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 of a person's weight in number of ounces per day, i.e. someone who weighs 180 pounds would drink 90 ounces of water a day), and look where it GOAT him. Then what about Linus Pauling advocating at least two or more grams a day of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) divided into several equal portions (morning-afternoon-evening, personally I usually do three grams a day), you'd almost think he wanted people healthy. A daily fast of at least 14 hours (if someone eats at, say, 8 p.m., they then don't eat anything until 10 a.m. or later the next day) does some good stuff. Becoming a near vegan likely does little harm and much good (especially for the taste buds). 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 safely 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 (although...).
• 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...)
• Ho Ho Huh? A yule mystery, why none of these redirects to Christmas and holiday season (Christmas holidays, Holiday Season, the Christmas season, the holiday season, the Holiday Season, the Christmas Season, the Christmas holidays, and the Christmas Holidays) were created before 9 December 2024? My guess: Elves.
• Ready to check out the size of the Solar System? No small children or comfort animals on board please, and keep your arms and things 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).

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

One of life's pleasures

Viewing Secretariat 1973 Triple Crown races in order while knowing three things: 1) Secretariat's trainer and jockey realized only after the second race that he could run full speed from start to finish. 2) Even though they drastically held their horse back during the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, running him in last place in both, 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 in last place. Next the Preakness...holds him back...last place, and again must go to the outside 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 his 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 an appropriate page 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, in 2023 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." -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.

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Salutations to the "smallest known dinosaur, bee hummingbird" guy. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Go D. Usopp, a nice surprise. You'd think that the information that the bee hummingbird is the smallest known dinosaur would be higher on the page, and important enough to go into the lead. The wording that editors added to carefully explain that birds are dinosaurs seems undue. Brevity could trim the sentence to its basics and move it up the page, it does not need to carefully explain to the readers that birds are what they are. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Individual edits

There is no policy that I have to give you time to review all of my edits individually. You must have policy based reasons for reverting content. Czarking0 (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Why all of a sudden are you deleting entire long term articles built up over many years and decades (History of painting) without discussion? Or is this your regular editing style? Please don't answer here but discuss at the talk pages, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

This is DR, I will answer here as your conduct is not within accordance with the policies. You have represented that I cannot make changes to Halloween without your time to review all of my changes individually. This is not true.

Regarding History of Painting you reverted another editor's effort to slim down the article without a policy based reason.

You should WP:ONLYREVERT when necessary. As you already acknowledged on Halloween reverting was not necessary. You needed to take the time to go through my edits. I did take the time and you will not block my work out of laziness. Czarking0 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Please don't quote essays as if they are even guidelines, and note that although I made a mistake on who did what, the 'History of painting' edits did not "slim down" the article, they deleted it. Same with Halloween, you came in to delete massive sections of it, change the scope and sources of the topic, and undid likely decades of work and then complain about me. Please control your deletions and discuss major changes on the article talk pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Seems I spoke to soon about you not editing the History of painting. Note that your massive edits there were reverted by another editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Look if you want to collaborate with me I encourage you to go through my edits individually and make policy based decisions around them. Reverting simply because content has been on WP for a long time or because it is a lot of changes is not acceptable.

It seems like most of your contributions are gnoming. If you prefer to stick to that then I encourage you contribute in the ways that fit you best and you can let me contribute in the ways that fit me best. If you look at the articles I have worked on I think you will find that I make valuable contributions to the project often by totally reworking long standing content.

The reality is that most of the content on WP is not good. Defending it solely out for its existing is not good for the project.

Your most recent comment on Talk:History of painting is clearly a comment on my conduct rather than article content. That is not the proper venue. I expect you to strike such comment and apologize. Your "seem to be editing in good faith" is laughable and despicable.Czarking0 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC) Czarking0 (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Your deletion of the entire History of painting article with your first edit there speaks for itself, as do the reversal of your deletions by several editors. I thought you were editing in good faith and said so, I hope I'm not wrong. Please comment about these articles at their talk pages and not here, as I mentioned above, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

User talk pages are the correct venue to discuss conduct issues. I have an issue with your conduct beyond what the content of the articles you edit should be. You are ignoring policy on venue by continuing to make conduct discussions on article talk pages.

You are representing my editing in bad faith when you say I deleted an entire article as this is not true.

At this point, I am unsure of how to make further DR. Czarking0 (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Not true? Here's what the "History of Painting" page looked like before your first edit. Then here's what it looked like after you decided to change decades of work into a disamb. page without discussion. And you say I need to a conduct rebuke? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes I highly rebuke your conduct as even your edit here shows that I did not remove the whole article. You are lying, you are persisting in your lies, and you should stop. Czarking0 (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Way to escalate your way around Wikipedia. Just look at the diffs above, you edited an article which has been shaped for decades and made it, in your first ever edit on the article, into a disamb-type page with a few entries. What in that am I lying about? Look, maybe it's best that you keep off this talk page, you are going way too uncivil when the diffs show that you really should be saying, "Yeah, you're right, I went overboard there." And it's just an example, not really that major or concerning because luckily other editors who've worked on the article came in and, lo and behold, it looks like all of this commotion will actually improve the page, with your help. But please work with those editors to "trim" the page and not just go willy-nilly with bold edits, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

What in that am I lying about? I'll take what I consider to be extreme AGF here and say that Your deletion of the entire History of painting article is a claim that I deleted the entire article. That claim is false because here is the version. That shows that there is content on the page so the entire article had not been deleted. You knew this to be the case, and continued to represent the situation falsely which I think can fairly be called a lie. You seemed have returned to the path of truth for which I applaud and thank you. Czarking0 (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. You left a few links, so you didn't delete the whole page. Just 99.9 percent of it, so technically you are correct. But calling it a lie and me a liar, though, that's pretty uncivil and stretching the truth (to coin a phrase), because no, your preferred version would have destroyed the article and made it into a very incomplete disamb page. That's obviously what I meant. Both points of view seem correct, with us quibbling over the remaining .1 percent of the article, and I am relieved that I have returned to the path of truth (nice phrasing). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Czarking0, you are removing information from articles en masse, when those articles have taken years of work and consensus-forging to build. User:Randy Kryn was correct to revert you. At least for the Halloween article, I would encourage you to gain consensus for each of the changes that you wish to implement in the article. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:38, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Randy Kryn, User:Czarking0 is continuing his tendentious behaviour, with edits such as this. Your continued participation in the article's talk page would be appreciated. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for being kind and polite in your dealings with myself and others. Not always easy, and you thread the needle well. Thanks ever so much. You are appreciated. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much Princessa Unicorn. I try but don't always do so (that's for sure), but glad that you've experienced my editing style as you describe. Gives me hope that I can live up to your words. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, you inject some light and positivity here, and that is most sorely needed. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2026 (UTC)