User talk:Randy Kryn

For entertainment porpoises only: "Time: Illusion stirred into gravity" - Motto of The Salvation Space Force (new comments on bottom of page please)

An editing respite
Some useful things from a non-medical non-professional: Tom Brady follows the hydration route (1/2 your weight in number of ounces per day, i.e. if someone weighs 180 pounds hydrate 90 ounces of water a day), and look where it GOAT him. Then what about Linus Pauling advocating at least two grams a day of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) divided into several equal portions (morning-afternoon-evening), you'd almost think he wanted people healthy. And last but least, microwave an ear of corn for four minutes, with the husk left on — if two ears, double it to eight minutes. When you peel off the husk and eat the thing, you'll thank me later.
Now you know: Saverland v Newton
Remembering four of the last eight Earthlings to travel to the Moon, murdered soon after their return, sadly bookending the first two Moon pioneers murdered three weeks after arriving back on Earth.
Maybe my best geek edit: A five cushion bank shot italicizing Star Trek and Buffy links on Wikipedia's Klingon language page.
An IP upon realizing that birds are dinosaurs, and a nod to our dinosaur brothers and sisters.
Write on!: Don't kick the Ouija board
An IP's inadvertent poetically sexist edit, which they quickly corrected
Perhaps my best one-word edit (although...)
Ready to check out the size of the Solar System? No small children or comfort animals on board please, and keep your arms and stuff where you can see them: If the Moon were only 1 Pixel (web based scroll map scaled to the Moon being, well, 1 pixel)
A sci-fi short story plot (dibs)

If you've never seen...

. . .Veiled Christ, a statue in Italy that depicts a knobbly-kneed Christ in the tomb, please give the image two or three clicks. This almost unbelievable 1753 sculpture ("how'd he do that?"), carved from one piece of marble, has one of only two Wikipedia article's which have to prove, with sources, that the artwork was not the work of an alchemist. Step right up, and don't miss the modern looking couch, the two tasseled pillows, or the crown of thorns and other torture things down by the feet. All carved from a single block of marble.

Literally steps away from Veiled Christ sits another "how'd he do that?" sculpture, also carved from a single block of marble (or created by alchemy).

While writing aloud about impossible statues carved from one piece of rock...who can forget flowers made of glass!

One of life's pleasures

Watching Secretariat run his 1973 Triple Crown races in order while knowing three things: 1) Secretariat's trainer and jockey realized after the second race that the horse could run full speed from start to finish. 2) While drastically being held back during the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, Secretariat still holds the fastest time in all three Triple Crown races. 3) Sham - the horse Secretariat trashed like a dancing bear in the Kentucky Derby - still holds the Derby's second fastest time.

Here's the 1973 Kentucky Derby...Secretariat's jockey holds him back...holds him wayyyy back, almost last place. Next the Preakness...holds him back... And then: the Belmont..."He is moving like a tre-men-dous machine".

Vandal masterpiece...

...winner of the 2017 "Shakespearean dramatic romantic tragic tale in six words" Heisman.

An IP wedding proposal

July 8, 2022: during three edits in three minutes an IP proposes marriage on the same page as the above masterpiece, creating their own. Wikipedians have a romantic side, even the bots, so nobody reverted until I did after two hours with a note saying that it should be enough time, and wished him luck. Does anyone know of an earlier proposal on Wikipedia, especially on such a good page for it and so perfectly played out - he seemingly decides to marry her right there, between two edits. Film scene scenario worthy (Hallmark, are you listening?).

This one time at band camp I vandalized a page

The docents ask people: "Find the cat". Letting the coolness of it lead me to break my oath as a Wikipedian, I now self-identify as a vandal. (in other vandal news, an IP spent a great deal of time removing all the vowels from several articles. Wh ddn't thnk f tht?).

Always interesting

"The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." quoted by User:Kizor in the New York Times "I think Wikipedia is quite possibly the best invention since the library." a quote by User:Srleffler.

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

...the size of our stadium

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

************************************************

An interesting new perspective

Hey Randy Kryn, what do you think of the recent comment posted at our favourite busy template discussion battleground? Perhaps it seems by now that the opposition to the proposal to delete is rather overrepresented, in terms of proponent-to-text ratio. Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 01:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rebestalic. If by last comment you mean on the 13th, I really don't know what they are talking about. If you do please answer it. It's not a battleground as much as too ittle participation in a very unclear question - it's not made clear from the get-go that the havboxes up for deletion were actually part of the original presidential navboxes which, in a move out of left field, have been made devoid of the president's presidency. One of the strangest arguments I've been involved in. The obvious solution is to present the larger presidency section as a collapsed section in each navbox. That way, alert Captain Obvious, we keep presidential historical actions and events on the president's navbox - as they always have been. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! I suppose time reveals all, eventually. Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 04:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My account got hacked and someone vandalized a page with it

Someone ended up hacking my account and using it for vandalism. Please correct the edits they did, and I'll change my password AetheralMeowstic (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. A bit above my pay grade, maybe leave a note at the Help Desk. Good luck with saving the account. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Martin Luther

This was a strange edit. But the point is, there are thirty hymns by Luther with articles - surely we put all of them on the template, or we be extremely selective. I can't see why these ones are special. I initially added them because those articles had the template on them, but it seems rather arbitrary. St Anselm (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, yes, all of them should be put on or stay on the navbox within the subset 'Hymns'. The revert was to add back the ones that you added and in agreement that the complete hymn collection is Luther-navbox worthy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, (a) that would expand the template already. (b) we already have a link to the List of hymns by Martin Luther article, and (c) we already have both Template:German Lutheran hymns and Template:Lutheran hymns. St Anselm (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of hymns is linked to the subsection title, followed by the hymns (seems a typical arrangement of navbox entries), and the navbox should probably include all of Luther's works which have articles (which allows each article to exhibit the {{Martin Luther}} navbox). The other navboxes aren't specific to Martin Luther, and it's normal to list articles on more than one navbox. I don't know, I'm not seeing anything wrong with listing all of the hymns written by Martin Luther on the Martin Luther template, that just seems a normal use of the map. StAnselm, you had begun to add them, thanks, but then reversed course, so it's a matter of styling and disagreement about navbox inclusion/exclusion use. Maybe this discussion should be moved to the template talk page for further editor input (the only person that reads my talk page is a bot named Joey, who I leave a feedbowl out for). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of art movements

I've noticed you've been capitalizing the names of all art movements throughout Wikipedia, but this style is generally discouraged outside of Wikipedia. Which Wikipedia policy or guideline are you following in this regard? Just asking, because I've found you've capitalized all of the instances of impressionism and Impressionists when much of the source material I use does not do this, as only one example. If this is Wikipedia house style, I would like some clarification on this. I should note that your edits in this regard have had ramifications offline, with many people discussing how odd this style is on Wikipedia. The general consensus is that only art movements that derive from proper names, that disambiguate, or distinguish words from everyday speech should be capitalized, whereas all others should not. My guess is that you disagree with this style, hence the confusion both on and off Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Viriditas, and thank you for your concern. I'm not uppercasing all of the art movements, but a few. When running across Impressionism, yes, that's an uppercased proper name. The one I'm working on now has few lowercase links (neo-Renaissance) which itself is a redirect (Renaissance is a proper name). My last uppercase run, Art Deco, which I had some concerns about, was cut way short with over 1,000 lowercase links left, by an administrator who pointed out that lowercase was a proper alternate spelling even if the main article is uppercased. If Art Deco was questioned offline, then most examples are left. Before that I worked on Art Nouveau. Which ones have offline concerns? Please give examples, thanks. So no, not every art movement, but a few that Wikipedia uppercases in the uppercased long-term titles. I'll wait on continuing with neo-Renaissance until you give me the green light (although Renaissance is obviously a proper name). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just raising the issue. I tend to avoid wading into these kinds of disputes because I find them tiresome. From the arts and literature perspective, my reading of the style guides is that an attempt was made to limit the amount of capitalization due to its readability concerns. I'm not certain about how this started, but I think it began in the post-1960s era. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you raised your concern, as I am lucky that an administrator stepped in on my Art Deco uppercasing edits and stopped that casing-run. There was recent discussion and decisions on art schools, with most of those going from uppercased to lowercased on Wikipedia. Nobody has really questioned that Renaissance and Impressionism are proper names. The once-and-future uppercaser Dicklyon, who should be alerted to this concern out of fairness to the friendly-opposition, recently showed me how to find the single-word 'Impressionism' on Wikipedia, which has over 1,000 lowercased links that could be fixed. Would you or he mind if I go ahead on those? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given my reading of the sources, I would guess that at least half or more do not use uppercase. I would wait on changing impressionism or impressionists until you can get a handle on the literature. I see that very early sources did not capitalize it until the 1950s or so? Makes me wonder if the influence of WWII, particularly the bureaucracy of such a war engine, changed the language conventions. As we all know, the beat movement did the opposite, using lowercase for almost everything, and it did have antiwar elements to it. Then we have all the writers and poets who played around with capitalization. In any event, it doesn’t look like impressionism was originally capitalized, but became so much later, and at some point in the 1960s, reverted back to lowercase. What is even stranger is how art critics, writers, museums, and exhibitions don’t seem to have ever come to an agreement on this. Like I said, this is tiresome for me, and I don’t like to wade into these kinds of disputes, but I do acknowledge that the lowercase is easier on the eyes and I tend to favor it. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are things like this, which give common usage to Impressionists. Having something to add to my first answer, I'll do that now. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Most non-specialist sources use the uppercase, so that wouldn’t be a good representational sample. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read up on the WP:MOVEMENT guideline Dicklyon linked below and get back to this discussion at some point soon. Agree that tiresome is a good descriptor of the casing disputes, but it gets things done (and maybe will solve the question you posed above). But yes, not now. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realizing that you may have meant some of the uppercasing that I did while on an edit run about another topic, I have planned sooner-than-later to uppercase-run Impressionists, Cubism, Cubist, Fauve, Fauvism, and Fauvist. Viriditas, Dicklyon, which of those would be objected to so I don't start up an Art Deco run and get stopped early in. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, I think our guidelines (e.g. WP:MOVEMENT) say not to do that, generally. The n-grams on some of those show majority caps, but far from consistent caps. It's been proven already that I'm not good at predicting which moves might be objected to. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, will read up on that guideline at some point soon and get back to you (but won't study it now). I was under the impression that visual arts movements are given leeway (is that guideline one you used to downcase civil rights movement? If so, it needs some fixing). I would think Impressionism would pass muster as a proper name, especially given the prevalence of Impressionists. That's one that would be nice to have decided, as uopercase seems to be the accurate styling and, if so, would like to work on that edit run. Would you object to uppercasing Renaissance sitewide? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're safe with Renaissance. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]