large top-tags even though, in some cases, individual in-text facts have citationneeded tags. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cat#Big cats a thing of the past? was turning into a hairy situation, and I don't want to see people claw at each other, nor have this dispute mewling away into archival before it's been settled. I've tried to lure some attention to the discussion via a cross-post at WT:FELIDS. Hopefully more editors will pounce on the issue (though not on each other).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring the catnip (which, by the way, effects only 2/3rds of cats, valerian picks up lots of the rest. never knew that until about a year and a half ago). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you removed the hatnote. Hatnotes are to help readers navigate. They aren't only for articles with related topics. In this case, the titles differ by only one letter; someone could easily wind up there by hitting the wrong letter on the keyboard. I only revised the existing hatnote, so evidently I wasn't the only one to think so. But if you want to ask for input on the talk page or somewhere else, I have no objections. Have a good day! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote was to a speech nicknamed Sermon on the Mound, obviously a pun on the name. But I don't think there's a Wikipedia policy to hatnote every item that's one letter off, or a pun of a title. Thanks for letting me know that the edit has been questioned. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a policy one way or the other. WP:HATNOTE says they're for assisting the reader. I really have no strong feelings about this, but I do see where the person who inserted it was coming from. What do you think about asking for input at the article talk? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm fine with it not being a hatnote, although you can ask for more input on the talk page. A pun on a name doesn't have to be included as a hatnote. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey my friend, just fyi... Redirect: [[Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument 2.0]] doesn't work anymore. So please omit the colon, as in Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument 2.0. Thank you for your service ;>)  Paine  14:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paine, I've always used the colon for redirects so will keep this in mind. The bots keep moving the goalposts! Randy Kryn (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bug report awhile back, and until the bug was fixed, a colon was necessary. Bug's been fixed, so a colon is no longer necessary, and in fact, a colon can cause problems, for example, this particular colon caused a malformed move request at Talk:Statue of Edward Snowden#Requested move 16 February 2020. That was about a nine on my Weird-Shit-o-meter. Best to you! PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Randy... sorry I have been a stranger lately. I even missed the just prior move discussion. I've just had my worst health year ever—from the terrifying to the ridiculous—but evidently no lasting harm (the ridiculous was gout-I thought that was limited to Henry VIII, Dr. Johnson, and Hogarth's works). Anyway, could you poke me if I miss any changes at this article? — It really, really ought to be rewritten to a decent level while Lewis is still with us, and that would go a long way preventing the article being cluelessly jerked around. Thanks. (Today's NYT has a very good article with lots of graphs that shows how shockingly many republicans believe SARS Covid19 is a hoax—and why! Stay safe. — Neonorange (Phil) 01:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and will keep watch of the page. Hoping all is well now. The RM at John Lewis has been well served by your comments, that's a primary title waiting to happen but not everyone sees it that way. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could go into more detail on my scares, but why bother? Even had my health problems not disappeared, they would seem trivial in this pandemic.

Good health and an elbow-bump to you. — Neonorange (Phil) 18:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the image of the goat and the statement that goats synthesize 13,300 mg/day daily, and more when stressed (from a 1973 article not available on line), implies that humans should consume far more than the 45-90 mg/day recommended by various government organizations, and more when stressed. Even if the goat information is true, it turns out that goats maintain a serum concentration barely double the norm for humans (information I recently added to the article). And there are few if any evidences that humans increasing vitamin C intake in times of stress (ill defined) gain any health benefit. David notMD (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[for accidental page lurkers, this is about an edit at Vitamin C concerning an existing image and caption] I'm not a doctor either, but from research and experience I'd say that humans should consume much, much more than the 45-90 mgs. daily recommended for humans, and have personally taken a 1,000 mg. tablet three or four times a day every day since February, 1995. I'd suggest that the image and caption of a goat on the page be replaced with one of a zoo-captive chimpanzee or gorilla. The caption would include the governmental requirement for supplemental daily ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) for captive or kept primates. Last time I looked, quite awhile ago, was that zoos had to supplement their captive primates with an average human-weight equivalent of 3,400 mgs. a day. If you'd like to do a little research, please check to see what the government requirement is now. Thanks. [to accidental lurkers, this discussion references the fact that primates cannot create ascorbic acid in their bodies, unlike almost 100% of all other animals, insects, plants, and other life forms, whose bodies' make and process it continuously] Randy Kryn (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - My PhD is from MIT in Nutritional Biochemistry, with a minor in Human Nutrition. I will search for information on primate nutrition and primate serum vitamin C. David notMD (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duly accidentally noted. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bee hummingbird. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Why would you enter "smallest dinosaur" on this page? Try to be more constructive, and use WP:SCIRS sources. Zefr (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Zefr. Almost lol (just smiling out loud). The edit in the text that I made said that the bee hummingbird is the smallest known dinosaur. Which is true. Where is the disruptive context of the edit? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• p.s. The reversal. Maybe give more thought to tossing up warning templates per much ado about nothing, and consider giving a shout out to a talk page discussion instead. Warning templates presented by one editor to another should mean something serious, so please, when you are about to give your next few to ignorant users like myself, maybe think about it just before the habit takes hold again. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a WP:SCIRS review where an expert(s) says a hummingbird is a dinosaur, then I'll gladly revert and apologize. --Zefr (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bird article and Dinosaur article, among many others, call birds avian dinosaurs, with many references. Wikipedia's descriptor for extinct dinosaurs is non-avian dinosaur. If you'd want to dispute those encyclopedic definitions then I'd think a full RfC would be needed. Whatever you decide, there is certainly no need for an apology, especially since you acted in good faith which, by Wikipedian courtesy, we assume of each other until shown otherwise. All I'm saying above is that templating other editors might be better thought out and rare (but since I've never used one on anybody, I must assume good faith that you thought I should be templated, so all is well). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zefr. Wondering if you checked out the bird and dinosaur articles to ascertain if birds are considered dinosaurs or not? If so, and if birds actually do have that dino magic, since the revert has waited almost four world-gone-crazy months it can wait a bit longer. Thanks, and I hope all is well. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, I was wondering if you could help be out with this page; am struggling to create in bound links outside of "see also"'s on specific graveyard articles. As well, am not sure that I have gotten the categorizations right. Hope all is well for you in this bizarre new world. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil. Yikes, thanks for the Halloween-in-April article request. Will take a further look, but won't offer much help with this one, let the bones lay in shallow graves for now. Thanks for the hope, and to you as well. Yes, an odd time, and doing okay so far. I've got a loner friend who says he's "been practicing for this his whole life." When in Boston in November myself and another Wikipedian actually went into one of these old cemeteries (don't know its name, up a hill from one of the old churches near the harbor), small but evidently packed. Didn't stay long, as it was a cold rainy day, but many of the gravestones looked like the images in your article. And thanks for thinking of me (please give me a happier assignment too). On a quick look I did see a book title needing italics (not surprising, have done so many of them my brain picks them out of the pattern automatically). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s., can't think of any outside links you or other editors haven't caught. The page is very well written and educational, a good (although kind of creepy and skully) addition to Wikipedia's sculpture collection. by the way, loved your article-unused image. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take your non overhaul as a sign that havnt done anything disastrous or likely to put me in prison. Re old cemeteries, once all this is over, myself and the mrs are planning to take a week in Maine, this is my alternative motive, there seems to be the bones of a very interesting article there. In fact myself and wifey basically fell in love in that very yard. ps, looking above It seems we have similar musical tastes. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, will reply tomorrow, but just wanted to ask, shouldn't the page be included in the sculpture categories? These things are sculptures, right, mostly reliefs? I think it is a sculpture article. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think sculpture might be pushing it, although yes they are reliefs. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Johnbod if he has a view re sculpture. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American sculpture certainly! I suppose Category:Outdoor sculptures in the United States too. Then there's the "public art" tree, which doesn't seem to talk to the sculpture tree. Good to see you're keeping cheerful! Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Txs John and Randy, added now. re cheerful: am a ray of sunshine as always!, although frankly I find this stuff uplifting. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good work by yourself and others on the page the last couple of days. It reads easily and informatively. Remaining puritans will applaud. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, in your recent edit to Gospel of Luke (which I have no problems with in itself), you broke a sentence into two, and in the process created a sentence without a source citation. Please be careful to make new cite tags so that every statement continues to be identified. (God I sound pompous, sorry). Achar Sva (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good advice, and for the simple, concise, and heartfelt prayer (Luke would have used it in his book if Jesus had said it). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After publishing the new link for First Unitarian Church of Rochester (building) on the Louis Kahn template, I decided to test it from an article that used the template. Arrrgh, it didn't work! It turns out that I had absent-mindedly tested it from First Unitarian Church of Rochester (building) article itself, and of course it wasn't happy with the idea of linking to itself. It works, naturally, from other articles that use the Louis Kahn template. Thanks for handling that situation so quickly, and thanks for the kind words. Bilpen (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2019, appears that User:Mholowchak, first editing as User:2601:5c6:8200:980:ed50:f43a:cc4f:cccd, made a bunch of edits to Jefferson Bible, increasing the length of the article by 1/3 and referencing... himself (his published books on the topic). I know nothing about Jefferson, but am willing to believe that Holowchak is adding his own original (albeit published) research, which does not match mainstream historian content. Elsewhere, Holowchak has been reverted for adding his own thoughts into other Jefferson articles. See the Self-citation comment at User talk:Mholowchak. And added his 15 Jefferson books to Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks. I removed one paragraph and points that seemed out of context, but I'm not a Jefferson expert. Maybe you can copy your comment to the Thomas Jefferson talk page which will get a better look from editors who have studied the material. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda!, and a nice shiny object to mull over. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in the past you took interest in the veganism and vegetarianism template and made good edits. I have proposed a new WikiProject if you are interested. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Psychologist Guy, I don't like to commit to joining things on Wikipedia, makes it seem way too much like work. But I'll keep the project on my watchlist and probably think of at least joining at some point. Thanks for creating such an important WikiProject, I see it has lots of support. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I wanted to make sure you saw my proposed updates to the Sulzberger article here. I know not all editors receive ping notifications, so I thought I'd follow up here before seeking help elsewhere such as WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Journalism. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inkian Jason, I did see them but would rather have more eyes on the edits for your next round of suggested edits. Thanks for your dedication to your work. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for confirming so quickly. I will seek help at WikiProject Journalism. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, do you have any experience with German Wikipedia? I have been in denial about it for well over a decade, but it does function like a Prussian monarchy, with a queen at its head. It is a very strange place, especially since that queen's antics do not work at all in the real world. A simulacrum. Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was just playing at Jonbod's page because of your comment. Since you had some trouble there and seem to still carry emotion over it, and seem proficient in English, German Wikpedia's loss is English Wikipedia's gain! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Have a nice evening or morning, depending on your timezone! --Edelseider (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Timezone? It's already August where I am. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Lewis (civil rights leader), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a happy occasion, thank you King of Hearts, and for your own work on the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, I very much appreciate your edits on my page William Woodward! I am new to Wikipedia and I was hoping you could shed some light on the review process of drafts. If you have a moment, I would love to know if there is anything I can do on the page that will improve it's chances of a speedier review. It appears that you are a long-time Wikipedian and well versed in a variety of topics ... any suggestions or help would be brilliant. Thanks and hope you're having a lovely day! Best, EArvaWeb (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He EArvaWeb. I really don't know much about the draft review process, and haven't used it. Nice work by the way, always good to see new visual arts pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, thank you for the compliment about my work on comet NEOWISE. -- Kheider (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Kheider. Lots of readers benefited from your work (haven't checked in a few days, but a bit ago the page was getting 60,000 to 80,000 views a day). Last night was the last for me for this comet, saw it seven nights but yesterday, even with pretty good binoculars, could hardly see it. Even Heaven's Gate wouldn't follow this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I have a question. Regarding navboxes like Template: Great Lakes Megalopolis which relied on a source to decide what belongs there. If editors don't want it placed on certain articles linked. then what do I do? Is it better off deleted? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First I've heard of the term, and the template just seems to list all the big cities in a huge area of North America covered by the term (and I suppose the template could include every city, river, hill, nook, and cranny in-between). Seems much too broad a topic to include the template on all of those articles, at least I wouldn't place it on them. Besides, it's above my pay grade (i.e. the quarter I found at a wikiconference once). Thanks for asking. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me joining this discussion. Unfortunately, User talk:Jhenderson777 has been edit warring to keep this template in articles, despite at least three editors reverting the edit. I have therefor started a discussion about this at Talk:Detroit#New navbox: Great Lakes Megalopolis in the hope of gaining a consensus to have the navbox removed from the many, many articles it has been added to. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I haven't edit warred. they are still off the page bro! I undid once and did not break any three revert rule. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's your template. I thought you were asking me if it should be removed from the pages. But as I said, it's a topic I've never heard of so am not the best person to enter the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC),[reply]

Understood. sorry about not being that clear. I don't want it removed though editors are removing it in certain links. Also now it's on deletion discussion. BTW I ask because you seem to be an expert on navboxes. That is all! :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for collaborating on the art list! Wm335td (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very kind of you. It's your page, I just put a few things in here, and I hope the list shapes up well. There's a few things on it I haven't heard of, so thanks for the education. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, Bevel does not need to have a title in all these articles. Simply citing sources and describing what he did is sufficient. We don't do that for anyone else. 23:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy. Please talk page it (this was about an edit reversion on the Edmund Pettus Bridge page). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

added: several more pages edited to remove, and then revert, the extremely basic Bevel information in each article. One of those I've since self-reverted. So please pick one of those to discuss what you have in mind, I'd suggest the civil rights movement talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were adding this template to several articles I have worked on. Perhaps also include American Indian Movement and Occupation of Alcatraz? I get that Alcatraz was an "event" but it sparked a resurgence of Native pride and cultural reclamation, thus more like a movement in actual evaluation. Just a suggestion, if you think it has merit. SusunW (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SusunW. Added the American Indian Movement in the movement section (good idea, thanks). Most of the 'movement' listings would have associated event articles, so the Alcatraz occupation as a stand-alone entry on the page would be an exception. A large 'Associated events' section remains a possible option that would have to include all of the movement activities (civil rights, anti-war, etc.) which would redefine the scope and size of the template. I added the template to pages after noticing it wasn't as yet distributed, and included a few additional entries to the already created template. Thanks for your good work in the topic areas. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your explanation makes perfect sense. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was hoping maybe you can help me with this. I started the article on Earth to Ned earlier today and I don't know how to get the title of the article italicized. I also inadvertently capitalized the middle word To -- can you lower case that, please? Thanks! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There ye go, and a nice page. It's now at the lower-cased title. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (I didn't realize it was that simple -- I thought I needed special admin powers, etc.) Have a great day/night! :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-da! (it's all smoke and mirrors). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and forth a few times on that, found multiple examples of news articles spelling it either way, and no close up pictures. Your revert got me looking again - and finally found a clear close up picture of the plaque on the statue, showing... (line 1) Martin Luther King, Jr. (line 2) Prophet for Peace. I should have dug harder earlier today. Thanks for making the change. Jmg38 (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jmg38, and thanks for looking deeper to find the image, which (if applicable) could be used on the page. An interesting plaque. Then again, I'm one of the advocates for using real names of artworks as Wikipedia titles, and there would be support for removing the comma from the statue's actual name (although I still can't understand why real names of artworks are often discouraged). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(barnstar removed by recipient)

NGUYENPHUONGBIMH (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar appreciated. Alas, I must return it to the photon universe from whence it came, as I am not an administrator. It's a compliment to be recognized for something, so thank you very much. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, it's been awhile since we've been in touch and even longer since I last helped edit Widipedia articles on the Civil Rights Movement. I've been devoting all my time to current political crises and building up the Civil Rights Movement Archive (formerly Civil Rights Movement Veterans) which we've now incorporated as a nonprofit.

I thought it appropriate and long-since overdue for a Wikipedia article about the CRMA -- particularly because we are cited as a reference source in a number of Wiki articles. I drafted an article, but it was rejected by the Wikipedia editors because of the conflict of interest policy against posting articles about your own organizations. Though I accept the validity of the policy in principle, I have to wonder about all the articles on 3rd-rate TV shows, obscure novelists, small businesses, and so on. I was wondering if you would be interested in posting an article on the CRMA? If so, I could provide you my draft which you could edit as you wish, or use as-is, or do an article from scratch.

In any case, thanks, and thanks too for all your work in preserving the Freedom Movement in Wikipedia pages.

Brucehartford (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Brucehartford, just saw this and moved it here. Please post a link to the draft page here and on the talk page of the Wikiproject, I'll take a look at it for sure and probably others will. It's an important topic. I hope you and yours are well, and your projects enjoy smooth sailing. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Randy Kryn. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.BunbunYU (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has taken awhile, but I finally have an answer and a source for your Dustin Hoffman question: "Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman also visited the courtroom soon after Midnight Cowboy had opened. They deliberately sat in the back of the spectator section rather than out on the front benches where the guests who had been specially invited by the defendants, prosecutors, or the judge would sit. They didn't want to possibly distract the jurors in case they were recognized. In our brief conversations with them, they were reticent in their opinions about how they thought the trial was going or how it might end, but they were entranced by our efforts to resist the government in the courtroom." Weiner, Lee. (2020) Conspiracy To Riot, Belt Publishing, p. 83. Cheers! Beccaynr (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, thanks. I've been set to answer this but then I saw you editing the Chicago Seven page...and editing...and editing, and didn't want to interrupt that flow in the slightest. Thanks for your work there. So when I interviewed Dustin Hoffman for my college paper in the elevator and outside the courthouse Jon Voight may have been standing right there. Good to know, and not too observant of me as a journalist (I had seen Midnight Cowboy by that time as I asked Hoffman why both his major films ended with him sitting in the back of a bus, and he said it was coincidence) and nice to see that Lee Weiner published a recent book. Your dedication to the editing project and assuring that the correct information, written in a coherent and interesting way, defines Wikipedia's page on the subject. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours, and your lurkers and theirs, even to unbelievers of Poppyism and/or Christianity, the power of a newer freer Hulk compels all to walk with each other in perfect harmony! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a happy holiday season to you as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without a reliable source as a reference are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd added the 1972 Apollo 16 Moon landing to the April 21 article. This was the fifth manned mission of mankind's historic six Moon landings, and is the only Apollo Moon landing not listed by date. There seem to be hundreds of entries on the April 21 page, yet only 13 references. And "Almost all new additions..." doesn't mean "All new additions", and the change you point to is an essay. I'll add it back with sources later, but it seemed fine due to common sense and ignore all rules. Thanks for being diligent, and sources will be added, but there exist exceptions to everything and this one did seems to be a prime textbook example of WP:IAR. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, worked out better, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The SPFLT Achievement Patch
		Thanks for working with Project Spaceflight! Neopeius (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neopeius, thank you very much, and thanks for your fine work on Spaceflight before 1951 and other spaceflight pages. I consider myself lucky to edit, no matter how slight, such articles. In the flow of human history the fact that space exploration came so soon after the flights of the Wright Brothers, and then such a thing as Wikipedia showed up to chronicle the ongoing deeds (many in real time), reminds us that "it steam-engines when it's steam engine time". Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! If you ever want to join me down in the bowels of the 1960s, I'd be happy to have the company. :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I have a different Wikipedia style. You did well asking for help at the Spaceflight project. Enjoy the '60s. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a year of peace, I find it very disturbing that you are returning to a pattern of making patently false claims at WP:RMs that various expressions are proper names when they absolutely do not meet any definition of that term, much less one that we use on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the game Snakes and Ladders, where page sources use upper case, search engine results show upper case and proper name board games, and others in the RM describe it as a proper name. Please continue the discussion there not here, and read up on civil discourse on Wikipedia and assuming good faith. Assuming good faith on your part, and upsetting you so much at Christmastime, I suggest making snow angels and giving them names. I call mine the Angel of the Presence, and provide it with ginger bread to make snow cookies for the neighborhood. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to follow up on this over here (said some of this elsewhere, but it should be said here too). I do apologize for the tone. I gave some additional thought to "any definition of", and re-reading various materials on this, to fact-check myself, realized that some of the philosophy approaches to proper names might actually consider this a proper name, in a clear enough context, though without any implications for capitalization (since the philosophy sense isn't orthographic). Your !vote, one other's in this vein in the same RM, and a related comment by a third editor at another page were what most immediately led to the WP:PNPN essay (though some of the threads indicating we needed such a page go back to the mid-2000s). I think it might help over the long haul. The frustrations so many have had (regardless which views they hold) in "is/isn't a proper name" discussions primarily appear to be the product of commingling linguistics and philosophy senses of proper name. It reminds me a bit of "is/isn't a secondary source" debates WP had early on, before writing its own definition, because the meaning of secondary source sharply conflicts in several fields. These arguments still pop up from time to time (especially when an editor is a lawyer or some one else used to a specialized definition of the term), but the arguments no longer drag out now that we have a page showing which definition is meaningful on WP and why (and the reasons to prefer secondary ones, in that sense, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for my barnstar. I really appreciate it! Fieryninja (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome Fieryninja, and thank you. Well deserved. In all these years nobody has written the article Dove, one of Picasso's two or three most important contributions to the cause of peace. Wikipedia and Picasso's legacy are the better for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful sentiment and painting, thank you (those magi sure get around). And the best of years to you and yours. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Nice link, and thank you for the thought. I hope your Christmas is a joyous one. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Holiday Cheer!
	To Randy Kryn, best wishes to you and yours for a holiday season filled with light and a happy & healthy 2021. Ewulp (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will take your best and kind wishes, and offer the same in return. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fieryninja (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Very cool. Thanks for the kind words, and back to you. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2021 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated but heartfelt thank you Modernist, and love and kindness from you to you, appreciated. Saw the Tom Hanks film on Mr. Rogers this week, and anyone seeing that can't help but hike their kindness up a notch or two on automatic pilot. It's always good to see one of your new creations, or well thought out revision, emerge on a template or on my watchlist. Your overall contribution to human knowledge, in the world of art and otherwise, is one of Wikipedia's genuine treasures. Happiest for the coming year to you. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Elmer Schofield, Across the River (1904), Carnegie Museum of Art.		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2021.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oneupsmanship: This painting turned the friendly rivalry between Edward Redfield and Elmer Schofield into a feud. Schofield was a frequent houseguest at Redfield's farm, upstream from New Hope, Pennsylvania, and the two would go out painting together, competing to capture the better view. Redfield served on the jury for the 1904 Annual Exhibition of the Carnegie Institute; at which, despite Redfield's opposition, Across the River was awarded the Gold Medal and $1,500 prize. It was not until a 1963 interview that the 93-year-old Redfield revealed the painting as the cause of the 40-year feud between them. Schofield may have painted it in England, but a blindsided Redfield knew that it was a view of the Delaware River, from his own front yard!

	To Randy Kryn!
	Wishing you, your family and friends the most fabulous holiday season ever, filled with health, wealth and wisdom for 2021 and far beyond. Coldcreation (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, no one leave me antique hotties.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While not denying that watercolours can be significant works of art in their own right, museums and auction houses (Sotheby's, Christies's, etc.) tend to classify all works on paper (Drawings, watercolours, prints) in the one category separate from paintings on canvas or panel. Hochithecreator (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For instance, here's the Van Gogh Museum with an Arles watercolour placed in their drawings section https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/d0431V1962 Hochithecreator (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Hochithecreator, have answered you at the discussion page (for my page lurker, my cousin down where I buy my Wikipedia supplies, this is about template placement for watercolor paintings, should they be listed as paintings or as a form of 'Other'). Happy New Year's to you. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After responding at the glossary, I explored your userspace a bit and... just wanted to express my appreciation for that link. "[H]ow'd he do that?" indeed; breathtaking. If I ever visit Naples, I know one place I need to visit. For some reason it makes me think of Giuseppe Arcimboldo work, so different, not sure why, something to do with catching the eye with the extremely startling and unusual.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit, and it's nice to share such a masterpiece. Because of your note I checked the pages out and saw that the full-statue image wasn't on the Cappella Sansevero page and popped it on there. A nice collab result. It's be interesting to see the statue in person, and from all angles, sides, and lighting. That alchemist sure was some wonder-worker. Arcimboldo's work is captivating, like a modern-memist creating memes. The art world seems endless in terms of exploring and appreciations, glad that humans have the functional motivations and abilities to flow outward in stone and oils in such ways. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. found the image on the right at Commons, the file reads "1744 Corradini Christus im Leichentuch The Veiled Christ anagoria". Don't know what context this 1744 work has with the finished statue, and if it's a semi-accurate portrayal of the final work then the image on the page is missing the entire bottom (but the height compared with the people in the image seems to show it low the ground already). Interesting. Thanks for putting my attention on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An accidental collaboration! The world would quite a boring place without geniuses like this (and, to betray a bias, birds, and their calls^ⓘ). That image maybe should be added to Antonio Corradini, although, this one is already on display there. Apparently, per this source, Giuseppe Sanmartino and Corradini were both commissioned by Raimondo di Sangro to make works for his family chapel, Corradini was the first to make a Veiled Christ, made 36 of them, and Sanmartino's work was modeled on his.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a very good source containing interesting and detailed information. Quite awhile ago I tried several times to make a locally-zooed cucaburra laugh, with no success. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to check this problem out [1]?...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh. Canterbury Tail talk 21:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. Hope you are doing well. Jonathunder (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks - you're one of the editors that I always seek out to see their recent creations. You're such a witty writer. I'll be doing some more Fluxus and Yoko stuff soon! No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks No Swan So Fine. Your newest (Revenge dress) is a Princess Di page fit for a King. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the name of Landeszeitung der Deutschen in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien has been a while LandesEcho: landesecho.cz. Please, correct the name in the article. --2001:999:20:E969:5915:168C:5EAB:1105 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My edits on the page were to add italics and move External links, so I don't know about naming, and I don't usually click on websites I'm not familiar with. You can probably change it yourself actually. Wikipedia is yours as much as anyone's. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birds are not dinosaurs. This is a basic linguistic fact. You need to stop mis-categorizing fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read, or at least glance at - it just takes a few seconds each - Wikipedia articles Bird, Dinosaur, Size of dinosaurs, etc., and then come back to this discussion. It's a wonderful thing to know, that birds are dinosaurs, so congratulations on finding out about it. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are just plain wrong, and need to stop trying to impose your irregular use of the language on others. When people say dinosaur they do not mean bird, plain and simple.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you glance at those pages? If you think, as you've stated across three pages, that birds aren't dinosaurs, don't take it up here (although I do enjoy this topic) but on all of those pages (at least read them for ten seconds each? thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I have shown multiple reliable sources that clearly show that the scientific consensus is that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted. You are twisting words to mean things they do not in fact mean.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of your two sources says the opposite, that birds are dinosaurs and separates dinosaurs between avian and non-avian, as Wikipedia does. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A short, very basic presentation of this astonishing, to some, idea can be found at at this berkely.edu website "Dinosaurs are not extinct. Technically. Based on features of the skeleton, most people studying dinosaurs consider birds to be dinosaurs. This shocking realization makes even the smallest hummingbird a legitimate dinosaur. So rather than refer to "dinosaurs" and birds as discrete, separate groups, it is best to refer to the traditional, extinct animals as "non-avian dinosaurs" and birds as, well, birds, or "avian dinosaurs." It is incorrect to say that dinosaurs are extinct, because they have left living descendants in the form of cockatoos, cassowaries, and their pals — just like modern vertebrates are still vertebrates even though their Cambrian ancestors are long extinct." To argue otherwise does not conform with widely accepted evolutionary classifications. — Neonorange (Phil) 19:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's an informative read. And good to "see" you again. Yes, the sources concerning birds as dinosaurs are plentiful. Sometimes hard to believe though, probably because the standard media portrayal of dinosaurs just about hard wired that image into the mental picture of the universe of many generations of children and adults. So takes awhile to wrap your head around the fact that the dinosaurs who survived into present day were the small percentage of the then-existing bird species - the big bad almost got them all. Since lots of them worked their way through "the extinction" to become one of the most successful and adaptable animals (they live territorially almost everywhere), this information clashes with the societal and media-created built-in image. I enjoy seeing avian-dinosaurs outside, but if I talk to someone I'll usually use the word 'bird', the common name of the surviving dinosaurs. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs that garnered interesting comments. I also left this sign-up for the project: Anyone remember The World We Live In published in one volume illustrated in part with two, three panel gatefolds of a version of Zalinger's Yale Peabody Museum mural "The Age of Reptiles"? The book was published in 1955; I was eleven, and imprinted on Dinosaurs. I still have the book. I retired from electronic journalism and would like to contribute to this science-based project.

I hope you and yours are in good health, and that you've had your vaccinations. I'm in an HMO (Kaiser Permanente)—received my second Pfizer shot last week. Getting my took some work—I had to live 76 years!

The city of Atlanta is beginning to plant trees in Freedom Park (adjacent to John Lewis Freedom Parkway) in Lewis' honor, crape myrtle I think, from the description—to be an on-going project to fill the park.

Little known fact: the main material used to form wind-power generator blades is... balsa wood! According to the economist, 95% of balsa is produced in Ecuadorian indigenous areas. So... with renewable energy sources on the rise, demand for and consequently prices of balsa has tripled. Contractors move in and sign contracts with the local tribes to purchase trees and the hire locals to harvest the wood. And then... disappear with the logs, paying neither the wages or purchase price. Greed, graft, grim pandemics. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was also a dinosaur fan as a youngster, had some beloved books, toys, and made a beaten path to the library to take out or read more books. Seeing the progress that films made and are making in dinosaur special effects is really interesting. Then to find out that dinosaurs are right outside the door, and have niched themselves into every area of the world, that's the joy I mention when writing about the topic here. Your balsa wood mention, something I didn't know, and quite sad for the balsa wood forests (if any are left). I met Lewis several times, and was lucky (or made my own luck) in being in the first row behind him and on his right as he told his Edmund Pettus Bridge story at the apex of the bridge on Selma's 40th anniversary march. Lewis was a brave soul who was himself lucky enough (and made his own luck) to align himself early with other brave souls. Balsa wood and wind power, I just knew balsa wood as model airplane and boat material. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I just made an edit to John Lewis. The fourth graph of the lede used a awkward construction 'stood for injustices against other groups' verbatim from the source! A clue to consider another source! I removed two additional items from that graf since the level of detail indicated possible use in the text body. But even then, some nuance is required—prose, say, rather that quotes. I was going to work on a rewrite, but thought—why stay up late when I can poke Randy. Or you can leave suggestions that honor a B level article. I really think that 'stood up for injustices against other groups' had to come down since it reads as unintended vandalism! I hope! Thanks — Neonorange (Phil) 03:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

another beta function crashes — Neonorange (Phil) 03:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How the sentence reads at the moment seems too general and can just be taken out, doesn't really add specific information to the lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed you recently undid my edits to American Revolutionary War in which I removed what is likely a good faith attempt to majorly add to the article. I have no objection to the images themselves, but the headers and the captions to the images are written in a rather un-encyclopedic nature, in clunky languages, making uncited claims that might border on being opinions, and which in one case (Lafayette), is entirely misleading (The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was a French Revolution document written six years after America's Revolution had concluded, meaning it was not a document Lafayette was fighting for at the time of the American Revolution). Honestly, the whole deal feels like an amaturely written gallery you'd find in a High School presentation, or perhaps a children's history textbook. If you wish to maintain the images as they are, I highly encourage you or any other interested party to re-write the descriptions to be of a more neutral, encyclopedic, and grammatically correct nature. If not altered soon, I probably will remove the portrait images in the side galleries again, until they are ready to be added back with more professionally written descriptions, which can be worked on in your sandbox if you wish.

Thank you for your interest in this article

AvRand (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look at some of the captions at some point soon. Maybe this section should be moved to the article talk page so that more editors will check the captions out too. Thanks for following up on the edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying hard to resolve a complex question. I am disappointed that you chose to disrupt it. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? I iVoted and then you moved my comment. Disruption is in the eye of the beholder (or Eric Holder). For my cousin who lurks, this is about the requested move of the name Crusades. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no user who thinks that there shouldn’t be an article called Crusades. The question is what should be the scope of that article – just the Levantine Crusades, or every Christian Holy War? Depending on the answer, we then need an agreed name for the other topic (“Crusading” has consensus against it). Onceinawhile (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I iVoted for leaving 'Crusades' where it is, which you seem to think is disruptive. I didn't focus on an alternate name for the second, would be inclined to leave where it is as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I have been tasked to ask around for some contacts pertaining to Henry Ossawa Tanner. My employer has an Eakin's painting of Tanner and MacDowell as a portrait study when they were his students. It is one of Eakin's earliest portraits and a fantastic viewing of Henry Ossawa Tanner. Please respond with any information you may have on any organizations that would be interested in such a piece.

argod@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.185.4.93 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing of none, I say hello and acknowledge that your are thorough in your job. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sibling artists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, I'd go a bit easy here - I'm not sure the Venus de Milo really should be italicized. It isn't a conscious "title" by the artist, arguably more of a name, like manuscripts have. Murky waters. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod. The discussion at the statues talk page has been open coming up on a couple months with only three editors commenting, and it was the subject of a notice at the visual arts Wikiproject talk page. Agree that statues from antiquity are mixed when it comes to italics, seems the most well-known statues have been italicized, with this one being one of the last of the "greats" not to be (the originator of the discussion has some examples of off-Wiki italicization). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to correct "emits" at Talk:Crazy, Stupid, Love. It seems clear that you meant "omits". I thought about correcting it myself, but I don't want to give an impression of changing what other people say. — BarrelProof (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SOL (smiling out loud). Thanks for the catch BarrelProof, although I personally emit crazy, stupid, love. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added the flight dates and saw afterwards that you reverted that entry of Chinakpradhan with the remark "hasn't occurred yet". That is IMHO clear by the attribute "planned". Schrauber5 (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Schrauber5. The height and distance measurements added were quite exact, as if they had already occurred (the two flights already taken are listed above the entry for the third, and give actual measurements and not scheduled or planned estimates), and this misled me into checking if I'd missed the third flight. "Planned" is way over on the right, and corrects the misconception if someone glances at it but only after already being told the exact vertical and horizontal movements. Seems best to follow the ongoing consistency of adding those after the flights and not before. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. As far as I read the source this sequence is already or will be downloaded to the Rover. If only successful flights should be in the table the it should be divided and also the planned dates should not be in the same table. --Schrauber5 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would change the "distance moved" for the first flight to 0 m instead of N/A since that is the travelled lateral distance. Would that be o.k. for you? --Schrauber5 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but this conversation should be taking place on the article's talk page so other active article editors could comment. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for this? I'm not following... Aza24 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the star clusters were huge and annoying (at least on monobook), and using the ^ seems less obtrusive while still getting the point across. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that! Ironic thing is that when I created those pages about ten years ago, those were the names that I used. Then another editor changed them to the "1900-10" format, saying that was required by MOS. I preferred the full years, but I'm not very familiar with the MOS so didn't make a fuss. The wheel turns... :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, thank you for creating them, a much more important task. The wheel grinds on but those who created the wheel ride first (Confucius say). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joint project. Another editor did the amazing job of entering all that data, but did it all onto one page, which far exceeded recommended page lengths. I just broke them up into decades, and have been doing some curating from time to time, fixing OCR errors, etc. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian-style modesty. Nice work, and an interesting topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting. What's struck me as I work on it is how many of the cases were not major points of principle, developing the law, but just application of pretty standard areas of the law, particularly commercial law and debts. The role of an "apex court" has certainly changed since then. (And then there's the difficulty of explaining to American friends how a court in Britain could hear appeals from the Supreme Court of Canada...) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, interesting points. I've never done a full study of international law systems. Governments should bring back the pillory for all judicial systems, so everyone can go down to the public square and throw mud at the pillories. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please guide how to add audio of ingenuity flying on Mars to Wikimedia or Wikipedia https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/participate/sounds/?playlist=mars&item=mars-helicopter-flying&type=mars Can you guide or upload this file yourself Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chinakpradhan, wrong person to ask about something technical. Maybe my lurker (my cousin, where I buy my Wikipedia supplies) can help. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask him Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke, but I will ask one of Wikipedia's fine coding geniuses, Wbm1058, who can either do it with two hands tied behind Jimbo's back or would know someone who can. And seriously, thanks for wanting this uploaded, another important Mars first to come from the Mars2020 mission. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chinakpradhan: See Help:Upload. I think it's OK to upload NASA files (US government files) to Wikimedia commons. There is a category for them: commons:Category:Audio files by the Perseverance rover.

The first step is to download the file to your own computer, then upload it to Wikimedia commons from your computer. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i want to know the process of uploading on mobile edits, as i converted it into ogg file but it did not supported in commons, but thanks to tell the pc version and also i have uploaded it on wikipedia see this

it was not possible for me without your tips. thanks a lot. Chinakpradhan (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Memorial Tournament honorees has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. This is one of the major golf awards in terms of hall-of-fame type honors. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your first comment at Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests. You made a very good point v. Selma. I thought I would drop by and give you props. And ask what you thought about my !vote. Then realized I'd forgotten to hit [Publish] B^( I more or less with you—but came out for two articles—splitting the current into one mainly about the events leading up to the protests and the Tiananmen protests themselves, under the current name, the other about the government's reaction, under the name 1989 Chinese government reaction to Tiananmen protests. Once I recreate my initial !vote I will again drop in here. My reasoning is that to focus either on protest or on massacre in the same article gets into a political evaluation that really isn't part of Wikipedia's remit. And it plays into political views of the editors that are being attracted to the discussion (the account that requested the move has fewer than one hundred edits). Articles already exist covering segments of the events: People's Liberation Army at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Student and Government Dialogue during the 1989 Student Movement, April 27 demonstrations

, The Students' Hunger Strike of the 1989 Tiananmen Protests, ... (the current article length is nearly 50,000 words).

I've begun to get interested in working on documentaries again. During the pandemic I've collected enough gear to meet, and sometimes exceed, the quality of that I used for network TV news (at much less than the cost back in the day—much, much, less). Got any ideas? Or, rather, any ideas to eliminate from this currently target-rich environment. I've just come across a 45 minute doc on 16mm film that I haven't looked at for nearly fifty years. I no longer have the script, but it's possible to recreate if I digitize the work. — Neonorange (Phil) 17:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will get back to you soon in a few hours on this, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neonorange, food calls, so a fuller note at some point soon as I don't want to rush one, but you may want to comment on that RM now that editor "3 kids in a trenchcoat" (hmmmmmm) has made some clear points on the topic. Hopefully the proposed name change won't pass muster. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Documentaries are scarce or nonexistent on several major Civil Rights Movement figures, such as Bernard Lafayette, Fred Gray, and of course the over 50-year forgetting of James Bevel (an equal to Gandhi and King when it comes to contributions to 20th century societal changes and the use of nonviolence to achieve workable solutions). Do any of those, with extensive interviews with Lafayette and Gray, and you'll have advanced the accumulated record of the CRM considerably. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Randy, and sorry if the formatting looks odd, i don't usually edit like this. Well, the chimp that was many years ago, now there is a real (and very long and good-looking article Chimpanzee article in Wikipedia, so I have to delete my stub immediately. But well, I might come around here. Bye. That's Calypso. I don't remember how to sign. ---

Thought that counts. You were the first to write a Chimpanzee page on Wikipedia, which is cool, and the chimp part of my DNA thanks you Calypso! Randy Kryn (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this seems better but if we go down that path there are several articles more important within the postal system then FDCs. However adding them would likely overload the "Related" section which I think should be quite small. Surely something like cancellatons are a far more important part of the postal system, not mentioned as a component? Personally I'm for keeping these template succinct and focused. ww2censor (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ww2censor, thanks for the note. A few more additions for accuracy and close relationship to add completion to the topic seem fine, and cancellations does seem a necessary addition to 'Components' (please consider adding it, good find) rather than to stamp collecting. Cancellation does focus the topic, and is the last step just before mail delivery. Used to collect stamps as a young kid (and coins, and bottle tops, and for a stupid day or three calling cards - haven't thought about that one in awhile). Attended the Rosemont stamp show which apparently was quite the historic showing (has its own pedia page). Good times. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Philatelic exhibition seems like it would belong too but, as you mentioned, not too many more. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've removed Postmark and instead of adding cancellation, I've inserted Postal marking which incorporates both types of marks and others too. It is more encompassing. It's a pity gave up on the philately as it is so much more that stamps. Rosemont still exists but I never attended during my 25 years living in the US; I went to lots of East coast shows. I've been concentrating on Postal history for the last 40 years because it's so much more than just sticky labels. My oldest item is from the 1590s out of Prague. If you look at this user page and this category, you will see my wide range of interests. ww2censor (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ww2censor, bringing back some good memories. The 1986 Rosemont show was amazing for the well-known stamps that were there, wandered around for hours seeing everything I had read about in the hobby. Nice work, you've shared and given Wikipedia a great deal of material, and it still surprises me a bit that not more people entwined and personally encouraged by their interests aren't flocking to contribute to Wikipedia (thinking of art articles, the collection is already huge but there are so many art and art history students, museum curators, gallery owners and other art professionals who don't edit, or have never even thought of editing). Will read more of your pages and other topics in the hobby, and have done quite a few small edits on stamp pages from time to time. Stamps are pure artwork, and the overlap between designs for coins and stamps and other duplicated visual art topics could find further enhancement and connectivity on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your recent edit on List of Johnny Bravo episodes that modified the format of airdate years. You changed 1995–97 to 1995–1997 for example. Though you cited a WP page, you did not link it, and I have not easily found the policy you were referring to when you made that edit summary. If you could, please link it here for me. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paper Luigi, thanks for asking. MOS:DATERANGE covers it, and actually prefers that, in general use, all years be written in full: "Although non-abbreviated years are generally preferred..."). Nobody's asked before, and I usually just write "per w. style" for brevity. Have only edited consecutive years a few times, and Wikipedia as a site would have a mountain range of them. Maybe a bot could pull it off, not technical enough to know. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This category needs to be properly inserted into the category tree by adding parent categories to it. Skyerise (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How about 1912 Olympic champions? (added a few, thanks for the reminder)Randy Kryn (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From wbm1058 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, although my editing Wikipedia remains a conspiracy theory (Russian bot status confirmed by Arctic bots). Viva Las WikiVegas 2022. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing MOS:DATERANGE when you are moving the "year articles". But that MOS says two-digit ending years may be used with two consecutive years. Christian75 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christian75, welcome to my trailer down by the river. Here is the guideline for my pagewatcher cousin, where I get my Wikipedia supplies: "Although non-abbreviated years are generally preferred, two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; (2) infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column); and (3) in certain topic areas if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources. For consistency, avoid abbreviated year ranges when they would be used alongside non-abbreviated ranges within an article (or related pages, if in titles)." Although I did get a revert on a sports page move, which was my fault, using the full year on conflict and war pages follows the "generally preferred" language as well as the consistency-with-related-titles, where most of the consecutive years were fully written out before these recent moves. Seems the preferred use of full years in previous conflict and war articles works as reasoning for picking up the full-yearing of them all. I've done 1100 to present so far, with many more already having full consecutive years than what I've added. So many wars and conflicts, and amazing that Wikipedia writers have written all of these pages (getting a concise look at how often humans fought over the centuries by wading through these categories, how many roads must a man walk down etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Randy, let me reiterate what @Christian75: said above. The MOS permits two-digit years as the second of a consecutive range. Please do not move articles that already use that convention, unless there is a clear consensus to do so or a clear lack of consistency with a much larger set of related pages. Moving from one variant permitted by the MOS to another variant permitted by the MOS is rarely encouraged, and can cause considerable annoyance. I've just noticed that you've altered quite a few of these in the past month, and it's going to be a pain to go through and put them all back. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amakuru. No need to move any back, as the Mos mentions that "non-abbreviated years are generally preferred", then gets into two-digits that may be used (although not if similar titles use the full years, which they do) but does not mandate they be used. The ones I leave alone are sports years, which seem to have the two-digit formula, and I always edit the page links to link to the new titles (and have always left a redirect). Why you'd want to put them back is unclear, as they seem fine and, more importantly, in accordance with the preference stated in Mos especially when many other titles in the same subject area contain the full years (wars, conflicts, illnesses, etc.) Anywho, besides all of that, good to see you around and I hope you and yours are well and in the best of spirits. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, yes myself and the family are fine, thank you for asking... it's vacation time in my household, and we've been enjoying a week or two away from home which has come to seem like a rare thing in this day and age of repeated lockdowns! Re the two-digit years, the wording is written as you say it is, but that does not in itself IMHO constitute a reason to make large-scale page moves. The two digit format is not deprecated in any way for consecutive years, and many people (myself included) consider this to be a much more concise and readable way to represent such ranges. MOS:STYLERET is actually fairly clear on this point: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". As noted, if the page in question is one of a series, and is the only one using two-digit years, which might be the case for some of the military cases you mention above, then fine. But the weather pages you moved today were entirely consistent in using two digits for the second year, so all I'd ask is that you refrain from mass moving those or similar examples of consecutive years going forward, as you have already indicated is the case for sports articles. Or else propose the change in an RM somewhere to get proper consensus for it. Anyway, all the best to you, and I hope that you and yours are having a pleasant summer.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks :-)

Randy, if you were a novice editor you'd be getting a templated warning for this. Whatever the ins and outs of hatnoted infoboxes may be, it's not all right to break the 3RR rule. I've not reverted you for obvious reasons, but this is no way to behave. I think Satchidananda might roll over in his grave and say "chill, brother" or words to that general effect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article's name was changed without discussion and should be changed back, the same infobox title has been used for a long time (I haven't checked the complete history but what I've looked at the name used is Swami Satchidananda). As for Swami Satch rolling around in his grave talking to me, he'd probably laugh and say "Hi Randy". And in this case, as in others, the name Swami Satchidananda isn't an honorific but a job title. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you! But the real person to thank is Gildir! I may have started the List of Fictional Astronauts, but Gildir made it something to be proud of! --Roland 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And thank you for your creation, you both deserve credit for a fine and interesting page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, I thought that I had sent you a message about this two weeks ago when you reverted my edit and I am only now realizing that I failed to send it, so I apologize for the delay. Regarding articles like Wally Funk, the category "New Shepard astronauts" was added to it and others in recent weeks. However, the day of the Blue Origin NS-16, a change was made by the FAA to the requirements under the FAA ​Commercial Space Astronaut Wings program. (FAA Website link, PDF link) Commercial launch crewmembers must meet the new requirement under 5.c., "Demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety." As mentioned in the Record of Awards, the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation’s website will list all awards for the FAA Commercial Space Astronaut Wings program, which currently does not show those of the NS-16 program to have earned it. This could be due to a delay in processing, though there were no pending applications as of July 23rd.

Additionally, the FAA seems to consider only Bezos as an official member of the NS-16 crew. "The other passengers who joined Bezos on New Shepard—18-year-old Oliver Daemen, Bezos' brother, Mark, and 'Mercury 13' aviator Wally Funk—also don't qualify as being members of the spacecraft's crew, since the FAA defines that as employees or contractor's associated with a company involved in the spacecraft's launch." Therfore, I believe that the category currently should not exist as none of them have officially been awarded by the FAA Commercial Space Astronaut Wings program. At present, I prefer Category:New Shepard passengers ‎for those who were on NS-16, though I am open to another suggestion. A similar category can also be created for those who flew on Virgin Galactic Unity 22. Additionally, I believe it is okay for them to be added to Category:People who have flown in suborbital spaceflight and to Category:People in the space industry or a sub-category. If they or another employee qualify as a Commercial astronaut, then it should be okay to have them added to either Category:Blue Origin astronauts, Category:New Shepard astronauts, or both, depending on the situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Super Goku V. Can you maybe move this to the Wally Funk talk page, where more editors can join in. In defense of astronaut status for Funk, she was trained as an astronaut and then followed the rules to become one. The goalposts shifted under her in one country as she flew above it, and elsewhere she would probably be considered an astronaut. By the way, she had as much to do with her flight as Yuri Gagarin had to do with his (except for being responsible for a manual ejection from the capsule). I think the deciding factor here would be her astronaut training in the 1960s, which she used to finally become an astronaut. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could take the discussion there, but it might be better to discuss at WikiProject Spaceflight if you feel that more editors should join in. (As a question, do you want me to copy this whole discussion and paste it there or is there a better way to move a discussion? Or do you mean just write up a new comment linking to this one?) As for yuri Gagarin, it seems he is considered a Cosmonaut by the Soviet space program and is still considered to be one by Roscosmos. Based on my understanding of Astronaut#Other_terms and of the sources I provided, I don't believe that Funk is in the same situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice of venues and text, but maybe just leave it as is due to Funk's astronaut training in the early 1960s (which precedes the "Other terms" definition). Of course Gargarin was an astronaut, no one would dispute that, although he had nothing to do on his flight except sit in the capsule and eject when he approached land. But he was trained as an astronaut, like Funk. And, like Funk, his training would have given him options in case of an emergency. Funk was a passenger, yes, but if something had gone seriously wrong on her trip she would have been trained to handle it. That big difference seems to put her in the "1960s astronaut who finally launched" class. It's not her fault the technology allowed her to ride safely, Gargarin style. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda get your intent, but the categories have to be correct and this is a situation where they do not appear to be correct. Honestly, it doesn't matter how Gargarin's flight went so long as he met the definitions of being a cosmonaut by the Soviet space program. Same for Funk and the FAA (or another Awarding Body under US rules) where it appears that they have not met the definition of being an astronaut. That is why I am here seeing if there can be a reasonable compromise on this, if you think one is present. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just using Gargarin as an example of an astronaut who flew without participating in the space flight while in space, except for taking up space while sitting (floating) within the capsule. The category of New Shepard astronauts has particularity to New Shepard missions, and Wikipedia should be able to categorize space passengers under their programs even if they do not meet official U.S. astronaut status. Commercial astronauts have the qualifier as well, yet still retain a category. I haven't looked if the spaceflight wikiproject has decided this question, and the qualified-term categories seems to fall in the same status as SpaceX astronauts where all their space travelers are listed, even if commercial, because they have mission safety duties (Tom Cruise will become a SpaceX astronaut within a year or two if plans hold up). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up making a topic [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Question: How should the category "Commercial astronauts" and related categories be used?|here]] related to this one. The Inspiration4 mission ended up leaving me with additional questions, though I did briefly mention this discussion. If an answer isn't produced there that pertains to Wally Funk's article, then I plan to leave it as it is. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last comment, I guess it isn't clear enough at this time how categories like Category:Commercial astronauts should be defined. (Is it strict and only follows federal/national agencies like NASA, Roscosmos, and the FAA or is it a looser definition based more on those who pass the Kármán line or another boundary?) For now, I will wait and see. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for you edits here. I was looking for a Lafayette category and a template but was unable to find them. So, I also appreciate that you provided both as part of this series of edits. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, and thanks for putting up an interesting page. Maybe the Vowell book can be added as a 'See also' and visa versa. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that. Can you give me a link to the Vowell book article and I'll be glad to do both 'See also' sections.---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette in the Somewhat United States, which is a brief stub. Will add Lafayette's 1820s U.S. visits to that See also. I skimmed the book once but should give it a good read, have enjoyed Sarah Vowell's other books. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A walled garden needs a gateway, don't you think? Skyerise (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be proceeding productively. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure working with you. Skyerise (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you outrank me on the Grandmaster scale. LOL! I've got the years, but not the edits. Nice to meet another dedicated editor. Skyerise (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sculptures of Neptune has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. MClay1 (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Randy Kryn. Thank you for your recent messages on the ANI. They were eye-opening and helped me realise I was being too anti-collaborative and sectarian. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, ButterSlipper. From just a quick look at your talk page it seems that asking for a topic ban from the pages where editors have questioned your edits and motives seems reasonable. Nobody can force an edit onto a page, so you win some and lose some. Your major mistake was jumping into Wikipedia at controversial topics as a new editor, without learning some of the basics. If you can say, yes, give me a couple topic bans, and then take your editing energy, which is considerable, and improve the pages of your favorite movie, or of somewhere you've been and enjoyed, you just may get out of ANI with almost all of your editing powers intact. Wikipedia's scope is vast, and to learn how to sail it well you maybe should navigate less choppy waters while getting used to the ship. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Five pillars of Wikipedia? The fourth pillar, "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" covers lots of what ANI editors seem concerned about. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that stuff and I get the civility but I have not done a single personal attack. Yes I have used negative loaded language towards others' edits but I don't believe that qualifies as disrespect. Editors that have made such a long list of personally attacks deserve nothing but the bitter truth from me. Although if this complication sizzles over I will go on to less controversial, stale pages. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I hope it works out. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, can you please tell or find from someone, where was jared issacman born in jersey. I want to add him on Astronaut birthplaces by US state. no site says where in jersey he was born and this site needs specific town of birth. Chinakpradhan (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nuthin. His page says he grew up in New Jersey, so not clear if he was even born there. Thanks for being dedicated to finding such facts. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be interested in this requested move discussion. Skyerise (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy Kryn. Sincerely thank your time and efforts for this. It has been only few weeks I started submitting new articles in main section. I checked the procedure and this process was not mentioned. Regret for the inconvenience caused to you and will follow it in future. Thanking for your support and guidance. Gardenkur (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome Gardenkur, and nice to "meet" you along the Wikipedia trail. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added "and smallest known dinosaur" to the Bee hummingbird POTD blurb. Can you provide a citation from a reliable source to that fact in the article Bee hummingbird, otherwise I propose to remove the phrase. This is because there is pressure to only include cited facts from the article featured in the POTD blurb. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwmhiraeth, good point. Not sure of a source right now, although it's an implied fact (i.e. birds are dinosaurs, smallest known adult bird living or fossilized, and no smaller non-avian fossilized dinosaur has been discovered). Will search, and thanks for helping to bring the image and its associated subject to potd status. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Cwmhiraeth, and there are quite a few cites. Have added this one from Science News to the page, an interesting story which had to be retracted because the new find turned out to be a lizard with a birdlike head, but the article does confirm the bee hummingbird as the smallest known dinosaur. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have moved the citation from "See also" to the main body of text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where it surely belongs. Thank you for such consideration to accuracy. I would expect some editors to object, and interestingly they may object, as in the past, believing that it will confuse readers and thus should remain unsaid. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question Randy...caterory:Croziers or .caterory:Crozier or .caterory:Crosiers?? Context is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_crozier#Surving_examples - there are many and a view on naming the cat would be appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, I'd throw my hat in the ring for Croziers, per Category:Altarpieces and many others. Much more important is how good and full-coverage encyclopedic the article is. Nice page!, thanks once again for hitting a home run which greatly improves a topic's coverage on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sound again Randy, had been leaning that way also, but you know the minefield naming conventions can be. Croziers it is! Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A minefield crossed with a bottle of nice cold Croziers. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You edited my edits, saying "lowercased some of the subsections which needn't be uppercase". I haven't fooled with templates much so could you send a link for that. Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, some good edits there. I'm not sure what you mean. Subsections in templates seem to be usually sentence cased in my experience, proper names uppercased and most others (not all) lowercased. I don't know if there's a rule about it, but look at a few templates and that casing seems to hold up. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Editor2020 (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like I was too late to return to that talk page before discovering the move discussion has been closed.

Having a look at the mythology versions of both Ceres and Eris, it appears they both existed far sooner than when those Solar System objects were discovered. So I agree re your explanation on the "strong Nope..." response. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Iggy the Swan:. And thumbs up on your suggestion of moving 90377 Sedna if "dwarf planet" is added (now sounds like a phone number or zip code). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Let’s Go Brandon!. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 14#Let’s Go Brandon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that interested. I had just noticed it was redirected to a tangential page and instead directed it to the television interviewer who started the wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unlike films, musicals should not be designated by the year of their premiere or their country of premiere. Often the premiere is just a tryout. We say "X is a musical with music by A, lyrics by B and a book by C." Later in the Lead we discuss the dates and locations of the premiere and subsequent major productions. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Randy Kryn, thank you all for your compliments and the other thoughts you shared at WikiProject Visual Arts. I am very grateful to editors for the help so far, but I'm feeling a little lost with next steps to fix the issues flagged by the other editors and the banner at the top of the page. I've left a note on the Monique Péan Talk page with a suggestion for fixing the wording that one editor didn't like, and a link to confirm one of the details they didn't seem to be able to find. However, no-one has replied there. I left another message at the WikiProject and Another Believer said they'd help with the photo, but didn't reply about the other items. Of course, I understand if editors are busy elsewhere and not wanting to or able to help further! I'm just looking for help or pointers as to how to get these things sorted out. Would you be able to look at my reply on the Talk page or give any advice? KM for Monique Péan (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KM for Monique Péan, thanks for the follow-up. I've made a couple of the edits you suggested and worked a bit more on the article. Wikipedia is sometimes a quick place, and often slow as fossilized molasses. Volunteers tend to be volunteers, easily distracted by topic lineage and the newest controversy (i.e. how many pints of So Delicious equal in calories and deliciousness factor a pint of cow-parts iced cream), yet over time things seem to work out - the result of an interesting collaborative model. Any luck with getting a photo or two (one of the artist, maybe examples of her work) uploaded? Enjoy and, as I mention at the WikiProject page, if you have personal interests in a particular topic you seem a competent researcher and writer, so feel free to join in for a few minutes now and then (mostly then). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. The reason I opened up that RM, is because the Barbadian monarchy will be abolished on November 30, 2021. Assuming Elizabeth II will still be alive (and hasn't abdicated) by then? She'll have been the country's only monarch. Thus my reason for asking if the article should be re-named Queen of Barbados (after that monarchy is abolished), to bring it in line with the other 'former monarchy' articles, that had Elizabeth II as their 'only monarch'. Planning an RM for Monarchy of Fiji, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and happy black cat day in the US. Fiji has had other rulers in the lineage, so that one seems correctly named. The other should be renamed, but on December 1, and having its RM now seems crystal (although if nothing changes that may be a noncontroversial move). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fijian monarchy article 'could' be split. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above my pay grade (I once found a quarter at a Wikipedia conference). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with the Fijian monarchy article, later next month. After Barbados becomes a republic. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[2][3] EEng 11:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And one more since you dropped in. Just trying to complete the encyclopedia (I've been told a pot of gold exists for the person who finishes it, and I could make good use of the gold and the pot). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• ARS Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion<nt>

You were a participant in the just closed 2nd nomination for deletion.
"She breaches." Captain Ahab and his White Whale. 'They pull you back in.' – Michael Corleone 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Well said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a nice surprise. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am a Black descendant of Benjamin Harrison V. He is my 5th great grandfather and he indeed impregnated an enslaved woman and created a child who is my 4th Great grandmother "yellow" Sarah. It is absolutely known and id like for it to be included in the Wikipedia page 2601:644:4401:E0:78B3:47F7:7B74:ABF2 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting lineage. I don't have much to do with that page, and just added a category and a template recently, so you'd have a better connection leaving a note on the Benjamin Harrison V talk page. If you have any sources from newspapers, magazines, etc. that would go a long way in adding information, as Wikipedia relies on sources. Thanks, and I'll watch the page as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like editor @Hoppyh: has created much of the Harrison V article, so may be interested in your question and be able to give further information. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, and yes, I am most interested to see any information which would show black descendants of Harrison. I agree that his article’s talk page is the proper avenue for the inquiry. The page is on my watch list and I will hope for reliable source information which can enhance the content of the article. Hoppyh (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any where to watch this? 2600:1700:50D0:C120:ACBF:C72B:17E6:6F57 (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. The article says the series hasn't been released on DVD. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on updating the Cleveland Guardians articles. One thing to remember when you move navboxes: The name parameter has to updated at the same time so that the V-T-E links at the top left of the navbox work properly. See my edit to the Template:Cleveland Guardians for an example. I've been moving navboxes for 15 years, and I still sometimes forget to change it! BilCat (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and good work on the name change. Hopefully the statues will pick up their own page at some point. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'd like to see the statues get their own article also. However, it's not topic I'm familiar with, and I don't have the desire to research it myself, or I'd do it. BilCat (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the urge to put one up either, so someone who does will create it. Interesting that the statues seem to be representative of Hermes/Mercury, so maybe the baseball team will be inspired to recruit for speed and stolen base ability. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[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) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Assuming this has been added because I began the section Talk:Ivermectin#Hoping, and a call for a tiny little just a smidge of neutral language in the lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it says: "You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed". Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Alexbrn. The only place I've edited is the talk page with a reasonable request for discussion. I've asked for a reasonable WP:IAR exception, within my rights as a Wikipedian. Are you saying that doing so on that or this talk page violates a ruling? That Ivermectin use for Covid-19 cannot be mentioned anywhere? How about the Japanese event I linked to on the talk page, does doing so constitute a breach of the ruling (which I'm seriously not Arb savvy enough to understand, I don't post or read there). You've posted a reply to my reply there, but I'm now not sure if Arb allows me to even reply to you there. Guidance please, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to add anything to the message, which is carefully worded. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, thanks? I'll ask at the page where people are replying to me. If asking about it somehow violates a policy please delete my asking if it violates a policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a notice to tell you to read our rules on the subject, and take them to heart. Yes you can continue to comment, as long as you do not breach any of the DS sanctions or our wider policies. As it says " It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date". But we are (really) required to tell you there are DS in place as they are far harsher than our normal policies, and thus you might break them without realizing it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As far as I know I can still reply as long as its not disruptive (banging pots and pans together, calling names, and disparaging the good faith of other editors level disruptions), but will wait until other editors respond to that discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:npa this [[4]] might violate it, as you appear to be commenting on other users integrity.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have removed the language per your concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, its a very contentious topic area and the DS means that we have to be extra careful with how we act.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Randy Kryn you don't seem like a bad person and I respect your scrupulousness in trying to do the right thing - but wherever you're getting your ivermectin information from I can tell you that you're being badly, badly, misled. It makes me sorry to see . Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Prefaced with "I'm not a medical professional" it seems that even if you're correct it doesn't harm if used in the human dosages that some lay out (and not in inhaling horse paste or such). So as long as everything else is done as prescribed medically it has been widely publicized to be safe to augment with ivermectin for those who think it will add to their personal protection or treatment. Neither here nor there though, although I'd bet yen to donuts that many well-known people make sure to have some on hand, even off the books, for when and if they have discernible Covid-19. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He built his first mill contemporaneous with the Constitution and Bill of Rights so mentioning him seems reasonable pbp 20:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't add everyone who starts a business. Isn't his main work post-founding? This is better addressed on the article talk page so more page editors can add their two-cents. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, please read MOS:SEEALSO. I see you've been adding unnecessary "See also" sections to hundreds of articles, just to link to "lists" of similar genre (film, music, and particularly List of Christmas films, List of anti-war songs, List of films about angels). That is not what is meant by "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. A "See also" section is not mandatory—some high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one." Linking from individual film/song standalone articles to a "list" of a particular genre is unnecessary, and more likely unwanted. Platonk (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and happy holidays. Thanks for bringing your concern to discuss. The adding of such relevant descriptor lists to these directly related listed-pages is not only compliant with MOS:SEEALSO (from the first paragraph: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article.") but greatly improve reader understanding of the topic. Myself and editors like myself have added pertinent list links to "See also" sections ever since time immemorial (probably not too long into 2001) with nary a complaint. Yours is the first I've come across in many years of adding such lists. Sustained reader interest in the lists picks up after a See also edit run, there is certainly nothing wrong with that as well as nothing but compliance with MOS. It's a win-win all around. The current lists I'm working from concern Christmas, so will continue because of the time restraints of the season, from not reading MOS as you are, and from years of list placement precedents. Thanks again, hopefully we won't have a major broo-ha-ha over this topic, which really does nothing but improve the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And seriously? You have to go on a deletion spree on those list articles. Some of your edits are good, but, for example, TV series are considered as films on these type of film lists. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a TV series is a film (which it isn't) then perhaps you should change the name of the list-article, or better define the inclusion-criteria of that list. Platonk (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spree? Spree would be reverting several hundred of your edits. I don't have any problems with using see-also sections in a realistic manner. I'll let you read for yourself the broo-ha-ha over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#"See also" sections. Platonk (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Christmas films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nativity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of films about angels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Three Days.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's Greetings
	To Randy Kryn, best wishes to you and yours for a holiday season to remember and a happy & healthy 2022. Ewulp (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An honor, thank you, and best of all for the New Year. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is safe, festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2022 will be safe, healthy, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, thank you Modernist, and may the faiths and the birds of plenty bring you all the things you need for the New Year. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Nollaig shona duit
	Wising you and yours the very best for the holiday season and new year. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceoil, and may Santa's core tour reindeers of yore pour more blessings upon your door. Merry Christmas! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, Randy Kryn! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CAPTAIN RAJU, and a wonderful Christmas to you. If I could correctly pronounce all of those I'd be a true Wikipedian. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Vanderlyn, Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos (c.1812), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2022.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Moral lesson: John Vanderlyn was an American painter who studied in Paris, and his life-sized Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos was one of the first large nudes exhibited in the United States. Peddling the poison as well as the cure, this overtly sensuous work was presented to the public as a moral lesson on the consequences of lascivious behavior. Visible in the distance is the ship of Princess Ariadne's secret lover, Theseus, for whom she has betrayed her people by helping him to escape the Labyrinth and slay the Minotaur. Ariadne's bliss will come to an end when she awakens from her post-coital reverie, only to discover that the faithless Theseus has sailed away without her.

Thank you BoringHistoryGuy, and Happy New Year's to you and yours. Nice image and narrative, I'll have to check out Wikipedia's coverage of the story and learn about the painter. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you are afraid of Veganism being picked appart, but please take the time to see that I put some effort into bringing the subject up to date and dealing with the redundancies. Giving a summary of the subject in the main article is not a easy undertaking. Tischbeinahe (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But let's do a very good summary of the nutrition points and not just fork. Will comment further on the talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy,

I've decided to re-create Draft:United Nations in popular culture after the AfD. I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking some time to help me rebuild the page in prose format, in line with the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations in popular culture (2nd nomination). It's a real shame it got deleted due to WP:OR concerns, but perhaps we can ask for a WP:REFUND in the format of a draft to sift through what's important to keep and what's not. Let me know what you think; nothing impedes us from making it a list either, really. Thank you! Pilaz (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pilaz, an ambitious undertaking (although the article culled on AfD seemed fine as it was), thanks for being diligent. Will get back to answer more fully before long. A list with a good intro seems best as lists act as good navigational tools as well as informative pages, although some 'in popular culture' deletionists seem to be misreading guidelines lately. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! FYI, United Nations in popular culture underwent AFC review and is back in mainspace. Have a good day! Pilaz (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pilaz, that's wonderful news. Congratulations for saving a fine article topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Have a happy New Year filled with light and magic!
	Hi Randy Kryn, Best wishes that the new year brings peace, prosperity, health and happiness. Thank you for everything you do for the encyclopedia and this community. Image: New Year's Eve Foxfires at the Changing Tree, Oji, Utagawa Hiroshige, woodcut, 1857 Netherzone (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sounds good, and magic and light to you as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year)) to user talk pages.

Thanks User:7&6=thirteen, how do people ping you?, and may the ghost of Christmas past run away (or pour you a drink) when he sees you coming. Have the best year yet! Nice pictures (we're going to need a bigger template). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Randy Kryn See the top of my talk page. wish you good health, too. [[User:7&6=thirteen]] works. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you assigned the term Founding Father to lead of the article on Joseph Galloway a few months ago. I dispute this. Galloway was the opposite of a Founding Father of the United States, that is, a Loyalist (American Revolution). Please see the comment I posted on Galloway's talk page. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having signed the Continental Association forever qualifies him. See Founding Fathers of the United States#List of Founding Fathers. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source you're basing that on, Richard J. Werther, is simply analyzing some of the characteristics associated with signers of key documents, but at no point does Werther say that signing the Continental Association necessarily qualifies someone as a founder. Meanwhile, most if not all other sources (as well as logic) suggest a Founding Father is someone who actively supported the nation's founding, which Galloway never did, not in any respect. For sure, nothing in the Continental Association accord even hinted at separation. Then there's the fact that Galloway was the highest official in the colonial government to be found guilty of treason. Again, a Founder?

Galloway isn't the only issue, however. The reliance on (or rather, mis-reading of) Werther's article calls into question the list in the Founding Fathers article. This past year, an editor changed the section's title from Signatories of founding documents to List of Founding Fathers, thereby giving the impression that this is a generally accepted compendium of founders. It's not, plus the list itself is unsourced. IMO, the title should be reverted, and the section, if it's to remain here, should more clearly state why these four documents and then the list are relevant. Allreet (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed thoughts about this. The place for this discussion should be the talk page of the Founding Fathers article, would you mind transferring your concerns there (cut and paste?) so more editors can address the issue. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, shall do. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert at Mars in fiction. Please consisder the consensus estabilished in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination) and subsequent rewriting of this article to Good Article; similar GA rewrite of Moon in science fiction, and our ongoing work on Template:Astronomical locations in fiction, not to mention identical treatment of hyperspace and a number of other topics (also, writing from scratch of space travel in science fiction, and the older AfDs and rewrites for far future in science fiction (see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction]) and near future in science fiction). In all of those cases, old, mostly unreferenced lists were jettisoned, and replaced by new, prose based articles, which resemble entries in reference works such as the The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy or The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure much of the text is well written. Just saying that entries which have Wikipedia entries carry the sources at those entries. Readers like myself see both formats as useful, so why not either keep both on the same page or make sure the list is saved in a separate article as was done with "Moon in fiction". Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, I have posted a request for a Third Opinion in the Active Disagreements section section of the Third Opinion page. I presume we will be contacted at some point after a neutral editor is assigned. Thanking you for your attention...Allreet (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. There is really no need for a third party, the debate is about a source which by any definition of reputable sources is a good source and has been accepted as such on Wikipedia for years. Asking for a neutral third party is your right, although if they come in with any knowledge of academic publications and how they operate would dismiss your objection quickly. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Monument names aren't customarily italicized, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, so it seemed odd to choose one monument to have its name italicized. FYI, I've removed the italics. Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the proper name of the statue. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proper names are capitalized, not italicized. Certain titles are conventionally italicized (see MOS:ITALICS), such as those of books, films, and music albums (but not songs!), but that doesn't include monuments. Check around and you'll see that that's true. Largoplazo (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Largoplazo, I'm not contesting this, just pointing out that what we are discussing is a sculpture which arguably has a proper name, so there is a good case for italicization as a named work of art. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Randy. I thought I'd talk to you here for a bit of privacy. Honestly I know little about him. I had just started summer session at military school when he was killed and had no access to TV or newspapers. My intro was probably Dylan's Pawn in the Game the next year. I'll make up for that with some research to do the change justice and have minimal effect on the rest. What I'm doing first though is looking through the edit history to see how things evolved. In an initial sweep I found the lead para was changed about two years ago (not sure exactly when but I'll nail the date at some point) and that there were also changes to the infobox later on his being American->African American. I suspect before this it was changed African American->American. Another change was manner of death from racially motivate assassination->politically motivated assassination->simply assassination. Not sure what to do about that, though I'll look elsewhere to see how such deaths are described. Meanwhile, I want to give the lead priority. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate if you'd glance over the rest of the article, two eyes being better than one. The edit history will also tell what/when was changed in other places and whether the changes were legit or driven by something else. All of which helps justify revisions should anything be challenged or reverted. Allreet (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't expect this. The lead para was changed innocently enough by a very active sports editor who removed the sentence on the assassination because it was redundant with the sentence in the third para. Nearly all of his other edits focus on baseball except for some random forays including George Floyd. Hmmm. Anyway that's good to know for the correction. Allreet (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life Magazine, June 1963 and other photos/info Allreet (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A nice find and correction, an important return of pertinent information to the lead paragraph of the heavily-viewed article. Will be happy to give a further look at the rest of the page (haven't in years and then I'd only added styling edits). I was told that Evers published a newspaper during the Mississippi movement to keep the public and activists informed of crm events and goals, which the local media was ignoring, and if I recall this was not yet on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Introductory pages has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you help me to find the name of these paintings in a cartoon version: 1-2, 3. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.165.10 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first is surely about a Bible episode, while the second about a woman on a beach at the sunset. Maybe you can search in these directions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.165.10 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you'd be interested in knowing that I removed the RfC on the use of sources regarding the Founding Fathers page. Responses to the RfC have been so few that it's not worth pursuing via this option.

I also added an analysis to the Talk page on the lack of sufficient sources. Not that the issue needs more words. It just needs to be clarified because of the number of words already offered. One specific item is that no citations accompany the phrase "the following are considered Founding Fathers". IOW, there are no citations for either the four lists of signatories or the assertion that all of the signers are founders.

Here's a direct link to the new talk section: Lack of Sources. Allreet (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many citations have been added, and many thousands of words on maybe a dozen talk pages on the exact same discredited claim. One example: you've opened and closed three simultaneous RfC's on the same question because none of them have supported your claim. Unprecedented on Wikipedia? I've never done this before, but, for the time being at least, go away, shoo, don't post on my talk page again (thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, now I can't quote I Like Chinese. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the section was pretty serious I thought 'maybe too soon' and removed my comment. Kind of a milder version of 'with two political executions you get egg roll'. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I was threatened to revert my close (received some pretty nasty private messages). I noticed you supported the close, so if you like you're more than welcome to close it! Cheers in advance and happy editing! :) sl (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'hanks. Your close was concise and seemed fine given the obvious state of the discussion. I can' close as I was an active participant. It's kind of nice you closed and then that itself became controversial because the entire surreal controversy is about controversy. Nice meeting you, and I hope you are both having fun and know that you are doing productive edits on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing felt like an inception, haha. Much thanks, and great meeting you too! sl (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link you may like. It's to a collection of 88 portraits by Charles Wilson Peale from the National Park Service. Many if not most/all (?) are already in the Commons. I just posted one for John Hanson, an AoC signer. The portraits are accompanied by a one-page write-up on the subject. Some of these guys don't have wiki pages but should. For example, George Glentworth (1735-92) was a surgeon trained in Scotland, served in the British Army, joined the Continental Army in 1777, headed up a General Hospital for the army, retired in 1780, and was founder of the Philadelphia Medical Society and Philadelphia College of Physicians. Anyone who had their portrait done by Peale was someone, so the collection is interesting even for minor characters. Link: https://museum.nps.gov/ParkHdet.aspx?rID=CWPealepaintings%26db%3Dexhibt%26dir%3DCR%20AAWEB Allreet (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the structure in the List of Founding Fathers section, but changed very little from what was here as of a day or so ago. The only things new are some demographic details drawn from Werther, one of his sources, and a related article from Politifact. As noted on the Talk page (I didn't ping you), I'd like to remove the article's dispute templates with the understanding that the two of us and anyone else who wants to join in can work out any remaining differences.

Note, however, that this does not resolve the issue of the individual biographies. IMO, what I just changed in the main founders article adds the nuances I felt were missing. As I saw it, there was something of an absolutist aspect to the text as it had evolved. But as another editor put it, the subject of founding fathers is one of theology, meaning more of belief than of a tangible, "provable" nature. I believe that observation is satisfied by adding uncertainty, which is not often where you want to end up in writing about history, but in this case, our job was to present the "sides" and from there let readers decide.

I mention this because the titles added to individual biographies are presented as "fact", whereas the larger "truth" is that not everyone agrees. Having read through many of the articles in question, I'm much closer to your view than I was before, yet I'm still nagged by the uncertainties. While some sources recognize XYZ, most do not, so the question remains, what to do? Allreet (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Saw" you working diligently and inspired on the page and, as a fan of inspiration and creative bursts, thought I'd wait to read what you came up with, and will check it out and probably join in later today. Let's work on language for individual signers/founders, seems they should be credited as the 145plus had unique experiences and deserve the honor and title. Of course not everyone agrees on ff status, but the alternative is ending up with only the Big Seven, which happily most sources expand on. More later, Randy Kryn (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi, Randy: I have noticed that many of the "short descriptions" recently being added to articles to facilitate their identification and usefulness when accessed via mobile devices are being edited, in the case of deceased 20th century figures at least, to give dates of birth and death. I infer that this is a device for quickly informing the reader that the subject is deceased, which is very likely a piece of information they always want. This has occurred in the last few days with at least a dozen articles I follow. You are the only editor (to my knowledge) who has objected. You say (with characteristic wit) that this makes the short description read like a tombstone. True enough, but isn't this a general style issue to be resolved with consistency, rather than according to the subjective preferences of the editors who chiefly follow a given article? Where is the best place to discuss and resolve the general policy/style question? Obviously I have no desire or intention to engage in an edit war with you over this on the Dave Dellinger page (or any other). PDGPA (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does looks like a tombstone. I knew Dellinger, and just checked and saw he was cremated and has no tombstone, so no need to start now. Should probably have a full discussion at a guideline page, please let me know if one begins, thanks, except short descriptions have no rules and are not a policy or guideline. Wild West styling. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this really has anything to do with the present discussion, but I was also privileged to know Dave Dellinger (a little). So, like you, I particularly want to see the best presentation for his article, even more than just as a matter of general Wikipedian principles. PDGPA (talk) PDGPA (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are mistaken about there being no "policy or guideline." There does appear to be guidance on the subject of dates in the short description. As I understand this policy, their use as I had proposed is "encouraged." Do you read it differently? PDGPA (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. A wonderful man. No, there is no guideline, it's an information page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a more sophisticated understanding of Wiki editing "rules" than I do. Can you explain the difference between "information" and a "guideline"? Is it the lack of settled consensus? Seems this point is also under discussion for the last couple of months here and here. And back to our starting point, Why dates in all those other articles' "short descriptions," as "encouraged" by the "information," but not in DD's? PDGPA (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some time, I'll tell you my Jim Bevel story also, but only in private correspondence, not for publication .... ;) PDGPA (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will check out your links, thanks. I'm not a wikilawyer, too many rules and regs to keep track of. Even if set in stone, which it isn't (just looks like it), the word "encouraged" would leave the question open-ended. Glad you met Bevel, hopefully a nice memory. Just realized, depending on wording years in short descriptions could be mistaken by readers for years active in a field of endeavor and not life dates. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is meant to be comedic, so why can't it have that? Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not funny and nobody wishes it. And at best it's Level V not IV. I know it's in good faith, so please take your concern to the articles talk page and not here, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you make your statements personal (aka "I don't find it funny" "I don't wish it") rather than universal. You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and the horse you rode in on (but you're right). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This gave me a good laugh, thanks! (Removed question because I read WP:RFD more carefully. Also discovered I shouldn't have changed the target while discussion is open; my bad, but I'll leave it as is rather than muddle things further.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for inspiring me to do an edit run on the abandoned van Gogh section. WP:Bureaucracy provides good cover, I mean reason, for a logical move, as it was a strange although interesting redirect. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#RFC_on_Continental_Association. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Voting three times on an RFC is disruptive. It is true that an experienced closer will ignore it, but other editors might be confused by it. I have collapsed two of your three Yes statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Founding Fathers of the United States would have disapproved of what appears to stuffing a ballot box. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I fixed the Yes thrice problem, didn't realize or think out how it may look to be a flurry of yes's by different editors. lol at your last comment. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And to my page watchers, if I have any besides my cousin down where I get my Wikipedia supplies, maybe take note of the RfC in progress mentioned above which, in my opinion, is a big step on the road to cancel the stable and long-term Founding Father status of up to 56 United States Founding Fathers (which I've been trying to counter on a daily basis for literally three months). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Thomas Lynch Jr. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page watchers if any, now this is a strange one. An edit war is occurring over a signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Lynch Jr., being a Founding Father. All the signers are FF's. Schoolchildren know this. Lynch voted for it and signed it. The Founder Fight (yes, time to uppercase it as a proper name) on Wikipedia has gotten this bad. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	I wanted to say that it was a good decision to remove that offensive comment someone added to Wikipedia:Wikipediholic, so I wanted to give you this barnstar. Toad40 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. Although the issue was actually resolved through a rewrite of the essay and posted in the proper "level". Randy Kryn (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. While I didn't really like the joke, since the Wikipediholic artical is a humorous essay, I guess there's no harm in keeping that dark joke. Toad40 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was darker and in the wrong level when first posted, which is when I reverted it. Seems okay to me now too. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oval Office, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Cooke and George Story.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was this supposed to say "merge"? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was expressing surprise a merge was being discussed for a snow keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda Arendt, for this and again for the preceding years. A nice surprise. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what happened to you. Many new sources involving the period and transition going from the Articles of Confederation to the establishment of the Constitution have been added. Amazingly even Allreet has conceded to at least two: New sources verify Articles of Confederation signers as founders, just to give you the latest developments. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Computer finally broke down, so I had a week wikibreak, which is probably a good thing to do once in awhile. On the RfC, I'll start at the beginning and read the whole thing. I've noticed bits and pieces. You may have caught this and it may already be mentioned, I checked just one of the "children's books", the one R. Jensen said was a children's book and couldn't be counted, and it had an associate professor highlighted on the back page as the book's consultant. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In any case I've agreed not to use any books written for young adults and am using these sources for purposes of the debate, and in the article as may be required, a few of them just introduced yesterday. Amazingly they were accepted by Allreet and he changed his vote to 'yes'. Wikipedia never fails to surprise me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial lacrosse/surfing & college topic

I recently noticed your reversion of the lacrosse/surfing edit, which makes sense.

Like I often can do with many things in the United States article, you seem to have a good neutral “big-picture” read on the pulse of that idea in alignment with WP guidelines.

If you feel comfortable, I’d like your feedback on another recent edit I did removing a specific chunk of content from the sports section, as I feel you’d also have a good neutral “big-picture” read on the pulse of the ideas I removed.

It was removing the college sports info, let me add the edit summary below, and I’d like to hear your feedback after I do that: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mrbeastmodeallday:. Will take a look later but will hold off on commenting, because you'd maybe want to read and comment at the United States talk page where regular page editors are discussing removing all of your edits. You have a wide range of knowledge and interests, yet hundreds of edits in a short amount of time will usually get some pushback and that seems to be occurring. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p.s., aha, I see you've found it already. Maybe a time for some good dialogue with those editors and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You see I’ve found what already??? You lost me there @Randy Kryn:Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about reverting all of your edits. I saw you've already commented in that section. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, we’re both in the clear now on that Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"D1 college sports may be on par with the pros in terms of popularity, but the WP notability and weight standpoint is lacking. The popularity stems from it being commonly known as a pipeline for the NBA and NFL. Everyone knows that the athletes who make the college games notable are all ultimately aiming for the NBA and NFL. There are ZERO top-performing notable athletes who play with the intent of choosing D1 as their end-all-be-all. The raw notability is similar to that of Triple-A baseball and the NBA G League” (the highest US minor league levels for their respective sports).

(the very end is improvised and may not be an exact copy because some of the full edit summary is too long and I can’t find it, but the general premise is the same.) Thanks! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff and general stuff

P.S. I have been keeping abreast with the talk discussions there and doing my best to improve the article based on the concerns presented. You can see the current health image and mass media image in the main article as perfect examples of that. So I’m fully aware, but thanks for reminding me. Cheers! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will check at some point. I'm not a regular on that page (you picked one of the most watched and most viewed pages on Wikipedia to do full edit changes and discussion on, a good description of "being bold") and so I've read few of your edits but do have the page on my watch list so have skimmed your well-detailed edit summaries. If the editors are close to reverting you may want to ease up on the edits and call in an administrator or two to ascertain and mediate the situation. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the input 🙏🏼 It’s all super helpful! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I hope it all works out for the best of all viewpoints. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too, I’ve been implementing some changes recently that are in consensus of all the major viewpoints (even ideas that are initially in “opposing” positions) but I don’t know if the other editors gets that. They seem to focus on secondary details like the speed, volume, or frequency of my edits. I edit on mobile, so sometimes I have to do the main “meat” edit first, and then 3-5 little cleanup tasks right after. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also been doing lots of stand-alone cleanup edits, like improving sentence structures and improving grammar and such. (I also recently restored the area rankings to the article’s concensus both in the lead and infobox because of a lone editor bringing up discrepancies that haven’t been resolved at talk page). And that’s probably about 60-80% of my total edits based on the raw “quantity” of edits.

If you’re able to see the common middle ground I’ve been working towards from the outside perspective, it might help the entire community understand why I’m doing what I do, and we’ll all understand each other better. Because it kinda seems like they’re all firmly trying to keep the article a certain way, but I’m trying to blend the two seemingly opposite ideas of progressive improvements and long-standing concensus.

Even if you’re able to drop a brief comment in one or two of the biggest discussions that has the most intense attention, I think that would be a massive help in proportion to the small few minutes effort of thinking and commenting, and I would very much appreciate it!

(Because I think you can see the underlying spirit of my editing style that others seem to not see, because technical concerns and assumptions about my intent appear to obscure their view of how I edit)

Thanks again! Don’t wanna take up too much of your time, I hope the page can move forward as an entire community. Cheers! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To keep it simple to help expedite your process, most of the current contentious talk page action is going in the threads with these 3 titles/topics:

• Maps, charts and tables

• Restore article

• US President throws first pitch

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll hold major comments until I do a dive into your edits (remember, I haven't read many, just the edit summaries). There seem to be complaints about the charts and language. US president throws first pitch? If that is to be a page photo then I'd go with the first photograph known of a president throwing out a first pitch (I assume at the World Series, or in Washington, D.C.). Maybe not edit the page for awhile, or start new discussions (seems you've started a lot, and busy editors can't usually spare the time for numerous consecutive or simultaneous discussions). Using your talents on another page for awhile that would gain from your attention until this is resolved is one idea. Remember, you chose one of the most viewed and most carefully constructed pages on Wikipedia to partially overhaul so I'm not surprised at the pushback, you have to expect some. Will put some attention on this, but not right now. By the way, thank you for all of your work on the page, I'm sure there are many spots which are improved or else you would have been stopped sooner. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did attempt the exact type of image you’re talking about (first known image of President throwing first pitch in a major baseball event, a clear image of Woodrow Wilson with his arm about to throw the pitch) *I’ll add it here after this edit*

The only words in the edit summary from the reverting editor was “revert, restore”. I’ve attempted to stimulate a productive mutual discussion for everyone to move forward together, to no avail. The only compelling arguments were about me as an editor and the broader perspective of the entire article, but not really on the merit of the first pitch image itself.

I politely reminded the editor that the broad article discussions goes in the thread already created about it, and discussions about me as an editor is welcome on my talk page because that’s where it belongs. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you can see that I’ve been doing my best. Thank you for acknowledging that.

Wikipedia has so much rich infrastructure regularly built and strengthened over the past 15-20 years it’s existed, and it’s amazing how 100% of it is grassroots. And because of that, the system is very self-regulated and self-sustaining. People with bad intentions eventually get weeded out of the system very very quickly either because the broad community makes fair judgments with progressive consequences, or because the editor themselves gets burned out.

I also don’t think the main core group of 5-10 long-standing editors sees and understands the value of educating the newer users (generally in the autoconfirmed stage less than 300-500 edit history) who are making well-intentioned edits but get swiftly reverted without being guided on what to do.

That’s how I think of it, I prefer to tell people what their options and next steps are and what they CAN do. As opposed to just saying “no” or “revert” without meaningful explanation, which only sends the message to newer editors about what they CAN'T do.

And that discourages new people with new perspectives from contributing their own unique value to improve WP. That’s probably big reason why there appears to be many editors at autoconfirmed level who have had a profile for 10-15 years, and have only 100, 200, 300 edits spread out across those years, and when they come on to attempt a meaningful well-intentioned edit that’s bad because of more nuanced reasons like undue weight, the only message they receive from the regular more experienced editors who revert it is “Nope, this contribution doesn’t belong” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read this, will read it tomorrow. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 03:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This regards the editor posting above and below and not myself (I've yet to be brought to ANI, a perfect record so far. Still practicing my boomerang bank-shots on the local boomerang range). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here to confirm Randy Kryn's statement above that the issue is all about me, Randy Kryn’s status as a WP editor is not in question with this matter. Randy Kryn is only involved with the matter incidentally. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:BOOMERANG at all. I clearly stated Randy's involvement at ANI in the conduct issue, especially with clogging up talk pages & user talk pages such Randy Kryn's talk page. You have bludgeoned Randy's talk page, and it is another example of your problematic behaviour. Randy has been given notice so they can observe the discussion or, if they so wish to, participate, which they have decided to. Appreciate the hounding & snide remark though. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 08:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun boomeranging! 😅 Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring that as a suggestion to the group.

Please put before and after versions of the sports section under a microscope with the editor community.

Per Moxy’s concern, if there’s one thing I’m a fanatic about it’s sports. I was obsessed with sports as a kid and played them and watched pro sports all the time.

And it’s the one section I’ve made the most sweeping changes to, I have very comprehensive knowledge about sports, all the other topics is mostly general knowledge and stuff I learned in school.

The sports section is essentially a “mini-version” or “most extreme” or “most contentious” version of what I’ve done with the article as a whole.

Sports section gives me the most “disadvantages” in any comparison because I’m the most fanatical about it, and have made the most sweeping changes to it, more then any other longstanding section or body of content.

Please bring it under a microscope to the group with a good before and after comparison, and I’ll stay out of the discussion because I trust the results to speak for themselves, so long as the overarching guideline of WP neutrality is at the forefront (meaning everything is judged on its own merits, and entirely based on the edits, not me as an editor). Have the discussion as if I don’t exist, other editors may need reminders to focus on edits not the editor, I’ll disappear from the discussion to make it easier.

I’m asking you to nominate the sports section instead of me, for before/after comparison because I’m really trying to be 100% out of that discussion from this point forward as much as possible, for maximum neutrality, and to let the edits and results speak for themselves.

If you don’t mind, I’d also ask you to ask whichever admin you want, instead of me, again for the same reason, to keep myself out of the discussion as much as possible.

It allows as much neutrality as possible, and removes and/or exposes as much bias as possible.

Lastly, all the other concerns they have about me as an individual editor and my editing style will be on full display through the sports comparison, and can also be hashed out neutrally.

Thanks, cheers! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally misclicked with rollback. Feel free to trout me if necessary. Once again, apologies for reverting you. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We crossed in talk page messages, no trouts swimming. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this and this make me think something is funny. 15+ years never seen this.Moxy- 01:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, I see what you mean, two different accounts. Haven't seen that either, but coincidence, of course (assuming ultra good faith). You've done great ongoing work in keeping track of United States edits and discussions, hopefully they will ease up soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was an odd addition...that said their reply seemed resonable. Will keep an eye out. Moxy- 14:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for 15 years on Wikipedia!

Anthony65wiki (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

consensus on Gunasekaran Sundarraj was to merge. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WomenArtistUpdates. Is that link what AfD editors think of as a merge? From a full and interesting The Hindu sourced article about a record-setting artist and his very small artworks, which I want to read more about, to his unlinked name in a list with a reference link to The Hindu article? To me a merge means condensing the page into a readable paragraph or two and then adding that to the receiving page. That seems a true merge, which I guess doesn't fall within the definition and how merges are treated. I truly didn't know, I thought people actually merged the essence of the page into the agreed-upon page when a merge decision closes. I'll ask for a copy of the deleted article for my userspace. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no need to request the deleted material, just go to Talk:Micro miniature and then click on Gunasekaran Sundarraj: Revision history its history link. Best. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, and the editor seeking a topic ban for three editors has been properly trouted. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the article contains photos and recognition of 3 time winners but Jamie Anderson is missing from the list…he won 3 consecutive ( I believe 1877-1879). Hoping to get his name & photo included given the amazing accomplishment. Thanks ! Scott Yearwood 75.176.6.252 (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure which article you mean, the one that lists major winners by number of wins does include Anderson (he's tied for 30th place with the three Open wins). If you mean adding his photograph please ask at the talk page, but it looks like only players with four majors or more have their photographs in the gallery. That was a good Open this year, and thanks for suggesting Wikipedia improvements. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what is far more interesting than debating or defending yourself?

Continuing to execute and allowing history and merit to be the judge.^[1]

— Gary Vaynerchuk

— Preceding unsigned comment added by History and merit (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

I updated the lede paragraph for Peyton Randolph and thought you might like to know. I moved Founding Father, his most notable achievement, to the top; added his being member of a political dynasty in place of the mundane description "public official"; reworded his presidencies of the Continental Congress; and added a few prominent people related to him. In addition, I included a couple details on the Continental Association for those who don't know anything about it. I also removed that "technically he was the first leader of the United States of America" which sounds good but is nonsense as well as "technically" incorrect. I think the new lede does him a greater measure of justice. I also made some changes to his early life, working in the fact that his father, grandfather, and great grandfather preceded him as speakers of the House of Burgesses. Amazing guy...and family. Allreet (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Allreet, nice work (although, according to John Adams, Patrick Henry did call what the First Continental Congress was creating 'America'). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I really don't want to quibble but my "technically incorrect" reference was that at the time there was no United States of America. Henry's remark, referring to the Americas as one, while a nice creative touch is not in anyway the same. Besides, nobody elected Randolph as leader of the colonies, which remained separate sovereignties; his role as president was to lead the assembly. I suppose that's a lot of quibbling, despite my disinclination. :) Allreet (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was understood. Randolph was selected by acclamation to lead the First Continental Congress, not the new country that many of the delegates thought knew they'd be creating. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the concerned editor, thanks for the wording and link edits on the page. I haven't worked on it in years (or even read the full page for a long time), because of the COI tag as well as not wanting to further overload the page with my findings. Some references in my paper printed in the Garrow book should be added, thanks for the attention on it. Was also waiting for a book mainly on Bevel being worked on by a Pulitzer-prize winning author, which should provide material and references when published. I consider Bevel on the same level of accomplishment as the main Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Madison, and equal to Dr. King's work and accomplishments (they acted as a first-tier team in the Civil Rights Movement, at first separate - Bevel developing strategies and racking-up accomplishments in the student movement and King organizing in the ranks of ministers and other public and private civic leaders, and then together in SCLC starting in 1962). I've focused on Bevel's 1960s movements and not his 2008 trial and imprisonment, and leave those areas of the page alone. Thanks again, I wish they'd let you back, you seem very interested in improving the sharing of information on Wikipedia and have provided some good work. Appreciated, Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. There is more to the story. I don't know where I read the posthumous massaging of stats, but it might have been a distortion of this story about his first "attempt" at 3000:

https://baseballhall.org/discover/baseball-history/clementes-3000th-hit-nearly-made-history-twice

So it looks like he did live to see 3000. I guess I'll have to edit the part of my novel that mentions an adjustment occurred by consensus of scorekeepers who sifted through past games. Martindo (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the link to an interesting story that was new to me. I'm glad his 3000th was a clean hit and not the questionable call, his friend did him a favor by calling it as he saw it, and at least he got to be celebrated twice in two days. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, apparently you made a deletion in the Founder's article based on Allreet's claim that I had written something that amounts to O.R. He claimed that Burnett, 1974, p. ix, said nothing about the Congress being a "laboratory", and therefore saying so was in effect my invention and is O.R. He evidently didn't bother to read the sources, because it was Friedenwald, p. 197, who made this statement. I didn't restore the deleted text because I don't wish to invoke an edit war. If you agree that the statement in question is not O.R. I'm hoping you will restore the passage in question. If anyone wants to contend it we can always discuss it on the Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwillhickers. I just left a note at the talk page and then came to see what you had written here. No, I wasn't questioning your sources, or even have studied them, I just agree with Allreet that the paragraph and introduction was too long. Maybe it can be a footnote at the end of the paragraph, I don't remember if the page has a 'Notes' section? I cut the paragraph where it began to lose me as a reader. That entire summary section can and should be a clear, concise, and as encompassing as possible within a finite number of words (but not, for sure, too small, last time I looked it was getting close although maybe a bit over a good size for the sections). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, thanks for ping-ing me. @Gwillhickers, thanks for talking "behind my back". I apologized for the mistake I made. I think talking outside the relevant Talk page and mentioning another editor deserves a similar admission. Allreet (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allreet and Gwillhickers, since you're on my talk page I'll point you to your respective corners and offer you a beer and a bag of pretzels and a viewing of Elizabethtown, a pretty good film which Roger Ebert effectively discusses is about an angel (on par with Clarence Odbody). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, I appreciate your gesture, not the less than savory behavior of your WP ally.

On a more congenial note, I may have mentioned this before, a song by Clem Snide, the group led by Israeli-American musician Eef Barzelay: "Roger Ebert". It's about Roger's last words, which relate to the situation at hand. Funny, too, in an ironic way, that Roger was seeing an angel in a film around the time he was confronting his illness, a heavenly spirit no other critic conjured: "Ebert's Elizabethtown Revisited". Thanks for the recommendation. I am familiar with the soundtrack (Tom Petty, Elton John, My Morning Jacket), but haven't seen the film. I'll make it a point. Allreet (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Allreet. I did a three-view (once as enjoyment, then once after reading Ebert's analysis while editing the plot and page, and another to watch closely - found a couple of hints that Ebert missed) to edit the page with accuracy. Maybe we can all edit the Elizabethtown page and battle royale on its talk page over disagreements about scope and wording. Cameron Crowe does not make simple films but, like his great Vanilla Sky, weaves in symbolism and distracters, so Elizabethtown should have been analyzed closely, as Ebert did, for underlying plots. Adds to the reason Ebert is a recognized leader in his profession. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, although the stamps seemed obvious after someone put the coins in. We were just lucky that one of Wikipedia's main stamp editors was already working on the founders page. Thanks for reading my comments on the talk page long enough to find that section about stamps. Coins, stamps, and then maybe founder collectibles like 18th century mugs or medals exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have a question for User:Randy Kryn about Founding Fathers collectibles (formerly minted coins, postage stamps, mugs, etc) that does not directly relate to improving Wikipedia, so it seems best to be discussed off-Wiki. It has come to my awareness that users are allowed to correspond via email per WP:EMAIL, however I am not sure how to communicate with User:Randy Kryn in such a way, as there is no email link under the "tools" tab on the left side. Any technical assistance with the matter would be much appreciated, I have included my email address with my Wikipedia account, but for convenience it is shown as follows: the.seven.greats@gmail.com

Regards, The Seven Greats (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not using e-mail, but neither do I have any Founding Fathers collectibles or know much about them, so questions about that can be asked here but probably I can't be of much assistance (although others may be). Thanks for asking. One of the best Founders objects if you don't know of it, the Syng inkstand. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd like to know where to find and purchase such items, but it's my understanding that sending/receiving recommendations of specific stores/businesses/websites to do commercial activity with is not allowed in publicly-viewable on-wiki communication platforms such as this talk page, and I would prefer to not be the catalyst of you getting in trouble for such actions. Thank you for your understanding.

Regards, The Seven Greats (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. thanks for sharing the inkstand, that's an interesting artifact I didn't know about. However, I'm looking for Founding Fathers memorabilia that assists with modern day-to-day practical applications I already engage in such as drinking morning coffee from a Founding Fathers mug, or sending letters to family and friends with Founding Fathers postage stamps. The Seven Greats (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inkstand is one of my favorite pages here, a real Warehouse 13-level artifact. I have no knowledge of products, sites, or sales of things like Founder mugs (collect all 179 - or whatever it is), Benjamin Franklin flower pots, and a hundred other uses which will become commonplace as the 250th birthday of America takes place in 2026. Should be a good time for collectors of the genre. Who will be the first to sell well-made copies of the Syng inkstand? Lots of opportunities for those kind of products to emerge in the next four years. But for now, I personally haven't seen or noticed much of that or searched for it on the internet, sorry I can't be of more help (my cousin Louie, he sells the Charles Thomson masks and Boston Tea Party-sport replica costumes down behind the corner, but don't tell anyone). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit summary about the Presidents category - I'll fix the other one I changed (Jimmy Carter). - Special-T (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, I'd like to be a regular to help build the community and improve the page. The bottom-line question: How can I do so without being accused of (and blocked for) sockpuppetry? (in particular, arbitrarily getting slaughtered by the unusual "CheckUser-stealth-canvassing-via-email" approach) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2481 George Washington Valley Blvd. (talk • contribs) 08:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doing what you've done I guess with a live account, but limit the number of edits in a row to four to six, because other editors will usually check them and not many are willing to check dozens at a time. Haven't edited the page much lately myself, but plan to come in once in awhile to copyedit and tighten up the language. The other editors are focusing on improving the page too, and if you have ideas you think would be best for the page maybe you can leave them on the talk page. I really don't know about coming back as one account, the admins are a tough crowd here when they have someone pinned for sockpuppetry, and they need to function within their own set of laws and regs which don't have much leeway. A cultural thing I guess, even a recent Wikiconference was limited to vaxxed people with at least one booster - talk about taking it to the extreme. I'll get back to the Bevel page soon, thank you very much. I thought you should know he'll be one of the main people covered in a book by Thomas Ricks coming out in early October, Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1968, so the page ought to be in pretty good shape by mid-September for that. Genuinely surprising to me over the years that other editors haven't been working on the page at length. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, some good work on the Bevel page, and thanks for being a rough taskmaster. My COI has been disputed because I'm more of a subject matter expert, and 'subject matter experts' are allowed to edit such pages on Wikipedia, i.e. the data in my 1984 paper was cited by David Garrow in his Pulitzer Prize winning book Bearing the Cross and then published in toto by Garrow in his 1989 book We Shall Overcome:Volume II, published by historian James Ralph in 2006 (who disputed my claims about the ending of the Chicago movement, and neither the claims nor dispute are mentioned on the Bevel page), and in 2008 the Washington Post reporter covering the incest trial called me "Bevel's historian" during his blog discussion of the trial, and other media in the 1980s used my published information. But yes, some sections and claims do need further diverse references, and I'll add some of those soon (many were cited in the 1984 paper). I don't think I've ever worked on the section of Bevel's claim about King's murderer, and I seem to recall that Bevel's claims that were mentioned in the New York Times came from when he met with James Earl Ray soon after the assassination and offered to be his lawyer, thinking Ray incapable of killing such a man as King as well as advocating for years to give Ray a fairer trial (Ray pled guilty but then changed his mind too late to avert sentencing). Bevel and others in SCLC who were there on the balcony or in the parking lot when King was shot had many of their emotions and judgements touched after witnessing their friend killed, and most SCLC members were afraid to continue trusting Bevel's post-assassination plans and strategies. In 1969, SCLC "fired him" as documented in John Lewis's book, although after King's death Bevel did oversee much of the 1968 Poor People's Campaign in D.C. in order to make sure it stayed peaceful, even though he hadn't agreed with King about holding the event and wanted Dr. King to stay focused on opposing the Vietnam War. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, while going through James Bevel's revision history I saw this bloke, and I had a small hunch that it might be impersonation, lo and behold it's a sockpuppet of that user a while back (can't remember what their name was exactly). Just a really bizarre coincidence. Happy editing X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X750. Yes, but he's a good editor and usually makes good additions to pages. If I were an admin I'd give him another chance under one username of their choice, but that's why I'm not considered admin material (among other reasons). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn I don't dispute their editing skills, I'm on the same page with you when it comes to that, it was rather just the sheer volume and pace of his edits, maybe if he did bulk edits then let other editors dissect it a bit that would've been better. I think if they alleviated that, they would be a large net positive to the project. I mean if you ever applied for admin I'd be more than happy to support you, I myself will never get involved in wiki politics as I am simply not a fan of it. Have a good one X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 08:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks X750. I actually have no interest in being an admin aside from doing things like giving back user rights to people who provide good edits or bringing back a few perfectly fine and popular articles and navboxes removed by AfD (which would only result in losing the adminship in record time). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scenes from the Passion of Christ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ascension.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Randy,

A new editor changed your User page to be a redirect to a phony user page with your name on it. When I deleted the fake user page, which had been tagged for deletion, it deleted your User page as an associated redirect. I've restored your User page and also reverted the edit that turned it into a redirect. Since it seems like you've been a recent target, I'm given your User page extended confirmed protection for a few months so this doesn't happen again. If you would prefer no protection or if this editor tries to impersonate or bother you, please alert either myself or another administrator. Sorry about this bother. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you might be able to help improve this page? It has no sources, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I287 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost lol. I've never looked at Simple Wikipedia, although I was vaguely aware of it. When I clicked on the page you linked to I thought it was some kind of draft you were working on. Was about 20 minutes later I went back to read it again and realized that this is a real thing. That's Simple Wikipedia? How many people click on those pages. I guess I should educate myself on what Simple Wikipedia actually is (as of now I'm very ignorant of how closely it's connected to English Wikipedia, to the Foundation, who edits it, etc.) Thanks for pointing that page out, maybe Allreet, Gwillhickers, TheVirginiaHistorian, and others know all about it but I certainly don't. A side of Wikipedia I've never visited. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page averages three views a day. I don't really feel like fully diving in on Simple Wikipedia, but if the Founding Fathers page there only has three views a day that still puts it at over 1,000 views a year and I guess that's how we should think of it. How do people even hear about it? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, I'm sorry to hear about his death from your post to Jimbo's talk page ... he certainly had a life well-lived. I just found his online obituary using publicly available information ... would you mind if I posted it on-wiki, or perhaps sent it to you privately some other way? I was hesitant to do so myself because I didn't know BeenAroundAWhile but you seemed to know him well. I would have sent this message by email but you don't have that feature enabled. Graham87 09:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please post it on-wiki if you wish. I knew him as well as knowing most prolific editors, with little contact but by knowing of his work and his influence on the project. His 17-year Wikipedia career coming after age 73 should inspire many and probably be acknowledged by the Foundation in some formal way such as I've suggested to Jimbo. Hope to meet you again at a conference (we had a brief "Hello" in Montreal in 2017) when the organizers finally get around to holding live events again. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just got this ... per my email and your onwiki reply, I think I will post it: it's here. I may or may not get the chance to do much more tonight my time but you can do with the info what you like. It'd indeed be fun to meet again! Graham87 14:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham. Noticed in the obit that a memorial service will be held in Los Angeles on October 15, in case LA Wikipedians would like to attend. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Vermont#CNBC rating of states. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran a query for titles with comma before Jr. or Sr. and got the list below. I'll be removing the fictional characters and work titles that I recognize. Want to help look for others? The ones I've looked at are mostly recent creations by people who didn't know we had MOS:JR. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Arthur Joseph Lewis, Jr.
2. Charles W. Sydnor, Jr.
3. Timothy Gay, Jr.
4. Al W. Wieser, Jr.
5. Columbus Vance Henkel, Jr.
6. Charles Sinclair, Jr.
7. Claude A. Bray, Jr.
8. Abdon Balde, Jr.
9. Leonidas Dixon Coates, Jr.
10. William W. Wemple, Jr.
11. Robert Hoe, Jr.
12. William Henry Dean, Jr.
13. Gilberto Mendoza, Jr.
14. Frank A. Southard, Jr.
15. Matthew J. Looram, Jr.
16. Wesley William Egan, Jr.
17. George Atcheson, Jr.
18. Lawrence C. Mohr, Jr.
19. Israel Meyer Augustine, Jr.
20. Joseph F. Hair, Jr.
21. Horace G. Torbert, Jr.
22. Richard Ernsberger, Jr.
23. Samuel Booker McDowell, Jr.
24. David Evans, Jr.
25. Edson de Araújo, Jr.
26. Kelvyn Cullimore, Jr.
27. Raymond Andrew Paynter, Jr.
28. Geronimo Cristobal, Jr.
29. Murrell Smith, Jr.
30. Allen Smith, Jr.
31. Jovan Isailović, Jr.
32. Louis Daeuble, Jr.
33. James E. Vance, Jr.
34. Charles H. Rammelkamp, Jr.
35. Robert T. Ball, Jr.
36. William H. Nienhauser, Jr.
37. Honesto Pesimo, Jr.
38. Dominic F. Antonelli, Jr.
39. James J. Craven, Jr.
40. John Navarre Macomb, Jr.
41. Howard Gentry, Jr.
42. Alan Crosland, Jr.
43. Knut Aga, Jr.
44. Charles Farwell Edson, Jr.
45. Frederick C. Turner, Jr.
46. Edward Hill, Jr.
47. Edwin T. Layton, Jr.
48. Louis J. Halle, Jr.
49. Robert V. Dumont, Jr.
50. Philip Lutz, Jr.
51. Lelan Sillin, Jr.
52. Chilton Williamson, Jr.
53. Joseph M. Hall, Jr.
54. W. Moultrie Moore, Jr.
55. Walter Lewis Baily, Jr.
56. Jacob Summerlin, Jr.
57. Henry Z Jones, Jr.
58. Stephen J. Bonner, Jr.
59. Jeremiah Smith, Jr.
60. Herbert Temple, Jr.
61. Frank A. Brown, Jr.
62. Herbert Waide Hemphill, Jr.
63. Hrvoje Horvat, Jr.
64. Charles Eldridge Morgan, Jr.
65. Thornton Dial, Jr.
66. Francis J. Evon, Jr.
67. Bert Long, Jr.
68. Frank Masland, Jr.
69. James N. Azim, Jr.
70. Archie Boston, Jr.
71. James E. Hubbard, Jr.
72. John T. Curtis, Jr.
73. T.I. Webb, Jr.
74. Slayton A. Evans, Jr.
75. Allen M. Burdett, Jr.
76. Robert Herndon Fife, Jr.
77. Merrell Williams, Jr.
78. Walter Lawrence, Jr.
79. Benjamin W. Heineman, Jr.
80. Jerome R. Cox, Jr.
81. Archibald H. Rowand, Jr.
82. Floyd J. Fowler, Jr.
83. Frank Parlato, Jr.
84. Scott L. Smith, Jr.
85. Robert L. Levers, Jr.
86. Edward Parsons Tobie, Jr.
87. Jaroslav Olša, Jr.
88. Harry Stewart, Jr.
89. Chas W. Freeman, Jr.

Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon:. Quite a few are recognizable movie titles, but since you are trimming the list I'll wait until you finish. I see Bill Cosby above, didn't know he was a Jr. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosby link to his legal case brings up a good point. Does Wikipedia remove or retain the Jr. comma if it is the name of an actual legal case. Or if the legal filings against a defendant contain only his name with a comma. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can do it right here. I removed a few. Remove any others you see. I haven't thought about the legal case thing (but I see the comma was removed from the lead in 2016). Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, went through the list and removed some film titles. Checking these required a click and a quick visual scan to see that they are real people (you may have forgotten how to do this, understandable when overly using tools). Have added a comma to the first mention on the Cosby case to align with the title (legal case titles and text should probably stay with the comma when referring to the case itself). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just hover to get a preview; if that's not enough, then click. Thanks for pruning. I'll take out Cosby and get to the rest eventually, after I clean up the sfn/harvbn mess I'm in the midst of. Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've welcome. I won't ask but just wonder about what sfn/harvbn means (and if it's one of those "all Wikipedians know this" things, it at least reminds me my Wikipedian card needs renewing)°. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Shortened footnote" and some "Harvard" citation style templates that tripped me up when I tried to do some MOS:JR fixes in citations. See my talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be supportive of an RM to establish consensus to get a bot to move these to remove the commas? Bot help requires explicit clear consensus for each batch. Otherwise, I'll work on them "by hand"; I don't have any tools that help with moves. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, sure, if you think an RM is the way to go. But I can help chip away at them by hand though, the old-fashioned way. Maybe you start from the top and I'll start from the bottom, but not right now though. I'll be sure to leave redirects so things don't break existing links. The problem at that point would be that each page probably has built in instances of using the comma (first mentions, etc.), and I'd be inclined not to work those out of each one and just leave them stay for now, per WP time sink. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cleanup edits go pretty well with JWB. The moves could be done by hand, as you note, but we're both busy and don't really need the extra work or the edit counts, so getting a bot is a good way to go. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13D, which my favorite bot operator just got speedily approved. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, of course. By RM I thought you meant a week(s) long process. I don't think a long RM is needed, as these are standard WP:JR changes for biographies and all those left on your list are real. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to run a week and get closed with clear consensus, per the bot approval conditions. No rush. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started the RM at Talk:Arthur Joseph Lewis, Jr.#Requested move 6 October 2022 . Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got your winter coat and mittens ready? ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not always needed, but your question reminds me I do have to make sure I know where my gloves are. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understand you "do" the 1960s...but how about the 1970s? Anyway if/when you have a moment, could you maybe take a look at Seven Days (magazine)? Interested in any feedback/suggestions you may have. (They covered so many controversial topics, the controversies themselves generated a lot of secondary media coverage, so that "Topics" section in particular could just keep expanding...but in any case interested in your "fresh" read.) Thanks in advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cielquiparle for pointing out the well-written page, and thanks for saving it from an AfD trial. I don't notice it mentioned on the David Dellinger page, maybe you can add it there and link in an appropriate section (or better yet, a new section). I made a couple of minor italics edits but will give it a fuller reading at some point (although from what I've read so far the text is encyclopedic, informative, and well done). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy_Kryn. I appreciated the revert on the NASA Centers navbox. I had not intended to remove it. Either fat-fingered it when cleaning it up or when dealing with the Navboxes bug when I was trying to re-align the entries. Appreciate your quick catch. Related to NASA, no issue working with anyone. NeutraI did the revert a day ago and then returned the old material to the article in a very sloppy way. Not sure he is even thinking about anything; just moving thru like a wrecking ball. Noticed this unusual behavior and saw his edit history. he has over 300 edits in 7 days (more than 200 in the last 24 hours) and that is his complete history. He is choosing to edit on NASA now. I believe you are a regular set of eyes on it. Not looking for preferential treatment but the user seems to be editing an article on wikipedia once every few minutes for hours on end. He now has put a "someone is editing template" on the NASA file this evening for a topic that he will not easily find information for. His addition of the old NEO stuff was substandard. Simply seeking an objective opinion should it be needed in the coming days. My goal is to be finished in a week or so... Appreciate the considerationSpaceHist65 (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpaceHist65, and thanks for your extensive work on NASA and for the explanation about the navbox. No, I'm not a regular on that page, and am just assuming that your edits are being checked by regulars and, since you've gone unreverted for the most part, that your edits improve the page. Please don't get discouraged when your work is questioned, all work is saved in the history and can be reverted to a particular edit. Things on Wikipedia tend to get worked out over time as long as you stay focused on your vision for the topic. Apologies I can't be of more assistance, a note at the Spaceflight WikiProject and the NASA talk page would be seen by editors able to address your concerns with more topic-based expertise than I can give it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]