User talk:Klbrain

This is Klbrain's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Hi Klbrain. I hope all is well. I noticed that you contribute to the WikiProject Pharmacology, so I am hoping you might be interested in an edit request for David Altshuler (physician), the chief science officer at the pharmaceutical company Vertex. The edit request is found here: Talk:David Altshuler (physician)#Awards and Personal life. Please note that the first half of the request, which was to correct a few mistakes, has already been implemented. Only the second half is still open, and that is simple and straightforward. I would appreciate it if you could implement what's left. Thanks so much, JohnDatVertex (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure;  Done Klbrain (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your quick response and implementation of the ER. All the best, JohnDatVertex (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For over 1,000 article reviews during 2025. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given your prolific merge activity, you may have something to contribute to this discussion ~Kvng (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; I've put in my penny's-worth. It's interesting to see how many people comment on such proposals compare to how many actually are actively involved in merging, but that's human nature! I'm currently involved with the NPP backlog drive, but will be back to the merge backlog soon! Klbrain (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope you wrote that without reading my !vote first. I agree that there doesn't seem to be a significant problem here in practice. I hope the opinions of editors that uses these processes frequently are somehow given more weight than opinions of those who just like to give opinions. ~Kvng (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did write it independently, and had not read your comments - I sampled a few to get a sense of the fors and against, and the tone of the discussion, but wasn't looking at user names. I did spot a few who have been annoyed with particular merges, and are concerned about how slow implementation can be - it is certainly faster and easier to delete something that it is to merge them. Klbrain (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	A multi-year effort clearing merge proposal backlog ~Kvng (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Ethopharmacology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 1 § Ethopharmacology until a consensus is reached.

Note: This is a courtesy notification since an edit you made in 2020 to the redirect target, Pharmacology, is relevant to the discussion.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the extra notification. It appears were the editor who completed the initial merger and redirect in 2015 and were not the editor who later removed the relevant content. I got my notices mixed up. No need to respond—just correcting the record—but feel free to participate in the discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Schild equation, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As described at Talk:Organoantimony chemistry, I propose to split out the large homework section on Lewis acids. This topic has been discussed previously, leading to a merge, which I am respectfully suggesting should be largely undone.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy for that discussion to be had, of course, and to accept the outcome. Klbrain (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged as Unreferenced for 13 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Unsourced personal essay.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have reverted couple of your bold redirects because I do find them objectionable. I will suggest you to slow down as your bold redirects are getting challenged by others. You should not be doing this repeatedly. Sumiono (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also I will suggest you to revisit WP:Merge as it seems there are certain criterias mentioned there which are necessary to be fulfilled for an official merge. Sumiono (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are sometimes reversed, and I have no problem with that. Please see Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Merging for the protocol under which I'm operating. I'm also surprised that a newlt created account demonstrates such elegant use of protocol. Could you let me know what other accounts you have or have operataed under? Klbrain (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain Actually I am not obliged to disclose my alternate account to you or anyone unless I am running for adminship. Sometimes becoming too bold looks disruptive to your fellow new page patrollers, I see you got NPR in 2024. And FYI, I am a new page patroller much more before than 2024 to my alt, and also been a mentor to newbie NPPers, so pretty much familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia. If you still have concerns see legitimate use of alternate accounts. Sumiono (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know; I sent you a welcome message (before I read your reply here); happy editing. Klbrain (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain Do you really think that Hume Society lacks notability? Weird enough? The article didn't cited secondary sources it does not mean that it fails notability. I will suggest you to atleast try to find better sources from Google scholars, Google books, etc, I am very worried about your behaviour, you are recklessly redirecting articles which were even there in the main space since 90 days. Have you ever consider joining NPP SCHOOL ? Sumiono (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You are receiving this message because you are a top contributor on the WikiLoop DoubleCheck leaderboard. Thank you for your reviews!

We are excited to announce WikiLoop DoubleCheck v5 — a complete ground-up rewrite with direct revert, Twinkle-style patrol features, real-time ML scoring, and three ways to review (web app, userscript, Chrome extension).

Read the full announcement: WikiLoop DoubleCheck v5 newsletter

Thank you for supporting the project! — xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klbrain, I saw the merge of the article "AI veganism" into Ethics of uncertain sentience, and actually, I don't think it fits well there. "Ethics of uncertain sentience" is roughly about how to treat beings for which you're not sure if they can feel anything; so environmental impact and negative effects for AI consumers are off-topic there. Alenoach (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you're right; what about Artificial intelligence#AI welfare and rights? The concern is that the the rather weak content on AI veganism will be bounced from there too, unless discussed only very briefly, but regardless, perhaps that's the right move. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Ethics of uncertain sentience over Artificial intelligence#AI welfare and rights: the second option has a similar issue and the concept of AI veganism is also too niche for the general article on AI.

Not ideal as well, but perhaps Ethics of artificial intelligence#Solutions and approaches (or somewhere in Environmental_impact_of_artificial_intelligence). Otherwise, if there no good option, we can keep it in Ethics of uncertain sentience. Alenoach (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of those others, Ethics of artificial intelligence#Solutions and approaches might be best, and better than its current location; shall me move it boldly, or do you think that it warrants a formal proposal? Klbrain (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created a comment pinging merge discussion participants: Talk:Ethics_of_artificial_intelligence#Merge_destination. Alenoach (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of Klbrain for accumulating at least 500 points in the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 27,750 articles and 7,050 redirects during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 17:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		Backlog Crusher Award
		This award is given in recognition of Klbrain for reviewing at least 50 pages that were more than 40 days old at the time of review during the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped reduce the older backlog and made an important impact during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 17:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		Two-Month Endurance Award
		This award is given in recognition of Klbrain for participating throughout the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive, maintaining at least 15 points per week across all eight weeks of the drive. Your steady contributions made an important impact throughout both phases. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 17:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		Geneva mechanism Award
		This award is given in recognition of Klbrain for accumulating at least 25 points during each week of Phase 1 of the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 27,750 articles and 7,050 redirects during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 17:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		Geneva mechanism Award
		This award is given in recognition of Klbrain for accumulating at least 25 points during each week of Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 27,750 articles and 7,050 redirects during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 17:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to let you know that I’ve started a discussion at Talk:Noctilucent cloud regarding the restoration of the Polar mesospheric clouds article. Since you were involved in the previous merger, I’d value your input there. Thanks!

~~~~ Leading-bookkeeper074 (talk page) (my contribs) 13:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]