User talk:Kjkolb/Archive4

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Independent System Operator. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent System Operator. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkbottom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I request that you undo your move from Dive tables to Dive table, please? WP:SINGULAR is clear that articles about classes of objects are a specific exception to the general policy. The class consists of many different dive tables and the singular is rarely used, particularly as even a named set will almost always be made up of multiple tables: US Navy tables, Bühlmann tables, etc. The singular would be even rarer than the analogous use of "Hebrew numeral aleph" – the article is still called Hebrew numerals. --RexxS (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for carrying out the request. I started a move discussion at Talk:Dive tables to see if my reasoning was correct, but could I ask for your advice on closing that discussion, please? I have no idea how long it should remain open, nor on the etiquette of who is expected to close it. I'm guessing that if no further comments are posted, then closure after a few more days would make sense. Should I be looking for an uninvolved editor to close it at that point? Thanks in advance for any suggestions you are able to make. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an AfD for Countenance divine at WP:Articles for deletion/Countenance divine if you are interested. Tb (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bunding, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunding. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Asided m plane (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kjkolb, regarding "Some of the dictionary sites may be questionable, but I kept those that appeared to provide good content and were not overly commercial" on the Swahili Language page, I re-added africanlanguages.com/swahili because (a) it's the 2nd-largest online Swahili Dictionary with over 16000 entries (b) it's COMPLETELY free to use online (c) the quality is excellent, it is by FAR the best-quality online Swahili dictionary ... the only thing being sold from the site is a 'downloadable' version of the dictionary, and that is completely optional, you can use the whole dictionary for free online. It would not make any sense if this huge and most useful Swahili dictionary was not linked ... if it should not be, then neither should kamusiproject.org, which also sells a lot of stuff from their website. Unfortunately some other user is now deleting the link again, mistakenly thinking it's commercial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.7.4.240 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the talk page for your IP address, User talk:41.7.4.240. -- Kjkolb (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I appreciate your reasonable-ness. It is indeed under discussion now with the other user. 41.3.48.156 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that there are important other uses for oak barrels besides wine (such as whisky and brandy). But I think that repurposing the Oak (wine) article may not be the right way to deal with that. The barrel article already contains a decent section on beverages, and perhaps that is enough. I think perhaps Oak barrel should be a redirect to barrel rather than a redirect to Oak (wine). —BarrelProof (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. For some reason, I failed to check out the "barrel" article before the move, definitely a bad idea. I had just seen that a few potentially inappropriate redirects were being used and took action before proper consideration. I should have waited until I was less tired to move the article - I did not have much else to do at the time, as my cable television service was out. I moved the article back as soon as I realized my error, but my usually reliable Internet connection was also having some trouble, and I am not sure if all the redirects were fixed at that time. I am sorry for any inconvenience that my ill-considered move caused.

Perhaps a new article should be created, such as "aging barrel" (currently a redirect to "barrel") or something similar. I would not use "wine barrel" as the title because some liquors are also aged in barrels, but "wine barrel" could be a redirect. The "oak (wine)" article could either be incorporated into the "aging barrel" article when the new article has sufficient content, or it could be an expansion of part of the article, with a summary given in the article and a link to the "oak (wine)" article given at the top of the section.

Also, maybe the name of the "oak (wine)" article should be changed to "oak wine barrel" if the content remains the same, or perhaps "oak aging barrel", if it is expanded to include other uses. I know that the article talks about oak chips sometimes being used instead of barrels, which might be why it has its awkward name, but the main focus of the article is on oak barrels, and "oak chip" already redirects to the article. However, I will leave these decisions to others, as I cannot give the articles enough attention at the moment.

I apologize for the delay in my response. I had an Internet failure, followed by a power outage, which then caused browser issues. I just got around to this tab today. -- Kjkolb (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy submarine chasers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kjkolb,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is MJ. I'm a new editor on Wikipedia. I have recently completed some large-scale edits to the Structuration theory page. I saw that you've been active on its Talk page in the past, and I wanted to invite you to return and add your comments and suggestions about the page concerning its readability, clarity, usefulness, and/or comprehensiveness-- or anything you'd like to add to the discussion/dialogue around the page! As I said, I'm a new editor on Wikipedia. The structuration theory page has been rated "Highly important" to the Sociology WikiProject, and I'm concerned with making sure that the page is both accurate and informative for readers who want to know more about this important sociological theory. More than anything, I'd like to inspire a discussion about the changes that have been made, improvements, or support. Any suggestions you have are gladly received! I hope to see you on the Talk page soon! Mjscheer (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your edits to Electrical junction—yes, I agree, it's much better now. Thank you Wbm1058 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. :-) --Kjkolb (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shoreline (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoreline (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoreline (band)'s talk page. Message added 08:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for improving the redirect target for business entity. However, I have now redirected that to the same page as legal entity and moved the list back where it was. I think this is a better result, but if you want to discuss it further please do so at Talk:Types of business entity#Move from "types of business entity" to "business entity". – Fayenatic London 14:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Calling card

Landfill gas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mercury

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lesotho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your undiscussed move of kingdom to kingdom (disambiguation), which included deletion of stubby disambiguation-like pseudo-article you had created (the entire text of which is below. I have two suggestions: first, if you think a serious article is possible on the subject that does not duplicate content covered by an already existing article, please create a draft at an alternate or temporary title before moving; 2) request a discussion of the merits of replacing the disambiguation page with the new article. Cheers, older ≠ wiser 11:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

This article is about a kingdom ruled by a king or queen. For other uses, please see kingdom (disambiguation)

A kingdom is a state that is ruled by a king or queen.

See also

• Dictatorship, Emperor, Empire, Hereditary monarchy, Monarch, Monarchy, Sovereignty

---

I have no problem with your reversion, and I feel that your arguments make a good case for your action. I encourage others to revert or modify my edits whenever they disagree. I apologize for not discussing the move. It would have been better if I had at least tried to get a discussion going with a topic as high-profile and probably contentious as this one. I mostly deal with articles and moves that are never discussed because you cannot find anybody around that cares. In the rare case that someone does care, there is usually just a short discussion about whether this is the right way to go or not, and the action stays, gets modified or gets reverted. Warmest regards, Kjkolb (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikola Tesla Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Will (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cross-link may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Image:Vulcanization of POLYIsoprene V.2.png|thumb|right|340px|[[Vulcanization]] is an example of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Streptococcus pneumoniae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kjkolb. You have been one of contributors to the {{Infobox power station}} or its preceding templates. Therefore I notify you that there is a discussion about changes to the power station infobox template. Your contribution is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Abishai a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Abishai (biblical figure). 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. 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:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protein tertiary structure, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Genetic and Emil Fischer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Protein secondary structure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Atomic

Structural load (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Foundation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religious organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindu priest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War against Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idolator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disfigurement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defacement. 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) 08:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Counterfeit consumer goods

added links pointing to Islamic Jihad and Purse

Wildman River

added a link pointing to Watershed

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help as a librarian. It turns out that in the article Afro-Latin American placed an erroneous Venezuelan black population of about 5 million people and attach with a reference which I believe is not due; as the only authority to offer and ethnic demographics in Venezuela is "INE" who points a much lower [1] I corrected the info, and user changes reversed, cause I do not want an edit war, and I placed the information is official. Greetings, I hope your answer.Jaam0121 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am researching Semper Libera. Where you involved with this Investment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grisnerdc (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mainstage requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kjkolb,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Darial for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Mr RD (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tunga penetrans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiration. 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) 14:03, 13 November 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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kjkolb,

I am Allen Lin, a computer science PhD student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. We noticed that you've created main/sub article relationship in Coconut for Coconut oil. So it would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah90 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Spinning-Woman by the Spring, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Motif and Portia. 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) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palisaded encapsulated neuroma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nodule. 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) 11:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seborrheic keratosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scab. 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) 10:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keratosis obturans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Granule. 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) 10:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Check digit, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Binary and Digit. 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) 10:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mineral deficiency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diet. 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) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to its redirecting to protein structure, but I am disappointed that the thing I was trying to learn (what brought me to the article)—namely, "What's an explicit, unambiguous definition of the term "protein residue?"—is absent from that latter article.

My own view about (and expectation of) redirects is that a necessary part of their successful use is that the target article both (1) provide information adequate to make clear why the redirect happened and (2) contain—or at least clearly link to—whatever information a reader who navigated to the first article would likely have been looking for. This is to avoid providing readers a mental experience like this (I'm going to exaggerate here):

I sure do wonder what cat food is. I know... I'll check it out in Wikipedia!

Oh good, there's an article...

What? How come when I ask for the article on cat food, I find myself arrived at the article on hot-air balloons? And how can I get information from the latter to address my needs with regard to the former?

Could you help out by mending this? Thanks—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of research confirms my hunch that "my own view" conforms with WP:R#PLA. Sorry, should have dug that out for insertion in my original request.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Kjkolb starts here

Here is part of a lesson on protein from Langara, with some minor changes by me. "Amino acids are linked in a chain by condensation reactions of the a-carboxyl group of one amino acid with the a-amino group of another. The linkage formed is called a peptide bond. One water (H2O) molecule is released for every peptide bond formed."

While the article "protein structure" does not give the definition of a protein residue until further down in the article, as I should have corrected per the policy that you referred to, it is mentioned in the section "Amino acid residues". It states that "...a residue refers to a specific monomer within the polymeric chain." The amino acids, the monomers that make up the protein polymer, are called residues when they are part of the protein. I think that they are not called amino acids when part of the protein because they are no longer the same molecules as the original amino acids. To be part of a protein, they have to lose some atoms. As the "residue (chemistry)" article says, "In chemistry residue is whatever remains or acts as a contaminant after a given class of events." In this case, the protein and the amino acid residues (see next paragraph) are what remains after the reaction, not contaminants.

"Amino acid residue" (AAR) is another term for "protein residue", and it makes more sense to me than the term "protein residue", but if there is a consensus in chemistry to use "protein residue", then it should be used, in case there is ever a separate article, as well as using protein residue in any definition and explanations. I know that it is not a very reliable test, but AAR gets nearly ten times the Google results than "protein residue". The term AAR currently redirects to the "amino acid" article. That article has the definition, "...a residue refers to a specific monomer within the polymeric chain of a polysaccharide, protein or nucleic acid."

I just went back to check what the article looked like when I made the redirect. You can see it here.

The following is what the article looked like before I changed it:

• "Each protein is a polymer – specifically a polypeptide – that is a sequence formed from various L-α-amino acids (also referred to as residues)"

The following is what the article looked like after I changed it:

• "Proteins are polymers – specifically polypeptides -sequences formed from various L-α-amino acids. Each unit of a protein is called an amino acid residue because it is the residue of every amino acid that forms the protein by losing a water molecule." (I should have put "...an amino acid residue, also called a protein residue," in the sentence)

The following is what the article looks like now:

• "Proteins are polymers — specifically polypeptides — formed from sequences of monomeric amino acids."

The sentence that I added was deleted, rendering the redirect confusing and disappointing (more on this at the end of this post, look for !).

Update: I already changed the article, as I discussed below. Feel free to modify the article yourself.

I think that something should be done about the protein structure article, such as adding the revised sentences, "Each monomer of a protein is called an amino acid residue, also called a protein residue, because they are the residues of every amino acid that makes up the protein. Proteins form by amino acids undergoing condensation reactions, in which the amino acids lose one water molecule per reaction. Each reaction forms a peptide bond, also called an amide bond, between each amino acid residue."

However, I think that the terms "protein residue" and "amino acid residue" should probably redirect to the "residue (chemistry)" article, which should be modified to give a better explanation of residues involving proteins, polysaccharides, nucleic acids and anything else that is composed of residues. What do you think?

!The following is a continuation of a thought that I had when I found that the problem was that the current article did not have the information necessary for the redirect to make sense.

This is just one example of the pitfalls of having a group of people, who have little or no communication with each other (and often cannot communicate in a conventional manner because they can be separated by months or even years of time), write an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has attempted to prevent as many pitfalls as possible, but I think that we may have come to a plateau of quality (in some well-developed articles) that cannot be overcome with our current policies and writing methods.

If I have failed to address something, please let me know. I will probably be offline soon. I may be back later today, or I may not be back for several days. I never know what my schedule will be. I just do not want you to be checking for an answer every couple of hours, as I simply cannot meet the expectations that come along with that. ;-) -- Kjkolb (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your fix scratches my itch! And thanks for going to the trouble of providing such an extensive explanation. More than I could have asked for :-)—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making improvements to some of the disambiguation pages. Many of them are in need of some cleaning up. However, I would strongly recommend against expanding the descriptions of many entries. The descriptions are really meant to be only as long as they need to be in order to distinguish one topic from the next. And there are a number of other changes you've made that also seem to go against the guidelines at MOS:DAB (how we handle redirects and primary topics, to name a couple). Also, I'm not sure that it's actually stated as a guideline but it's definitely the ongoing practice of the DAB project to have "X may also refer to:" on a line of its own. Those were not accidental and it's not really constructive to change that style whenever you're editing a DAB page. Again, your edits in general are sincerely appreciated and I haven't reverted any of your edits (though I did restore one piece of primary topic styling). I just wanted to mention these things so that we can work even better together in the future. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kjkolb.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to make way for moving Draft:String to article space to take the place as the primary topic, I've posted a proposal at Talk:String#Requested move 16 January 2017 to move the disambiguation page currently at "String" to "String (disambiguation)". Your input would be helpful to establish a common consensus on whether or not this move, or something else, should be done. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. You've been notified because you were involved in the initial discussion that led to the proposal. The Transhumanist 23:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Endogenic and exogenic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endogenic and exogenic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Widefox; talk 10:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mobile Imaging and Printing Consortium has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable business association with no independent sourcing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Peronella has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. Some mentions of queen Peronella in 19th century texts, no analysis or such. WP:TNT in any case, given this article doesn't even attribute the fictional work she originate from.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you’ve previously moved this article, perhaps you should add your opinion at Talk:Belogorsk (Crimea)#Article title. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2020-03-19 23:04 z

The article Hodge-Podge (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SiO2 Group. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 15#SiO2 Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Alsee (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Photosensitizing and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Photosensitizing until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The article Voltage reduction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced. Doesn't meet WP:STYLE. Any information from this page is at (or could be added to) at Electrical resistance and conductance. I don't think merging would make sense considering the aforementioned points.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Secular world and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Secular world until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]