User talk:Klbrain

Sir, My work is an original done through painstaking reasearch of the subject for max authencity and full fledged and not a copycat work. Please note, hence, your merger proposal is not acceptable. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj2021c (talk • contribs) 14:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Klbrain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 10:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 10:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Klbrain, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 11:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is to be deleted? Dies it have to be? I'm not great with these things so perhaps you could help? Thanks RBJ (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for getting in contact. No, it won't necessarily be deleted, but you should definitely put your argument why it should be kept by editing the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channelomics. Use that page just like a talk page, but make sure that you start your entry with your recommendation, like Keep, and then your reason for doing so. I don't make any decision from here; it's up the admins (in 7 days time) based on the arguments put on that talk page. There's already someone else saying Keep, although I confess that it's not me! Klbrain (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case is important for category names - Category:Clinical Trials is different from Category:Clinical trials. Please check your work and, please remember to leave an wp:Edit summary describing your reasoning for your edit. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt, reminder and correction; I did get this one wrong and will watch more carefully. Cheers.Klbrain (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copied from the wrong template; thanks for catching it. It's now fixed (filmbio-work-group).-- FeanorStar7 11:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Klbrain -- Thanks for your prolific disambiguating work recently! I am trying to catch you and Niceguyedc but it's tough going:

1. Niceguyedc	       1734 fixed 2. Klbrain	        970 fixed 3. Doncram	        845 fixed 4. ColRad85	        645 fixed 5. Midas02	        522 fixed 

Even if we could combine points we'd barely be ahead of N. :( The point is to improve the Wikipedia of course. And it looks like we'll both get some kind of award anyhow.  :)

By the way yesterday i browsed some of your scoring edits as we can do and found them all good, in fact I noticed you have some nice ways of doing and saying some things that I oughta emulate. It was then occurring to me that we could for fun run a small peer review among any DPL editors with more than 100 edits say, who want to participate, to give feedback and bring up some examples to share about. This could be done very systematically, easily, randomly assigning a short list for each to review from that scoring history, so that we'd each evaluate (write a few comments) and be evaluated based on, say, 10 or 15 dab-fixes, with the point being to note differences in our styles and learn a little and build a bit of "how-to" material for training. And I happened by your user page now and see you're in a kind of peer-reviewing business already. Would you be willing to participate if a few others would, sometime like perhaps mid next month? No problem if not. --doncram 22:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very kind comments; more than happy to have edits checked and suggestions for improvement are welcome (I'm not that experienced here, but I'm trying to learn). The rather random sampling has been entertaining and educational. You've quite correctly spotted my Pharmacology area of interest, and I do flit between random disambiguating and something more focussed (currently reviewing pages through the relevant Categories; just getting an idea of what's there, and doing some dusting along the way). I'm going to get busier as the month progresses, so don't give up on the chase! Regarding the competition, work gets busier for me in October, so I won't have much time; but I'd be happy to contribute in the way you suggest; your proposal looks like a good one to me.Klbrain (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! I see u're progressing along. I may try for lesser goal of doing enough so that "ur score + my score >= N score", which is barely true currently.

By the way, you can combine 2 edits into one, and possibly do a little more, in your update edits at wp:DPL, if you started by selecting "edit source" on the "September 2015" higher level section (i.e. edit Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/September 2015), rather than editing its "To do" subsection followed by editing its "Done" section. In the same edit it is also possible to update two running counts at the top of the section, as in this combination of 3 edits: 2 of urs and one other's. It's absolutely fine what you've been doing; don't change anything if it would slow you down.

I have the impression you are new in this dabbing; you may not know but I am too. I have a lot of other experience but July was the first time I ever did any mass dabbing, and August was the first time i got listed in the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguator Hall of Fame. Sometimes in the past I noticed my being listed on the wp:MDC leaderboard but only with a few dozen disambiguations. I am still trying to figure out this area. For example I think i am doing okay by editing from the monthly list at "Dab Challenge September" as I imagine you are, but I am curious how editor Niceguyedc works so fast. He is using a different tool, Wikipedia:WPCleaner, which I haven't figured out. I will comment about that at the DPL talk page probably if/when i do.

I'll share: frankly, I'm not quite sure of the value of the manual update/tracking process, at least if the toolserver "Dab Challenge September" is available as it is now, which more accurately shows the current status for each of the 1000 dabs. I would think that a program could also more accurately measure (count up) the cumulative progress each day or hour, but maybe that is not easy. (In fact there is a daily automated estimate provided within the The Daily Disambig, but towards the end of last month I could tell it was dramatically off, on the low side. Maybe it only increments by the same credits we get in our individual scoring, i.e. maybe it sees the individual, direct fixing edits, but misses any multiple-page-fixing edit at a template or by changing a dab to a set index article.) Also, I saw it was handy to have the manual tracking process at the beginning of this month when toolserver was down for a day or two. And it serves other purposes, allowing us to see progress on our watchlist and to communicate about tricky ones sometimes. I will try to stick with this process, anyhow, unless/until there's some discussion and consensus to change it. I am mainly meaning to say that I am new and learning too; you are not alone if you thought you were.

I won't burden your Talk page with any more long commenting like this, tho I probably will see and respond if you ask me anything. Again, keep on truckin' or whatever and i will too.  :) cheers, --doncram 16:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He'd be faster if he used my Dab solver tool instead of doing it manually. — Dispenser 02:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I'm looking to get more automated, but thoughts I'd use the manual option this month in order to get more of a feel for the range of options; Dab solver tool looks good.Klbrain (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed your great work on disambiguation. Just a quick question: why don't you update the progress counts on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/September 2015? Hamish59 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Regarding updating the progress counts - I might have missed something - I do move term from "To do" down to "Done"; is there anything else that is needed? Do we need to manually edit the 'Progress bar'? Sorry if I've missed this.Klbrain (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly it: there are two numbers to be manually updated in the Progress section

[//tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/disambig_links.php?limit=1000&offset=0 top 1000 disambiguation pages] as of August 31, 2015, out of a total of 8,067 links, approximately 6,428 have currently been fixed.

{{Progress bar|6428|total=8067|width=60%}}

which renders as

top 1000 disambiguation pages as of August 31, 2015, out of a total of 8,067 links, approximately 6,428 have currently been fixed.

Hamish59 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out; sorry I had missed it (I had assumed that that step was an automated process). I'll make sure that I do this for here-on-in (and will also aim to check the current count (a bit trickier)).Klbrain (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Hamish59 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your edit to K Battery Royal Artillery where your edit summary was Unlinked: Ubique; no evidence for notability for this honour. Just to clarify, Ubique is the only Battle Honour of the Royal Artillery, Royal Horse Artillery and the Royal Engineers.

The Royal Artillery was present in nearly all battles and would have earned most of the honours awarded to cavalry and infantry regiments. In 1833, William IV awarded the motto Ubique (meaning "everywhere") in place of all battle honours (see here). Hamish59 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful correction; I had made an error there and am happy for it to be corrected. The only problem is that it is now an ambiguous link, and there is no link to the honor itself. Perhaps we could link to the definition on wiktionary, ubique. That would at least give a sense of the meaning of the term. That it is a battle honour doesn't need to be clarified, as it is clear from the position in the box.Klbrain (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: ah - already linked to Ubiquitous; that's even better.Klbrain (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I copied what you did on P and Q Batteries. Fully understand the need to disambiguate. Hamish59 (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to chase you down, but couldn't catch you in the October Dab contest. Nicely done! PKT(alk) 00:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations yourself - I confess that your efforts have spurred me on over the last few days! Anyway, we've both made the list for the month! Klbrain (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unlinking Platt in Low Bergish. I had been contemplating the same - or creating an article explaining Platt - but since it is a Dutch and German word, not an English word, an English explanation would become too much a wordbook entry. There is a German article de:Platt, however, explaining why so many vernacular languages from Denmark to the Netherlands and Thuringia call themselves "Platt". Might it be worth a footnote for those understanding German? I am hesitant. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could link from Platt to the relevant German page - using the interlanguage link (as you have used). I've tried adding this relatively simply, but I am not a language expert on Low Bergish, so would be very happy to go with any suggestion you might have.Klbrain (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine for me :-) There is a very brief English summary of the German article at http://www.omegawiki.org/index.php?title=DefinedMeaning:Platt_%281599378%29&action=edit if you care.

Thank you again. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edge of Tomorrow (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mastermind. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! CatcherStorm ^talk 17:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than reversing the edit, and returning to an ambiguous link, can I suggest that we just unlink "radiate"? "Radiate" does seem to be sufficiently simple English that it doesn't need linking.Klbrain (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the quality of your guesswork fixing these. All those for vitreous were wrong, and very obviously so to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject, or (I would have thought) even anyone who had bothered to read the first paras of the various articles concerned. I looked at some of the population structure ones, and I think it pretty unlikely that several of them are correct. I was rather dubious about the atropine thingy pharma ones too, but you claim to know something about the subject, and perhaps you do. Please stick to ones you actually know are right, and don't have to guess. It is much better to leave a link to a dab page than to "fix" it incorrectly. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions are noted. I did get some of the vitreous links wrong in the context of stoneware/ceramics, which I will review. I am surprised, however, that despite your expertise in the field of ceramics you have chosen to maintain an ambiguous links, noting for example your ambiguous edit on Faience. Regarding scopolamine, this is a topic I know rather well.Klbrain (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your bad edit, and improved the rather crap disam page itself. I repeat, links to disam pages are not themselves a very bad thing, and you are hardly in a position to point fingers. None of our destinations for this are ideal. However, I see you have corrected it to a decent one. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing your specialist expertise in art to those pages.Klbrain (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you correct as 1971 war as "Bangladesh Freedom fight " instead of indo-Pak war. (82.132.228.153)

I'd be happy to, but can't find the page you're referring to. Could you let me know?Klbrain (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Klbrain; to make your disambiguating easier, here's a tip that lets you move a link from "To do" to "Done", and to update the count information in a single edit, rather than 3. If you click on the [ edit source ] link next to the current month, just above the Progress Bar, you then have access to move the item you have finished from wherever it is in the "To do" section to the bottom of the "Done" list. On the same edit, you can add the number of links for the item to the Progress for the project. Remember to add the link count in two places - one for the text and the other for the Progress bar. I hope this is helpful and is reasonably clear - if not, please drop me a line on my talk page. Cheers! PKT(alk) 01:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful tip; I was editing sections separately in order to reduce the risk of editing clashes on the sometimes very busy editing of that page. However, I think that on balance this isn't a strong enough argument, so I'll switch to editing from the 'month' as you suggest. Cheers. Klbrain (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop disambiguating this. You have no idea what you are doing. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, but I can't see your better solution to the link I've suggested. For example, on Votive Mass you've reversed my edit without leaving an explanatory comment, and also left the term ambiguous. That is the only one of Beatus edits you've corrected, so I'm surprised at the energy of your comments.Klbrain (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this again, and have checked the context with a Catholic chaplain, and am now convinced that the initial disambiguation was correct. The sentence in dispute is

Nor may it be said of a Beatus, unless this is allowed by special indult

— Votive Mass

, which I interpret as a saying that a votive mass cannot be said of someone who has only been beatified, but not cannonised. Hence, to link Beatus (one who has been beatified) to beatification (the process of making a Beatus) seems reasonable to me and consistent with Wikipedia style, given that there is not (and need not be) a separate Beatus page. An alternative might be List of beatified people, but this seems less informative. Klbrain (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this one is also wrong. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that one could be better, but again you haven't provided a more specific solution. Perhaps a link to Beatus of Liébana#Biography which describes the set of (derivative) medieval manuscripts would be appropriate. Klbrain (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that one could be right, as opposed to plain wrong! The bio link is just likely to confuse people. Often items are best left linked to the disam page, for various reasons. Sending people to the wrong page is much worse than leaving them at a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beatus of Liébana#Biography section clearly defines the relevant use of Beatus in that context, specifically

The Commentary was popular during the Middle Ages and survives in at least 34 manuscripts (usually called a beatus) from the 10th through the 16th centuries

— Beatus of Liébana

Another option might be write a new page, along the lines of Beatus (medieval manuscript). Klbrain (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for other readers: we are discussing the use of 'beatus' on Medieval art.

I've just seen Johnbod's new link to Commentary on the Apocalypse; I agree that that is better! Klbrain (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stone carving is almost never the right piped link to "lithics" etc. If it is, then the text is probably by a 2nd-language speaker, and the word should probably just be changed to "stone" with no link. For Stone Age tools, which are normally the context of the term in English, lithic reduction is usually best. Please stick to areas you know about! Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your correction. On this occassion, lithic reduction is (I agree) better; elsewhere I had seen "lithics" used in the sense of "stone" and had linked to rock (geology). Klbrain (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've disambiguated Demeter as a possible Great Goddess to Great Goddess hypothesis. Not appropriate, as the last deals with a non-standard, indeed somewhat fringey and slapdash speculation more or less invented by Marija Gimbutas. "Great Goddess" is not a hard-and-fast term, so I've re-linked Demeter as Great Goddess to Mother Goddess instead; it's a more appropriate target though I can't, with the best will in the world, really describe it as "better". Haploidavey (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out; I should have paid more attention to the Mother Goddess page! Klbrain (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about my talk page? No, users can remove anything from their talk pages except block notices by administrators. Here is it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointout out WP:OWNTALK, which I don't think that I had read. I'm sorry that I had missed it. It does have helpful comments about the spirit of the use of user talk pages (in addition to the policies). Klbrain (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Modern recession of beaches into Beach evolution. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed that this was a merge rather than a copy; note that Modern recession of beaches was redirected to Beach evolution by me; the merge was indicated in the edit summaries (for example, see my edit at 15:35, 23 April 2016‎ on Beach evolution). I've now also documented this on Talk:Beach evolution to make this clearer. Klbrain (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that edit summary, but it was rather incomplete, as it did not say what the source page was. Have a look at my edit summary as an example of how you could do it better in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked my edit summary: you're quite right, I did miss that - thanks for spotting it. Not my usual practice. Klbrain (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your merge of Gender performativity into Social construction of gender is much appreciated! Did you consider Doing gender as well? It also has a merge tag; I'm wondering if the tag should be updated or removed. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to do it, but it looks like it could be a big job: I was pausing for breath before making a decision on that one! Feel free to do it if you prefer; I have a medical background, but not a specific gender expertise and am more than happy if you want to have a look at and decide one way or the other. Klbrain (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Indoor roller coaster a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into List of indoor roller coasters. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; you're quite right - I was cutting corners there! The "List" name already existed as a redirect to Indoor roller coaster, hence why the Move option didn't work. I'll use the "request move" procedure, as you recommend. Klbrain (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Klbrain. While I understand the logic of merging the articles, I think it would be better to retain the article on subphylum Lobosa and possibly redirect Lobosea to Tubulinea. For one thing, Lobosa is a more widely used taxon than Lobosea (a search in Google Scholar turns up about 5 times as many occurrences). Also, subphylum Lobosa is the more comprehensive taxon, and includes not only class Tubulinea (a synonym of class Lobosea), but also the lobose amoebae of the class Discosea. Since amoebae of Discosea and the recently proposed Cutosea are lobosean, in the loose and traditional sense, they should not be excluded from an article that discusses the sensu lato "loboseans."

More importantly, taxoboxes and navboxes within Wikipedia are generally structured with the subphylum in mind. So, if you look up Tubulinea, the taxobox there shows it to be a class under subphylum Lobosa; however, if you click on the link for that subphylum, you'll now end up at a page about another class-level taxon, Lobosea, which happens to be identical in composition! The same goes for navigational templates such as template:Eukaryota, which link to the subphylum Lobosa, comprising Discosea, Cutosea and Tubulinea/Lobosea).

Since class Lobosea is a synonym of Tubulinea (see Ruggiero et al, 2015), it should probably redirect to that page (there's already a decent article on Tubulinea). The contents of the Lobosea article can be judiciously moved to Lobosa (particularly the passage concerning the informal use of "loboseans", a common term for amoebozoan organisms that produce lobose pseudopods). Deuterostome (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Klbrain (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain:: Will you look into the template of Nastaliq, is not working. For example if i am using, "رنگ" in Nastaliq template it will generate this: "رنگ". Results are same, it just happened today. I checked last time it was working fine. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 19:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently edited the Nastaʿlīq script page, but not the Template:Nq. There was a template edit on the 5th September by @Great Brightstar:, who in their edit comment notes "Firefox must be used, see: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=projects&item_id=graphite_firefox". I'm not sure whether or not this helps?! Perhaps Great Brightstar can help. Klbrain (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, recently I added Awami Nastaliq font, but this font uses Graphite feature only for complex layout, you need Firefox if you want to use that. I will check whether my edit (or other revisions before me) break that. --Great Brightstar (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template works fine to me. Which font do you used for that? --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I use Chrome, not Firefox and mostly users use Chrome. The template works fine but results are the same. For example, the Template:Nq produces "رنگ" into this "رنگ", which is exactly the same as it was before using template but just bigger in size, this is not Nastaliq. Have you seen the pictures in Nastaʿlīq script article, the template was producing that style. So, what should be the solution to this.This link will clear you what Nastaliq font previously this template was generating, Nafees Nastaleeq. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 13:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not work for me. I also use Chrome 53.0, this font works fine to me. Maybe I can try previous version of Nafees Nastaleeq.--Great Brightstar (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are all works fine to me. Maybe you have a bad extension or wrong setting affect you, check it out. --Great Brightstar (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Klbrain, thank you for helping with the merges. Just a small suggestion that when you place the {{merged-from}} on the talk pages, please place it on the top of the page (above any of the sections). This is for attribution purposes. Place it in the section (like here) might lead to it being archived and the attribution is not visible. It would also be helpful if you add the {{merged-to}} to the source article's talk (or alternatively used the {{copied}} and paste it on both article's talk). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've been placing those merge templates either at the top, or in the relevant talk section (where there is one!), favoring the latter because it helps to indicate locally the completion of the merge? Archiving discussion stops additions to the discussion, but doesn't remove the template, so doesn't remove the traceability of the attribution for anyone who is interested. I agree that it reduces its prominence, but perhaps that is small price to pay for not having other reconsider a resolved merge discussion. I accept that a formal close discussion (in addition to the merge template) would also achieve this, but that does require an extra step.

You're quite right that I could use {{merged-to}} more frequently, tending only to use it where the merge discussion is on the paged merged from. Klbrain (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a formal close isn't really necessary. I just put the merge template on the top and add a {{done}} at the discussion And all in the same edit :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the {{done}} suggestion; I'll certainly use that! Klbrain (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have some other thoughts as well to improve the accuracy of the merge (thinking of proposing this at the WikiProject):

• If only one of the pages has been tagged, it might be preferable to tag the new page and update the dates on both - rather than removing it. For example Hjuksebø and Hjuksevelta are actually the same place, though only 1 was tagged. However, removing the merge template essentially makes it harder to figure out which was the duplicate page.
• Would it be good to leave a message on both talk pages when a stale merge template is removed?

What do you think? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point, I agree that if only one page was tagged, then it is preferable to tag the other rather than just remove the template. However, I think that it would be better to use the initial proposal date - the date of the proposal hasn't changed, it just hasn't been advertised in the correct places.

Regarding your second point, leaving a message on just the page linked for discussion would seem sufficient; as long as you also leave an edit comment on both pages when removing the template. However, when there has been no case made for the discussion, and no comment (over a reasonable length of time), I don't think that additional time should be commenting on someone's unjustified tag-and-run. Those with an interest know to look at the page history. Klbrain (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, they are a notorious republisher. Really a scam. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; good to know. Klbrain (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for merging these redundant instrument pages. I believe I was the one who suggested the merge way back when, and I recognize a lot of the material from my earlier fidgeting, but I never had the wiki skills to merge that many things together. You seem to have done so seemlessly. Hats off to you, sir. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are very kind to say so! I'm sure that there are still refinements to be made, but at least it is better to start with the material together. Klbrain (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unclosed merge request from three years ago, abandoned with clear opposition and no consensus to merge is emphatically not reason to merge ten character articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at Talk:Characters of Blake's 7#Merger proposal; the bottom line is last two arguments were in support of merges plus WP:SILENCE reads as consensus to me, noting that consensus does not equal unanimous agreement. Klbrain (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am reaching out to editors who have recently edited USP Dissolution Apparatus 2 because I feel that the discussion for merging the article is not getting enough attention. If you would like you can join the discussion --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there - looks fine to me. Klbrain (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say "thanks" to you for your help in resolving the "Hindu Views on Monotheism" issue I had. You've restored my faith in the essential decency and sense of fairness of Wikipedians. So, again, I say thanks! Svabhiman (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very kind comments; you made a very clear argument, with a simple and clear proposal - what wasn't to like! Klbrain (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again!

Svabhiman (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Shadowowl was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bramah N. Singh and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 15:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see you've redirected the page for Brit Awards 2015 (album), which I proposed and fully agree with your move. However, that still leaves us with Brit Awards 2014 (album), Brit Awards 2016 (album) and Brit Awards 2017 (album)... do you think the same redirect to their respective awards is in order (I do)? The editor who created these articles, Hadji87, is the only person who is likely to object to their merger, but seeing as he doesn't provide any sources other than the track listings from the Brits own website, I don't think there is any real reason for these standalone articles to be kept. Richard3120 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120:Yes, I agree that those other merges (the albums into the corresponding awards) are a good idea, just as for the 2015 page; thanks for suggesting it. I think that one of us (or anyone else) can boldly do it. Hadji87's talk page makes for interesting reading. Klbrain (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's well-meaning and undoubtedly sincere in his desire to improve Wikipedia. But he just doesn't understand the difference between encyclopedic content and trivia, and he exasperates several other British editors. Every page of "201x in British music charts" from 2011 onwards is cluttered by an absurdly long "summary" which details each week's new entries, highest movers, etc. and it just isn't important or interesting... I doubt there's anyone looking to find out who the highest climber from just two weeks ago was, never mind in Week 17 of 2013. The chart summary should be more like the one for 2010 in British music charts, so for example for 2017 it should highlight important achievements: Ed Sheeran's long-running stints at no. 1 with "Shape of You" and ÷, "Despacito" making a worldwide breakthrough for reggaeton music, Harry Styles scoring no. 1s with his debut single and album, Sgt. Pepper returning to no. 1 fifty years after its release, Stormzy scoring the first no. 1 album by a grime artist... these are all important achievements, and very likely sourceable as well, unlike the trivia Hadji adds. His other major additions are creating articles for every Now That's What I Call Music album – I feel that there are almost no compilation albums that deserve their own article, and a simple list at the parent Now article will do... yes, they all reach no. 1 on the compilation chart, but as nobody buys compilations any more due to streaming and making their own playlists on iTunes or Spotify, it's not much of an achievement to reach no. 1 on that chart these days (the three annual Now albums now account for 75–80% of all compilation sales in the UK each year). Richard3120 (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bramah N. Singh, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Rabat Tepe, Klbrain!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The image should have a caption to provide context (and if you can add a description to the original file on Commons, all the better).

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks for the review, and also to User:Joe Roe for sorting out the image caption before I got to it! I agee that that was needed. Klbrain (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made an executive decision and merged genome engineering into genome editing. Hope you don't mind that I didn't wait for you to respond. I was planning on nominating Genetic engineering for WP:GA and didn't really want the tag at the top. If you disagree just revert and we can work something else out. AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn:Sorry I was a bit slow on that page; it was a significant job, so thanks for doing it! I think that that was a perfectly reasonable think to do. Klbrain (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klbrain just trying to clarify some aspects of merges - think it's come up before. As long as a merge proposal has not been opposed there's no reason to remove the proposal. Another editor can come along later and perform the merge. Often the merger proposer is the editor who will make the merge. Sometimes the merge wanted is so 'unopposable' that it can be carried out without a proposal. Often a merge tag is placed when there is just isn't the time to cary out the merge, and this leaves it open for somebody else to later perform the merge or the proposer if they're still around - if it's unopposed of course. So it really helps if the merge tag is left - otherwise if a time came when the merge was wanted to be done it would have to wait a month after re-proposing for any discussion to take place. Hope that makes sense - all the best --Iztwoz (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiments but also note:

• WP:MERGEINIT Step 1 is "Create a discussion", a step missed by many drive-by proposers. Missing this step slows the progress of merges as it means that the others have to work to harder to interpret the case.
• WP:MERGEINIT Step 4 "If there is a consensus against the merger, or if there is no consensus or no discussion and you don't believe that it is appropriate to merge the pages, then please remove the merge proposal tags".

So, the absence of a discussion (particularly over more than a year) is sufficient to close the proposal. I'm a frequent bold merger of pages, even when there is no discussion (for example, yesterday, Revista Brasileira de Engenharia, Caderno de Engenharia Química into Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering), but when the case to merge is arguable then I think the proposer really should make a case.Klbrain (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Noticed you closed the merge proposal[1] on the basis that there was "no consensus for merge" and that there was "uncontested opposition".[2] In fact, 4 experienced editors supported the merge proposal and the only dissenter was an SPA, with a total of one edit to date (the TPG comment), who merely stated "I know NSA but never heard of Juice Plus", which is a superficial assertion of an immaterial non-fact that required no opposition. Also, as you probably know, SPAs, especially an SPA making their first edit, would generally not be given any weight in such a discussion. Rather than there being no consensus for the merger, I would argue that there was a clear consensus; it was just awaiting someone to act on it. On that basis, I'll ask you to consider reverting your edit. Thanks! Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; I've had a look back at the talk. There is one comment opening the proposals that argues that NSA is only notable for Juice Plus, which wasn't supported by my reading of National Safety Associates which demonstrates activity in the 70s and 80s in other products, potentially notable if only for the legal actions related to some of those products. The following 3 comments were poll-type responses, adding no arguments. The final 13 October 2016 comment was a clear oppose from MemBrain (talk · contribs), directly contradicting the only case made for the merge. Given that this comment was unopposed for 15 months, I applied WP:SILENCE and closed. I still think that that's reasonable. I hadn't checked MemBrain's contribution history, so hadn't noticed that it was an SPA; thanks for pointing this out. However, I have re-opened; perhaos you could comment on the substance of the proposal over there? Klbrain (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you do a lot of cleaning up of old merge tags etc. That's good but I have come across a few recently that suggest to me that you are more concerned with emptying a maintenance category that producing a useful outcome at the articles. For example, your merge into the Komati caste article is nothing more than a dump of content from Arya Vaishya, which aids neither article nor reader. I think there is more to merging that just copy/pasting and, certainly with caste-related articles, it might be better not to bother unless you are going to do it "properly" because the scope for setting off some sort of wiki-war is quite high. Just a thought. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your frank opinion, with which you might not be surprised to know I disagree. My belief is that there is a role for copy/paste merging as an incremental step in the evolution of material on Wikipedia. By placing relevant information in one page, expert subject editors, who may be unfamiliar with the process of merging, are then able to refine the content of the page in one place. In fact, editing heavily while merging confuses authorship of the material being merged. Even further, heavy editing creates a great risk of edit warring because the newly-synthesised material has not withstood the years of uncontested scrutiny that most Wikipedia material has withstood. Klbrain (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you obviously haven't got a clue about the problems with caste. Do it again and I will see you at WP:ANI because that topic area is subject to two sanctions regimes. To clarify further, the notion that "expert" editors would be unfamiliar with merging may have a very small element of truth to it but the notion that they do not know how to copy/paste, which is all you are doing, is absurd. - Sitush (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, for the avoidance of doubt, I will let you know about them now. See below. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

@Sitush: Thank you for the reminder; I accept and agree that caste is a particularly sensitive topic that needs to be handled with care. Klbrain (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for merging the articles on the three band members to the main article – only yesterday I came across them again and thought "I must get round to doing those merges tomorrow"... but you beat me to it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; they've been there a while, but I know that there's plenty to do elsewhere too. Wasn't sure about the best solution for multiple infoboxes - might be nice to have a 'gallery', but that would have the problem of dissociating the infoboxes from the relevant sections. Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klbrain! Thanks for moving Participation of women in the Olympics into the mainspace. You also reviewed it, which is amazing! It is a great coincidence that you completed the merge today as I had also planned to do it today! You beat me to it by a couple minutes! Once again thank you for your cooperation in the writing and publishing of this article. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your generous comment. I don't have specific expertise in the field of sport, but have been involved with plenty of merges; that one was carefully done by you via draft (over a 4 month period), which is a helpful way of proceeding that should allow collaboration; came up with a good result, although its a pity that there weren't more people around to help you! There may be some comments from others about material they think should be included that didn't come across with the selective merge, but that's OK; I'm sure that it can all be worked out on the new page. Klbrain (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted the article for peer review. My goal for this article is to get it to GA status. PR is probably the right place to go to get some input. Once again, thank you for all of your help and advice! Regards, Jith12 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you went ahead and completed the merger of Syrophoenician woman into Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter. The problem is, you are an WP:INVOLVED editor; you had previously !voted "support". There were a number of "oppose" !votes, and no clear consensus for the merger. So, please undo your merger, and ask an uninvolved editor to close the discussion; perhaps post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Other types of closing requests. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that merge discussions are discussions, not votes. The preceding argument at Talk:Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter#Merger? from 22 January 2017 was in support of the merge, and received no refutation over 13 months; so, I could have merged it on 7 February 2018, as an uninvolved editor. Nevertheless, I pointed out the policy and waited 3 weeks to ensure that there were no objections. So, I believe that the merge was valid on the 7th Feb and therefore also reason (given no objections) on the 28th. Nevertheless, given your objections, I am happy to reverse the merge.Klbrain (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But remember - an unanswered argument doesn't automatically "win". StAnselm (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After your change of Physicochemical, the difference to Physiochemical is not explained anymore. I think we need the following sentence to reappear somewhere: Not to be confused with Physiochemical which refers to Physiological chemistry. RolfSander (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right; sorry I had missed that (I had meant to include it). I've now added the hatnote to the top of Physical chemistry. Klbrain (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) RolfSander (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious.     — The Transhumanist    14:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC) P.S.: please {{ping}} me if you reply. Thanks. -TT[reply]

@The Transhumanist: The advanced search? Sometimes; not 'a lot'. Klbrain (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klbrain.

You merged the article Smart City Indore with Indore Municipal Corporation. I'd like to request you to revert the merger, since those two are separately different articles. Smart City Indore is an initiative, Indore Municipal Corporation is the municipal body, therefore the merge does not make any sense. Other 'Smart City' articles too have separate Wikipedia articles, please see Smart City Pune for instance. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smart cities is an initiative of the Indore Municipal Corporation. Some other cities do have their own separate pages for the smart initiative (which in my view should also be merged). Also, the merge occurred after an unopposed 2015 merge proposal, with discussion on a prominent page at Talk:Indore#Merge Proposal. More than 3 years with no objections to the idea that a stand-alone page wasn't warranted doesn't seem unreasonable (with 2 different targets considered). I also note that the merge completed more than 2 months ago, in which time the page has been edited by others, making a reversal awkward. Nevertheless, if things have changed, please feel free to formally propose a WP:SPLIT. Klbrain (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was yet another poor merge by you. I realise that you are trying to clear a backlog but your enthusiasm for doing so is creating more work for others. You should not just dump the content of one article into another. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Thank you for expressing your view; however, I can't see your point, particularly for that edit. What is your specific concern about that edit? It seems to be completely consistent with WP:FMERGE. Klbrain (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merged and moved Khatushyam and the Khatushyam Temple Please take a look and feel free to update and improve. thanks. DBigXray 22:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Nice job; I was somewhat regretting suggesting that re-arrangement of material, as the pages were hard to work with ... Well done for being determined enough to do it! Klbrain (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your kind appreciation. I wanted to hear opinions from Jain individuals as well. My understanding of this topic was from a Jain friend in childhood. So I concur that Khatushyam is a common name than Barabarik. hence the rename. --DBigXray 12:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There are these two really interesting articles on Integrated marketing communications and Marketing communications ...  ;) Klbrain (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • ok I may take a look sometime. hate to be called a canvasee. --DBigXray 12:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for merging the Gyrator-capacitor model pages. Constant314 (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Klbrain (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Klbrain for deleting the page List of cities in Iran.

Catfurball (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kitten; of course, it was a redirect following a merge of relevant material (just so people don't get worried ...)! We still have List of cities in Iran by province. Klbrain (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of those category pages in Iran.

Catfurball (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of both of the Category pages that I asked you to take care of.

Catfurball (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Klbrain. You have new messages at Talk:Fenway Park.
Message added 16:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 16:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing my thanks for a discussion closure by an uninvolved editor! Klbrain (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Klbrain. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: The article Central Valley General Hospital and the article Hanford Community Medical Center need to be merged with the article Adventist Health Hanford. They are the same hospital owned by Adventist Health. I'm including the website for Adventist Health which lists all the hospitals that the company owns.[3]Catfurball (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfurball: sounds like a reasonable thing to propose; free free to follow the procedure at WP:MERGEPROP. Klbrain (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: I'm sorry, I'm not really interested in merging the three articles. And I'm way to busy, so much to do in the Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church. List of Seventh-day Adventist being one of them that I've done the majority of my work on, so many names with no references Some of them were in the wrong place, still some are in the wrong place. I suggest that you tag these three articles that I told you about, with my reason to why they should be merged.Catfurball (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems you merged logical assertion into Judgment (mathematical logic) but this seems to be entirely incorrect; they are unrelated concepts, as best as I can understand them. Or are you sufficiently an expert to be able to explain how they are the same? The problem is that the judgment article is absolutely horrid, a mish-mash of gobbldy-gook; as far as can tell, a judgment is supposed to be a "type judgment", as in type theory. For example "t is a term". See Talk:Judgment (mathematical logic) for details. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I was responding to unopposed proposal posted at Talk:Judgment (mathematical logic)#Merge proposal and Talk:Logical assertion#Merge; that proposal was unopposed from when it was written on 13 August 2016 until my merge on 7 May 2018, and seemed a plausible argument to me. I don't mind being corrected, however, as this is not a field in which I have particular expertise. Klbrain (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for really obvious cases like this (or like the Hindu month from a few days ago), I don't think it's reasonable to expect that the proposer should have started a discussion, or that others should have voiced their support. The burden of proof here should really be on those, if any, who would claim the two topics are distinct. And I don't think a proposal from 2016 is "stale": this is an out of the way topic area without any really dedicated regular editors that I know of: it might take much more than two years before anyone with the necessary comepetence comes around to performing the merge. – Uanfala (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few points in reply:

• What is obvious to you might not be obvious to others, which is why a case should be made on the talk page; in both cases I was following the delisting rule on the grounds that the merge was not obvious to me, with the additional condition that the proposer of the merge did not start a discussion for the merge. I do regularly perform merges where there is no case made and I feel that the case is genuinely obvious - see, for example, this merge. So, if the case isn't blatant, can I encourage you to start a discussion?
• The "one-year stale" rule is part of the Stale merge proposals guidelines.
• If a case is both obvious and in an out-of the way area, can I encourage you to be WP:BOLD or aim for concensus via WP:BRD.
• Consistent with this, I don't mind my merge closures being reversed if you feel that they warrant further consideration; or of course you can just propose them again! Klbrain (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair points, but if that's how things are currently done, then problems are likely to come up again. A merge often requires evaluating content, choosing stuff to keep or to discard, rewriting parts of the text, etc: it's a content matter. When I propose a merge, then obviously I do that in topic areas with which I have enough familiarity to be able to identify the duplication, but in most of these cases I don't have the subject expertise necessary to confidently perform the merge itself. When I place the tag, I expect it to be followed up by a suitable editor (or hopefully, a suitable reader who's not yet an editor), one that has more subject expertise than me. I don't expect that to be acted on by someone with less. Of course, there are plenty of mergers that can be carried out by any good editor, but that's not by any means all, and any workflow based on this assumption is probably not quite fit for purpose. – Uanfala (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard back on the NerdWallet talk thread [4], so wanted to ping you directly to see if you saw it, had time to take a look, and if it's something you're interested in. Thank you. Julianne at NerdWallet (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Multiplayer game. Since you had some involvement with the Multiplayer game redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 15:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]