User talk:Kraxler

This is what the Académie française states on their website ( http://www.academie-francaise.fr/langue/questions.html#accentuation ):

« Accentuation des majuscules »

« Quant à l’utilisation des accents sur les majuscules, il est malheureusement manifeste que l’usage est flottant. On observe dans les textes manuscrits une tendance certaine à l’omission des accents. Il en va de même dans les textes dactylographiés, en raison notamment des possibilités limitées qu’offrent les machines traditionnelles. En typographie, enfin, certains suppriment tous les accents sur les capitales sous prétexte de modernisme, en fait pour réduire les frais de composition.

Il convient cependant d’observer qu’en français, l’accent a pleine valeur orthographique. Son absence ralentit la lecture, fait hésiter sur la prononciation, et peut même induire en erreur.

On veille donc, en bonne typographie, à utiliser systématiquement les capitales accentuées, y compris la préposition À, comme le font bien sûr tous les dictionnaires, à commencer par le Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, ou les grammaires, comme le Bon usage de Grevisse, mais aussi l’Imprimerie nationale, la Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, etc. Quant aux textes manuscrits ou dactylographiés, il est évident que leurs auteurs, dans un souci de clarté et de correction, auraient tout intérêt à suivre également cette règle, en tirant éventuellement parti des ressources nouvelles que peuvent offrir les traitements de texte modernes.

Il en va de même pour le tréma et la cédille. » Charvex 10:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, very interesting series of articles! Bearian (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your excellent work in GREATLY expanding my simple DA list. It's starting to look like a credible article. Thanks again!Americasroof (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy new year!
	we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to make a big issue over this, as life is simply too short for it to be worth it, but please see here for discussion of the sources reflecting that the terms ended at 12:00 noon on March 4th. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your post on my talk. (Just mentioning because I'm not sure whether you are watching it there. Feel free to respond either here or there, whichever is easier for you.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more thoughts on my talkpage (top thread), if you feel like taking a look. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something I wrote on an interested user's talk page, copied here, to be improved later.

The question for the historian is: What do the sources say? If there are contradictory sources, who says what? Is it possible to establish what really happened? And, finally, what may one conclude? Let's apply this procedure to this case:

The Continental Congress called the 1st Congress to assemble on March 4, 1789. No other authority exists for the beginning of the term, the Constitution (before the 20th Amendment) did not mention any date, or time of day. The Constitution says that representatives should be elected every "two years". No other authority exists for the length of the term. No authority at all mentions explicitly the end/expiration of the term. Calculating two years (not two years + one day!) one arrives at a term lasting from March 4, Year, to March 3, Year + 2, considering full calendar days. This was stated as such in the Congressional Biographical Directory for about 150 years without being questioned.

Who says otherwise? A Senate resolution (as stated above) which claimed the right for the Senators to sit a little beyond midnight ("at 1 a.m."). Resolutions are not binding on anybody, except those present. Senate resolutions are not binding in any way on the House and vice-versa. The sitting members claimed unilaterally to sit until they are finished. They did so once, or possibly a few other times. This can not have any bearing on the legal term of office. A law needs three readings in either House, a constitutional amendment must be ratified by a number of States. A resolution is not even binding on the next-term Senate. It might be used as a precedent on another occasion, but the next-term Senators might just vote the other way round, it depends on the majority present.

Apparently there is evidence that, on a few occasions (2, 3??), the outgoing Congress was in session as late as noon on March 4, under a unilateral claim that they could do it.

Conclusion: The Senate or the House were sitting occasionally a few hours after the legal term seemed to have expired. Since no legal authority expressly states the end of the term, subsequent legislators, following common sense, did not find any reason to take exception to the practice. At the same time, since the original Senate and House journals always recorded the last day of the session as March 3 (even when the session lasted until a few hours after midnight) the congressional records, and the Congressional Biographical Directory stated the term as March 4 to March 3, adopting it as a convention, disregarding Sundays, and over-time hours, to avoid confusion.

The reader of an encyclopedia who reads "served in Congress from March 4 to March 3," should know that it implies, among other points, the following (perhaps to be explained in some pertinent Wikipedia article):

The House never assembled on March 4, the regular session began early in December, nine months later. In the meanwhile none of the members set foot in Washington DC (except in the case of earlier special sessions, on very rare occasions). Some were serving in State Legislatures, who when asked to resign on March 4 (the two offices being incompatible), said that the term would begin only when taking the seat. Resolutions (there we are again!) to this effect were passed in the New York Senate, and perhaps elsewhere.

The Senate usually held a special session on March 4, without the outgoing members, and without most of the incoming members (only representives who were elected to the Senate, and other federal employees and officeholders present in Washington DC would qualify on this day) to inaugurate the President and Vice President, or vote nominations, if a quorum was still present. Most first term Senators were not there either, until December.

The session might have lasted a few hours after midnight, and perhaps three times in 150 years until noon of March 4 in odd-numbered years, to finish the tedious proceedings of final votes on bills to be enacted. Since this was not recorded (the last recorded day being always March 3, except if it was a Sunday) it is impossible to say, in the vast majority of cases, at what hour (and date) the House or Senate really adjourned.

Final conclusion: It is unwarranted, and must be considered WP:OR, to say that all terms of Congressmen at all times before the 20th Amendment ended on March 4. Absolutely no source says so. Even the above quoted resolution of 1851 does not say so. (Please read carefully!) It says in the preamble (falsely invoking the US Constitution which is silent on the matter) that "...the session...does not expire..." (not the "term" of the Senator!). Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the photo. I looked everywhere for one and did not have any luck. I really appreciate it. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 1826 where you fixed my change from C. to century. I hate making mistakes like that, but I'm glad when somebody corrects me afterwards. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Kraxler! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the information. I knew IMDB was not acceptable but was unaware of the sources you listed above. I was not able to see where the sources you mentioned were listed under WP:RS and want to make sure I am not missing any others. Would you please point out where specifically to locate this info on under WP:RS. Thank you! --BuzyBody (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the red links you mentioned above because I kept getting the disambiguation notice from the bot after I worked on an article. The bot notice referenced those specif red links removed. Should I ignore that bot notice? I really want to improve articles & want to do everything correctly. Thanks! --BuzyBody (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the disambiguation notices I have received recently but think I just got confused. If I get another disambiguation notice I am confused on, I will contact you if you do not mind.

I have made the changes you mentioned above & really appreciate your help. Do you have any guidance on sources I may check to find references for Congressional articles? I check for state historical articles and alumni articles but would appreciate any other guidance. Thank you for all you help!--BuzyBody (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Your articles are very detailed. :D Joshuadmullins (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you're 100% sure those pictures are public domain, you might as well upload 'em directly to Commons. DS (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you do have an account on Commons... and on French Wikipedia, and Japanese Wikipedia, and Hungarian Wikipedia, and Wikiquote, and every single WMF project. It's called unified login. And doing it directly to Commons does save a tiny bit of labor for a bot, thereby reducing the total energy consumption of Wikipedia by some infinitesimal amount. DS (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to help improve the upload interface, I recommend writing directly to the multimedia team, <fflorin@wikimedia.org>. Thanks. DS (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You were kind enough to really help me a few months ago with editing Congressmen, and I wanted to ask another question if you do not mind. You explained that I should not add full dates in succession boxes (at the bottom) and the "years" space should only contain years. If I edit an article that already has the full dates in the succession boxes, should I change it to just show the years? Examples include Henry Tazewell and Samuel J. Randall. Thank you for your help! --BuzyBody (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question re external links. Should I remove "The Political Graveyard" as an external link if it is already there? (John E. Reyburn for example). I know you said "Find A Grave" could be used as an external link, so I know I should leave that one but was not sure re "Political Graveyard". Thanks--BuzyBody (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I edited the article for Samuel J. Randall accordingly. I am keeping notes of everything I am learning from you and studying the Wikipedia guidelines as well. My hope is to be a reviewer at some point. Thanks again! --BuzyBody (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have another question if you do not mind. I was editing the article for Thomas Cooper (representative) and noticed an almanac section on his article that includes several charts. There is a similar section on William B Cooper'S article (his brother). Would you please let me know if this should be there and if so, if I need to make any changes to it? I was thinking it was not needed but wanted to check with you. Thanks for your help!--BuzyBody (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good to see you throw your hat into the ring. Good luck with your candidacy,  Roger Davies ^talk 00:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraxler, I noticed that you occasionally - yet effectively - revert vandalism. Would rollback rights be of interest to you? Please let me know what you think. Best. Acalamari 16:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'm happy to have made the offer. :) Best. Acalamari 15:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your RfA opinion! Things didn't work out, But I appreciate your support! be well. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to you too (and here to avoid cluttering up the RfA). Sorry if I sounded snarky, wasn't my intention. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYStateOfficers has been nominated for merging with Template:Current New York statewide political officials. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Int21h (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your participation at my recent RfA, even if I couldn't sway you to support me. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. It must be difficult to evaluate people with whom you've never worked, but one of the things that was most disheartening, was hearing numerous objections over the same problems (my shortcomings with AfD process), yet very few people assuming earnestness on my part to improve or to go easy if I became an admin. Anyhow, thank you for your thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. Sorry for the delay. Dabdo (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not add to the RfA, leaving you the last word in two places. A move to the opus no. was not the question of the move request in 2012. Do you see that the article had a name from the beginning to this, with a socalled consensus of 2:1 in September 2011, restored after long discussion and to my great relief? If you think the opus no. would be a better name, go ahead, propose that, and don't forget a move request for the Fifth Symphony to Op. 67 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gerda, the discussion was running a bit out of scope, so I'll let it go too. You could just add a short uncontroversial good-bye statement, sign it, and get the last word. I certainly won't add anything afterwards. Also, I do not intend to propose or request any moves anywhere. What should and can be moved, I move; what can't be moved, I don't. I focus on content... Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraxler. Picking up on your comments at the RfA:

• "I'm now just curious who invented the sequential numbering of all Beethoven sonatas, and when." I don't know exactly who invented it and when, but it has been pretty standard at least since the mid 19th century. Take a look at the Moonlight's IMSLP page, which shows front sheets for a Moscheles edition of 1860 and the Breitkopf's 1862 edition in their Ludwig van Beethovens Werke: Vollständige, kritisch durchgesehene überall berechtigte Ausgabe, mit Genehmigung aller Originalverleger. You'll find these numbers in all editions sold today, I believe, as well as many recordings.
• "Beethoven himself used Opus numbers and every opus began with No. 1." OK, but even the opus numbers were assigned by his publishers, not by Beethoven. In any case, we don't need to follow Beethoven's way of referring to them. Common names arising after his death are just as valid.

Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the clarification. "In any case, we don't need to follow Beethoven's way of referring to them. Common names arising after his death are just as valid." Hear, hear. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the NY government's official website, where Kathy Hochul is numbered [1] & [2] as the 77th Lieutenant Governor. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if you count backwards? that would make Krupsak the 68th Lieutenant Governor. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now if you look at a complete list of lieutenant governors here, please count backwards and tell me who was the first one. Please do not go directly to the top of the list, do count backwards. I expect your conclusion of this little exercise to comment further. Kraxler (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Van Cortlandt is the first lieutenant governor of NY. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you count backwards from No. 77 Hochul. Definitely not. Under no circumstances. Well, I'll give you a second chance now. Since there's something wrong with the numbering, and you can't have it both ways, please show me a reliable source that shows Krupsak as the 68th NY Lt Gov. Do not do OR or SYNTH, just post a link, please. Kraxler (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing the NY government official website's numbering of Hochul? GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that it is there. Since we don't know how the numbering was arrived at, to the extent that you yourself are unable to explain the sequence, taking as a base the complete list, we can not count backward or forward. It would be silly to jump around the numbers somewhere in the middle, don't you think? I'm still waiting for the link that says explicitly that Krupsak was the 68th. Kraxler (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have such a link, but I do have links to the numbering of her successors. I'm not a math wizard, but it tends to point back to her as the 68th. PS: Why are you opposing her numberings & not her successors? GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krupsak is on my watchlist, the others I'll get to any time. Now that you pointed it out, I'm on the way. Kraxler (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to strip all the NY lieutenant governors of their numbering, that's your choice. Don't be surprised though, if you get reverted by others. Particulary at Kathy Hochul's article. Anyways, I won't challenge you on it. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I won't change it at Hochul, since there's a link, and she or somebody else chose this number, for whatever reason. Kraxler (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I come here because you might yell at me if I replied at the RfA page) I am disgusted at your remark of calling Bbb23 a "badgerer". And by the way, I think Bbb is one of the best admins. In the dictionary, "badgering" is defined as "ask (someone) repeatedly and annoyingly for something; pester.", now, is that what Bbb did? Absolutely not. Today, a big problem with RfA is the word "badgering", much like a big problem with AN/I is the overuse of "boomerang". If someone wants to join any discussion on Wikipedia, they should be ready to discuss. If you want RfA to be a place where everyone votes anonymously, like in the ArbCom elections, then join this discussion, but until anonymous voting is implemented at RfA (if it will ever be) !voters should be able to discuss their votes. And I am not a hypocrite when it comes to this, I will discuss any of my !votes anytime. Just my 2¢. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right to say that "!voters should be able to discuss their votes. That's the problem, Bbb23 doesn't discuss the vote, he discusses the person/behavior of the voter. That's badgering. Bbb23 could anytime say, these criteria are nonsense, your standards are too high, the articles in question are good enough content, etc. He could discuss the points raised by Andre D. But he didn't, instead he made a disparaging remark about the alleged overall negative attitude of Andrew. That's badgering, nothing more. I hope you can see the difference. Kraxler (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraxler! I wanted to let you know that I just closed your ANI filing, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by User:173.3.222.239 – it turns out that the IP in question was an attempt at block evasion by User:NYCSlover. The SPI case about this master account can be found, here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYCSlover. I'm letting you know all this so if you see edits like the IP's in the future, you'll know about this SPI case, as it may make dealing with this kind disruptive editing easier. Cheers! --IJBall (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. Kraxler (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post on my talk. I am starting to get the feeling that no matter how you close something, someone wont like it. I can see why some dont like closing, but I like it. If you do it right, eventually someone wont be happy, but I will just keep going forward and hopefully help solve some disagreements. AlbinoFerret 01:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kittens !

Thursby16 (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraxler, I don't quite understand your aggressive tone about the editing of the Charles C. Lockwood article. The only reason I reverted was to continue improving the quite rudimentary and badly referenced version that included some minor mistakes. I simply still was in the process of editing. Frankly, you do not own this article, and i.m.h.o. it has improved significantly. I thought we were all working here to improve the quality of Wikipedia and not for some kind of ego trip. I hope you can get of your high horse and read and, if you like, make further additions to the current version in order to have a reasonably good version. Thanks for your cooperation. - DonCalo (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, very helpful and highly appreciated. - DonCalo (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraxler,

Have a look at this article Arjun Prajapati. I have no idea how to nominate it for review so here to you. DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure, but still, thought to take it to your notice. DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mydreamsparrow, I reverted the article to the last version before the vandalism. Kraxler (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, Many thanks. DreamSparrow ^Chat 13:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraxler. May i ask, regarding "to need somebody to change one's diapers" is an idiomatic expression, where it is idiomatic? I suddenly feel ignorant; i have lived in several places in the UK and North America, including both coasts of the latter, and i have literally never heard/come across the phrase previously. Please understand, i'm not disputing you, i am merely curious about my lack of knowledge. Thanks. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very much used in Germany (translated, in German). Kraxler (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kraxler! As someone who knows a lot about AfD, I thought I'd ask your objective opinion on something... Could you take a look at Motel, and then take a loot at Motels in the United States (the latter is a "splitout" of the former), and then tell me if you think the latter should be taken to AfD or not?... I could give you the background on this, if you like, but I thought I'd see what your objective impressions are first. Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much to the contrary, the content referring to the United States should be reduced and headed by

Main article: Motels in the United States

to direct the reader to more detailed info on the subject, see WP:SPINOUT. The Motels article has already a considerable size, and to focus too much on a single country, albeit the originating place, makes the article a bit lopsided, sort of burying the parts about other places. Also, the U.S. content seems to be a bit too specific for an article on the subject in general. Kraxler (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see, this is why I asked. OK, thanks for your perspective! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have now met twice, and both times you went out of your way to be uncivil.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your !votes many times every day at AfD, and I can't remember having been ever uncivil there. Kraxler (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiii,

I have made some changes including adding and removing photos from this article, please have a look, if the edits are not proper undo or manage as per the guidelines please. DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images are ok. However the map is overlapping with the panorama view because there is not enough text. There are no references in the article, please add something like the official website of the administration of the place, and sources that refer to the statements in the article (newspapers, books), avoid facebook and youtube links. Kraxler (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, even I have noticed it. I will do it soon. DreamSparrow ^Chat 20:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Bayan Fenwick seem to misunderstand that discussion. If GNG can be shown then NFOOTY is always irrelevant, that discussion is more a debate about what constitutes significant coverage.

NFOOTY is merely a tool by which notability can be asserted. If a subject fails NFOOTY, that does not mean an article should be deleted, it merely means that it is not "automatically" kept, there must be consensus that the subject satisfies a wider GNG criterion. Sometimes that consensus will be reached and sometimes it won't. See Noel Bailie as an example of a player who fails NFOOTY but through his achievements (MBE, 1000 games for one club) and the coverage that got passes GNG.

You couldn't really use that AfD to argue to inherently keep a player in a separate AfD because you would still have to show GNG. You could try to use it to support the idea that routine transfer talk and match reporting was significant coverage, but I am not sure how much support that would currently get on a regular basis. However, it might gain support and that support might grow over time and as a result NFOOTY might become less useful.

But that would simply be because consensus had changed and that is how enWiki works. It wouldn't be something that I would support initially, but if the weight of opinion was against me then I would accept the change. Consensus is fundamental to how things work on enWiki but that doesn't mean that everyone need be in agreement. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I don't think I misunderstood the Bayan Fenwick discussion, much to the contrary. I won't say anything about it here, it wasn't closed yet. However, I agree with your above made evaluation, and I accepted already your statement that you would have changed your !vote at the Kelechi Iheanacho if there had been time (there was really in-depth coverage there). Please understand that I'm not doubting your judgment, I supported your RfA last February, and had the impression that you generally know what you're talking about, and your'e able to take part in learned debate. The point of contention is the following: Every football player (even 5th division Fenwick, for example) gets huge amounts of ROUTINE coverage, because in many places (like Germany, UK, Brazil) football takes up the by far biggest part of the sports section of any newsmedia. Some people play once or a very few times in a match that passes NFOOTY. So where now is the boundary between "technically passes WP:NFOOTY but has no coverage" and "passes easily NFOOTY and coverage can be dismissed to be shown because it must be there". (Vyacheslav Seletskiy played 13 games in one of the listed leagues, and was deemed wanting. So why is the league listed if it doesn't count, or how many games do you need?) The current guideline does not make any such restrictions. It says "Players who have played...in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football." and further explains "Note: For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." That means that Stefan Ginchev passes. Period. It also means, since youth players are expressly mentioned, that senior players do not need show coverage, it must be there anyway, for the abovementioned reason. For comparison: WP:NPOL says "Politicians..who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature [are notable]." thus, anybody who just sat during a special session for a few days in the New York State Assembly is notable, and no AfD will decide otherwise, even if there is no coverage on the web, one needs only a source to confirm the holding of the office. And, there was Jhunnilal Verma, kept last week at AfD. That means that the politicians' guideline is followed without wobbling. And that's the reason why I think that NFOOTY must either be amended or followed, lest we will get a fundamental discussion (questioning the validity of the guideline) and "no consensus" at many an AfD in the future. Kraxler (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting this here to avoid derailing ongoing afd's. I've been growing increasingly concerned with some of your comments in these discussions. I have to begin with this one. WP:BADGER redirects to WP:Harassment, which is a very serious accusation. Politely asking that a core policy be followed should not be offensive to any reasonable observer. Given that unfounded allegations of serious misconduct are personal attacks, I invite you to strike or rephrase the comment. To make matters worse, this not the first time you've made needless ad hominem remarks regarding other editors in the short period of time you've been on my radar. Your comment regarding the seriousness of Fenix down here, and referring to Dr. Blofeld as laughingstock here make this part of a worrying trend. AfD is a discussion of merits of the article in question. Barring out right abuse of process, you should not be commenting on the other editors involved, as this rarely adds anything to the discussion, and frequently makes reaching consensus more difficult than it needs to be. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this up on my user page instead of adding walls of text to the actual AfD. Well, I'm really concerned that a nominator would respond to every single disagreeing !voter, and repeat over and over again the same thing he already stated in his nomination rationale. That's not how AfD is usually conducted. Points of fact, or related to the interpretation of guidelines may be debated, yes, but asking a !voter for diffs reliable sources is totally out of order. AfD is not ANI or ArbCom. (I've voted at hundreds of AfDs, and nobody ever asked for diffs.) !voters present them or they don't. If they don't, they still can express an opinion on the sources previously presented by other !voters or shown in the article.amended, see below I was engaged in learned debate with Fenix down, and Dr. Blofeld understood perfectly what the remark was about. They did not complain, and you need not worry about them. The worrying trend here is that the guidelines on footballers seem to have been badly written, and even worse interpreted lately, and do not guide anybody now. You, as a user active in that area, should take part in a move to clarify/rewrite/amend the guidelines so that it doesn't become necessary to through tons of text in any single football-related AfD which debates the validity of the guideline instead of the merits of the notability of the particular subject under scrutiny. Kraxler (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not ask for diffs. I would have said so explicitly if I were. I asked you strike or rephrase the relevant comment. I understand the point you are trying to make, and while I respectfully disagree, it is not entirely unreasonable. Unfortunately, it's not the point you actually made at afd. (Hence the request to rephrase specifically.) Referring to my comments as harassment, even if it is not explicit, is grossly disproportionate to what it is you are trying to say. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it wasnt diffs, it was RSs. Amended post above. As to the badgering: wherever it redirects, it's known in debates here as "badgering" and describes a certain negative attitude which would be possibly to harsh to be described as "harassment", but it is objectionable nevertheless. What I'm worried about are two things: First, that there are no objective criteria to apply NFOOTY and FPL (something that I have debated with Fenix down, and what has cropped up again in several AfDs lately, including Marin Anicic), and Second, that you try to move the goal posts any time you don't get it your way, as decribed here. My proposal was to amend and clarify NFOOTY, but for some unknown reason the football-AfD-experts are reluctant to do so. Please be aware that Wikipedia is run by community consensus, not by self-selected area-experts. If the guidelines are clear, and are followed by all, then there will be no major disagreement. Think about it. Kraxler (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the question Fenix down did not answer yet: "Vyacheslav Seletskiy played 13 games in one of the leagues listed at WP:FPL, and was deemed wanting. So why is the league listed if it doesn't count, or how many games do you need?" Kraxler (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sir Sputnik: I'm glad someone is addressing this issue. He has done the same repeatedly with me and I was driven to comment on this on someone else's behalf, cf. the Aug. 28/Aug. 30 commentary on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_van_Beethoven. Also, see User:E.M.Gregory's July comments on this page (Kraxler's own talk page). Clearly this is habitual with Kraxler. SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look.. This will stand ? DreamSparrow ^Chat 21:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not as it is. There is only one movie, fails WP:NACTOR, and there is only one source. The first ref is dead. The second ref looks good, but we would need much more to establish notability. Try to find some more sources which talk about her. Kraxler (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on my behalf, but when it's argued that I deserve a ban for "arguments regardless of the consensus" in a discussion which was closed as "no consensus", I wonder why any of us bother. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Andy, don't worry too much about it. The original discussion was closed, and so the discussion of the sanction has become moot. All I can do now is thank you for donating time and effort to help maintain Wikipedia. We're all sitting in the same boat, but some people insist in rocking it. Let's try to avoid its capsizing. Kraxler (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for the proposition that indices (in the main namespace) are not subject to AFD? T. Canens (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDHOWTO describes the venues for different types of things. Indices actually do not fit into any of the venues listed there (AfD, RfD, CfD, MfD, TfD, FfD). Traditionally all things that are in mainspace go to AfD, but the wording is "This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion." "Main space" is not mentioned or defined as a criterion. Dab, lists and indexes are not mentioned. Although they are not mentioned, it makes sense to include at AfD dab pages because they contain text and the title may be used by some other primary subject, and lists because they contain text and depending on their contents they should be sourced and their existence may be questioned. Index pages serve a different purpose: they are simple tables of contents, without any text or sources, and they do not use any title useable for a different subject. There is absolutely no sense in nominating an index page at AfD, it would be the same as discussing whether to sell a book or a magazine with or without table of contents. Either we trust the Index project that they take care of the scope or propriety of what creating an index for, or somebody discusses the scope of index pages at the village pump. Kraxler (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's plenty of precedent for AfD'ing indices, I'm not really convinced by your reading of WP:AFDHOWTO, especially as, as you say, it would create a type of page that is not subject to a deletion discussion anywhere. "Article" may well be interpreted as "anything in mainspace that's not a redirect", given that another name for the mainspace is "the article namespace". T. Canens (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, precedent is not binding here, as you should know from your days on ArbCom. However, precedent is a good means to consider possibilities while establishing consensus. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Malawi-related articles. The result, on February 6, 2013, was "move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Index of Malawi-related articles". On December 30, 2013, the page was moved back to Index of Malawi-related articles, after an "uncontroversial" RM. AfD is not a place to play games. Either the Index project agrees to keep indices in general in project space, or indices are added expressly (after RfC) at any one of the XfD venues (I suggest MfD), or a discussion is held at the village pump to discuss the fundamental usefulness/propriety/scope of indices. AfD is the wrong venue, since of indices one can not question the "notability", the "sourcing", a "promotional nature", a "possible COI" or any of the other deletion criteria typical for AfD. It's a mere technical question whether the subject (by size or other definition) may or may not have an index. Kraxler (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you've closed quite a few TfDs as delete, but did not place them in the holding cell or tagged them for deletion ({{db-xfd}}). Could you please do so? Alakzi (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I closed two as outright delete, and have added in the meanwhile the db-xfd template. Do they need anything else?
• The others need some action, like merge or substitution. These should go to the "Holding Cell"? Right? Kraxler (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've not added it to one (Template:Discreet abbreviation), but I see now that it's template-protected, so you can't be blamed for that. Merged templates and templates to be orphaned need to be placed in the holding cell and have {{Tfd/dated}} replaced with {{Being deleted|merge=Template:Name|date}}. Kept templates need to have the Tfd banner removed and be tagged with {{Tfd end}}. Alakzi (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revise everything. Thanks for your help, this is more complicated than AfD, and I can understand why there's not much participation at TfD these days. I wonder if the users who started the pointy discussions about Andy's closures ever closed a TfD themselves... Kraxler (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, The Earwig is working on a script to simplify the whole process. :-) Alakzi (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not even since that discussion. Thank you (both) for your contributions in that regard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to leave now, busy IRL, I'll continue to revise, and straighten out the logs, later today. Kraxler (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot of tags, and I think everything is sorted out now. Kraxler (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noinclude, who would have thought of that? I'll pray to any Supreme Being there may be that It beware us of any more discussions of TfD broadly construed at any of the dramamongers' favorite venues. Kraxler (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraxler,

Kindly have a look at this. I have noticed somebody deleted a huge portion of the article. Please go through with the same, I feel something wrong with it. If the edit was necessary, let it be otherwise please do the needful. DreamSparrow ^Chat 10:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of that part was due to WP:PEACOCK and WP:PROMO. The text read like the subject was advertising his services, and used much too flattering language. Feel free to add new text, but be careful to state facts, in a tone as neutral as possible. You may use descriptions if they are attributed to independent sources (append a footnote). Kraxler (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kraxler. If you would help me to make the same things in a neutral way of writing, it would be very great for me. DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm rather busy with other things, and I don't know anything about the subject. You could try write something. I watchlisted the article, and if there's any change in the text, I'll get a notice, and I'll have a look at it as soon as I find the time. Kraxler (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kraxler : DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kraxler,

Its happy to to know that the article got published again and there is a chance to stand alive. Thanks for inform the same to me. Please go ahead with the merging.

Have a look at this also, I have noticed this but was not sure to report. Kindly see the possibility of standing it. Its seems like a promotion, see this and not much of information also.

Apart from that, this was created by me but it would be great you can have a verification of it.

I seriously don't understand what is the EV os this. DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the sources and info from your draft to Sana Althaf, I think the article is okay now, notability seems to have been established. I tagged your draft for deletion, as it is not needed anymore. As to the other articles, I'm a bit busy now, but I may have a look at some time. Kraxler (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Check out User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Adjutant General of New York for the whole list I am working on. It is definitely within your wheelhouse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am truly puzzled by your closure on the above. Where is the consensus to merge? I see a weak consensus to delete, but not to merge. There is a well stated nomination, a solid reasoned vote to delete and a vote to redirect and mention (note that isn't even a vote to merge!). Since the article has not actually been deleted, I am asking you to reverse your closure and relist the discussion, and undo the "merge". Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• First; What's wrong with mentioning this bike race at Three Oaks, Michigan? It has been held for decades, and is described as the biggest bike race in the whole region, by local newspapers.
• Second:
  • The Afd had a nomination statement of "No sources to establish notability of this event" That's a very weak rationale, considering that WP:BEFORE prescribes that, if there are no sources in the article, the nominator should search for them.
  • There was one "delete" vote citing GNG and NEVENT without further explanation, and an amendment that the voter agrees with "Mention and redirect at Three Oaks, Michigan"
  • There was a "Mention and redirect at Three Oaks, Michigan" by a voter who almost always uses non-standard language at AfD, saying "mention" they mean "merge"
  • There was another voter who expressed agreement with "Mention and redirect at Three Oaks, Michigan"
• That leaves us with "consensus" that the topic was not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but that the article should not be deleted but make a short mention at Three Oaks, Michigan. No need to relist again. I added a source (local newspaper group = "reliable source independent of the subject) to confirm the local importance of the bike race. Kraxler (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daly says he "read" with Edw. Livingston. Daly, Charles P., Gulian C. Verplanck: His Ancestry, Life, and Character, D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1870 Mannanan51 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source. I reverted my revert. Kraxler (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraxler, Thank you so much for amending my !vote (as well as removing my double-pasted vote), I originally made a typo but somehow removed the wrong letter in the process..... Why or how I never spotted something so obvious I will never know but thanks again :), Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For being a hell of a lot nicer person than I am. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, be prepared for pushback. To avoid unnecessary stress on the part of multiple editors, consider temporarily self-reverting if only for the sake of civility. By the way, I considered making the edit in the form you did when I made my first of two edits a few days ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czoal has reverted the edit before I saw this message. Please don't worry. Things will be sorted out eventually. Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may have only been categorizing, but you brought up an interesting point (even though you later deleted it). Is OurCampaigns really a bad source? That's not surprising, but a shame anyway. I figured it was not great, but better than nothing, so I used it but cited it in deference to a future editor with better data. And now you've led me to http://elections.lib.tufts.edu, which I might use in the future. Thanks.—GoldRingChip 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OurCampaigns is WP:USERGENERATED, and the user who created the interface did a really bad job. Election dates and times-of-day are generalized from today's conditions, and not specific to state, city, or any particular election, at that particular time. Also there are some users who add correct content, but many users add something they don't really check or know the background of, like party affiliations. I have found numerous errors, especially in older elections, sometimes even candidate's names that were not running or didn't exist. The problem is that they don't state any sources, so one can't check whether it's true or not. Overall, I don't trust it, and I don't use it as a source, except as a last resort, when there is absolutely no other source, and when by checking the historical context and other data, I can presume with some certainty that the info may be correct. For elections up to 1825, Phil Lampi's compilations (held at Tufts Library) are excellent, he states the sources (he actually read the original sources), and many times transcribed quotes from the sources. There are a very few mistakes I found, like one New York election was filed in the web library under a different state, probably hit the wrong key once. Kraxler (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey so I'd just like to know what you're up to when you tagged yoe Flash Wolves for speedy deletion. I just thought I'd let you know that there has been a lot of media coverage of the organization as of late because of the 2015 League of Legends World Championship, which started after the previous AFD discussion had concluded. The page has also been purged of self published and social media-based sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I wanted to thank you for your recent work on organizing and expanding on Socialist Party of America politicians! --TM 11:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your long-term efforts to help new editors. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor Jim Carter submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Kraxler, an editor who has been here helping our project restlessly since he began over 9 years ago. With more than 36k, he is an article creating machine with a huge list of 1800 articles to his credit. An amazing 72% of his edits are on mainspace. His outstanding ability to create quality articles deserves recognition from his fellow editors. I have also found him to be good in evaluating RfA candidates and I think we should award him for his many efforts to improve the encyclopedia. This nomination was supported by John Carter, MelanieN and Yash!.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Kraxler for your quality contributions and being such an outstanding editor. Jim Carter 14:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Well deserved. Yash! 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on this award, and thanks for all you have done to improve Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much. I'm really flattered. Unfortunately, due to the still ongoing economical crisis in some parts of the world, I was forced to accept a time-consuming job which leaves me without much time for Wikipedia. I hope to be back in old form at some time in the future. Kraxler (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to see you on Wikipedia with your full strength again, sooner. :) Jim Carter 12:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the benefits of facilitating the Eddy award is that I get to meet quality editors like you. Too many veteran editors spend too much time at the various drama-laden pages of Wikipedia. They rarely take the time to see the hard working editors that fly under the radar of contention and strife and they begin to look at WP as one argument after another. Editors like you are the heartbeat of Wikipedia. Thanks for all you do. Happy New Year. Buster Seven Talk 17:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I renewed my subscription to Ancestry.com, so let me know if you need any missing middle names or birth years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in helping at Template:Sheriff of Kings County, New York? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Richard, but I have hardly any time to even look at Wikipedia, these days. Kraxler (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 10:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still amazed by the quality and quantity of your biographical entries. --RAN (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraxler, I saw you're a member of WP:FRANCE and I was wondering if you could help review some of my proposed changes to the article on Louis XIII (cognac). WP:SPIRITS seems to be rather inactive, so I'm looking in other areas to find editors who might be willing to take a look. I have a draft sandboxed here, and proposed the changes on the talk page, but not many people come through there. If you have the time to take a look, I'd greatly appreciate it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 197th New York State Legislature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Ball (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

Could you please contribute to this discussion? Thanks, Pikachu6686 (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been a long while, but do you know what your source was for this birthdate? It does not agree with other encyclopedia, nor with a source from 1928 that I have sitting in front of me (which say August 7, 1896). I worry that your edit has turned the Internet into an incorrect ascription for near on a decade and a half! - AppleBsTime (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kraxler, Here is what I just posted to the Theodore P. Gilman article, initially posted by you in 2008. Can you help? Thanks.

There are two Theodore Gilmans of approximately the same generation. One is Theodore Gilman (no middle name), (b. 1/2/1841-d. 8/9/1930), son of Winthrop Sargent Gilman, born in Alton, died in Yonkers. The other is Theodore P. Gilman (1857-1922), who, it seems, is not a near relation. The Wikipedia article started for Theodore P. is mostly about Theodore (no P.), and there are many errors that conflate the two lives.

The little portrait photo is of Theodore P., as are all references to NY Comptroller, a NJ brewery, and an arrest record. [photo from NY Redbook. https://archive.org/stream/newyorkredbook00unse_0#page/n75/mode/1up]

The son of Winthrop Sargent Gilman (Theodore, no P.) is shown in a photo with Andrew Carnegie in this article for Theodore P., and should be removed along with most of the text in the article.

Notes notes and more notes (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. See article and talk page. Kraxler (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kraxler, Thank you so much for all your contributions in the WikiProject New York. I have spent a lot of time looking at the pages about the New York State Legislature and I was wondering where you found the information in the "Party" column for the early legislatures (session 25 and earlier). I have been trying to identify the party of these legislators myself (using Lampi's A New Nation Votes database and secondary sources), but found less information than you did. Georgeccc (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back when you submitted the first version of the Holst article, you mentioned a 1907 biography.

Don't suppose you remember its title or author? DS (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, back in 2007, I copied info from some opera site, which probably isn't on-line anymore. I can't remember the name anyway, and I admit I didn't add any sources to my earliest article creations. That was before I ever read any guidelines, actually I didn't even suspect that there were guidelines. So, I'm sorry but you suppose correctly. Kraxler (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2020 (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) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]