User talk:Knowledgekid87: Difference between revisions

Archives

/Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3 /Archive4

You mentioned in your comment regarding the reversion of my edits that the alternate personality, Luna, needed a separate section. If you read the original version, Luna was mentioned in 2 different paragraphs of the character description. I just consolidated that information into one section so that it wasn't repeated. I'm looking forward to your thoughts once you reread the original and my edits. Cheers!204.225.44.110 (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished reading a few chapters of the manga and found that some of the information in the description is incorrect - in Ch 30 it is revealed that Hazuki remembers being called Luna when she was little and before her mother started calling her Hazuki. Therefore the issue of an implanted personality may be incorrect. I'll have to read more to be sure and will wait until the above is resolved before addressing it. 204.225.44.110 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The anime and the manga differ, the source I used is for the anime but I do realize that the manga differs from this. The first section has a passing mention of Luna that is a lead in to the second section, that's how I feel about it anyways. the final 4 volumes were never released so unless you know Japanese there is a good chance that we both may never know what unfolds sadly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that since the anime is based on the mange, the manga should take priority. In any case, I'm now going to reference both of them. 204.225.44.110 (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Admittedly, I did a significant rewrite, but I think that the important points are still there in addition to the additional information from the manga. Hopefully these do not meet with your disapproval. Cheers! 204.225.44.110 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Knowledgekid87, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Hello, and I'm sorry for my actions previously. I'm going to fix everything, but I think I'll be able to help Wikipedia finally. That was really rude/disruptive of me, so I think I do owe you an apology. I just couldn't get help (and still can't), so I had to think about myself very deeply. I usually tried to avoid that. I understand now that I'm making mistakes. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 12:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KorinoChikara: No worries im glad to see ya back =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got a little stressed about your edit on the PPG article. There has not yet any word on whether or not the new series is going to be in CGI style format or the original 2-D animation style. Can we at least wait for further announcements in the coming weeks? Zboogie604 (talk) 2:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs)

@Zboogie604: Yeah that is fine, the sourcing though says that it will be in CGI format but im hoping here that it isn't true. If it is a new format then it needs it's own article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: I'm doing the same thing. Also we don't know if the new PPG series is going to be a spin-off/sequel series, a re-imagining or just the same old girls we know and love. I just hope it gets revived like Beavis and Butthead did (don't tell anyone). P.S. If it does air, I hope it doesn't replace the original series website.contribs)

I am fine with that, as long as you don't mind starting the merge discussion, or doing the merges? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that later today =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about your recent merges of the Robotech Character articles. For one, you are leaving out large portions of the articles in the merged page. In addition, the page List of Robotech characters is becoming very long. I think it would be better to leave the pages as they were. Your thoughts? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Hyperionsteel: We can either merge or delete them, another editor had placed much of the character articles up for WP:Prod this one here being an example: [1]. I figure merging is a better solution. Much of the info in the articles are un-sourced WP:OR anyways, if we are going to include that then it can always be re-written from a fans point of view post merge even though that thought makes me cringe as it is pure opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realize that there was yet another effort to delete Robotech articles underway (I really wish people were more open-minded about Anime articles in Wikipedia). In that case, I suppose merging the articles is our best option, and I appreciate your efforts in this regard (sorry if I came off as brash - I should have looked into this more carefully before judging your actions). Thank you for your work - We need more editors like you Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Hyperionsteel: Thanks =) You do have a point though, I stopped the merging as Robotech seems to overlap with Macross which is a problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Not that I have a problem with it, but just out of interest. I got a message saying you are now patrolling me, what does that mean?

Thank you. Mr. Sort It Out2 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Sort It Out2: Nothing huge, its just an acknowledgement for WP:Reviewers here that says your user page is all okay. This patrol option appears on all newly created pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it :-) Thank you. I thought it has something to do with my multiple account editing (I used to have a different account but I forgot the password and since edited from a dynamic IP), but I always made sure to mention it (to avoid being accused of sockery), so I thought it has something to do with that. Mr. Sort It Out2 (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and no worries =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on your side, Jehochman screwed up but no one will do anything because he is an admin. The only one thats being hurt here is the editor. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@108.28.162.100: Everyone makes mistakes, the block was only for 24 hours and was undone soon after, the editor in question dug the whole deeper for himself from there. Anyways I kindly ask you remove your comment from RGloucester's page as at this point it is best to leave them be. If you are looking to overturn the block then file it someplace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the editor was upset, but I don't blame them. The admin made a mistake, several agreed, and the admin refused to apologize and now the editor has a block on their record forever regardless of its validity. This admin has a history of doing this type of poorly thought out kneejerk reactions and no one does anything. When admins screw up routinely, as this one did, it makes people leave the project. Editors cannot do anything about admins abusing editors, other admins have to do that and if they won't police themselves, which is obvious, then I have no problem with making a comment like that. Because it needs to be said. Admins are supposed to be preventing damage to the project, not causing it and then ignoring the real problems. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing I have never been blocked before it doesn't really bother me here, if it were for 24 hours I would just say eh the heck with it. Just because he has a block on his record does not mean he is doomed if it does get brought up in the future the admin who was involved in issuing the block or those involved can always say "Now wait a minute". I have seen @Jehochman: make great edits and I have seen him make poor ones but in the end we are all human. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Jehochman does a lot of good edits too, unfortunately he screws up fairly often with his quick draw, block first and don't bother to give warnings or ask questions mentality. If it was some newby or a random editor I wouldn't even care. But RGlouster hasn't done a wrong thing and has done nothing but a long period of dedication to the project. Its pathetic and ridiculous for an admin like Je to continuously be able to do this sort of thing with not so much as a word mentioned to them on their talk page. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be fair and just saying but the issue was brought to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User RGloucester where it was discussed first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty familiar with that AndrewA character too and I have to say they are definitely not one of the better admins, more like the bottom 10%. So I wouldn't take their side over Glouster's. I also saw the ANI discussion but its utterly baseless. I don't agree with all the AFD's he submits either, but AdnrewA was clearly making statements to provoke Glouster into a situation where he could either block him or take him to ANI. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP, why don't you login to your account? Jehochman ^Talk 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know full well who I am and why I didn't login, well that is you would if you bothered to even look and if you want to block me go ahead, I don't really care at this point. In an environment like this that allows one class of editor,like you and your fellow admins to to do absolutely anything you want with impunity, there is no room for editors anyway. People make mistakes, including admins, but they should apologize when they do or be held accountable when they do it often. You do a lot of good work, but you make a lot of mistakes too with regard to your admin tools and you rarely if ever admit that you make a mistake and no one is going to hold you or any other admin accountable for it. Your fellow admins and the arbcom have ensured that the community doesn't have the power to remove the tools from even the most abusive admin and they have shown repeatedly that they do not have the desire to do it themselves. So it creates an environment where once someone becomes an admin, its almost impossible to remove the tools. Now I'm not saying that's what should happen here to you, but in general, if people cared more about the project than about protecting admins, it would be a much better place and we would have a lot more editors. As it is, people do not want to edit in a police state where admins are allowed unlimited power and discretion, broadly construed, to block anyone they feel for the weakest of reasons and leave the editor with a permanent mark on the edit history and no rights because one admin didn't bother to do their due diligence and look and research before they act, because they have the mentality that they do not make mistakes and no one will do anything to them even if they do. They sure will if they are an editor though, regardless of how long term and how much work they do for the project. Any admin is free to block any editor for any reason at any time. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. I read the message but I thought that the other page was just past talk page data. You can undo it if you want Undescribed (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to the draft of the storm article which was much better than the stub I had started. I very much welcome your help improving the article, and in choosing the best title for it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. =) I will work on the article more later today. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that redirect towards WP:TWC. I searched for it, and couldn't find anything relevant until you sent me it.

However, if the case is that winter storms shouldn't be "named" on Wikipedia, why is it nobody has done anything about this storm?

That has a few places in the article itself in which it is referred to as "Winter Storm Nemo", with various refs backing it up. Why has that been ignored by admins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerwhale24680 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Killerwhale24680: Because there was a huge discussion on the matter with no consensus, generally though the names should be left out. Looking at reliable sources online, at least 2 other "Unofficial" names other than Juno have been dubbed for the Blizzard of 2015. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there was no consensus, why is there even a name included on the Nor'easter of Feb. 2013? If Weather Channel names aren't considered valid, why bother including it at all? - Killerwhale24680 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I could start up a new discussion about it as we have conflicting discussions. The current storm is also unofficially called "Colbie" [2] we cant please everyone here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is used in sources, it should be used in the article. The fact that "Juno" does not appear in the article is absurdity to the highest degree. Even the BBC, as reliable as new outlets get, and an outsider with distance, uses "Juno". That little essay is not a policy or guideline, and has no basis in anything. If it is commonly used in sources, it needs to appear in the article, just as it was with Nemo. Comparing "Juno" to minor names no one has heard of like "Colbie" is a non-starter, and the exact same canard that was tried last time. RGloucester — ☎ 00:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already had a consensus on this that the names are invalid if you want to restart the discussion take it to the article's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No such consensus exists. How can a name be "invalid" if a state of New Jersey official press release uses it? Absurity. A common name is never invalid. RGloucester — ☎ 00:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not seen the link in the essay? Consensus was reached back in 2012 when this whole thing started TWC uses the names as promotion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just TWC that uses the names, so that argument is moot. Is the state of New Jersey promoting TWC? I doubt it. Is the BBC promoting TWC? I doubt it. That's an absurd argument. 2012 be damned, this is a common name for the storm, and it must appear in the article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The NWS does not use the names and have asked other's to refrain from doing so, if you want to add the name as I said start a discussion on the talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NWS is irrelevant. See WP:UCN, which I'm sure you are familiar with. I'm not getting myself involved in something I don't care about, but this is another absurdity, just as with Nemo. If people call a storm something, it should appear. Allowing the "Blizzard of 2015" thing to appear, much less common than Juno, but not allowing "Juno" is in itself not neutral, because that's excluding the name on the basis of value judgement you are making about the name. If RS other than TWC use the name, then they have deemed it not promotional, and that means we can use it too. RGloucester — ☎ 00:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also WP:PROMOTION to think of [3], just because a RS uses something doesn't always mean we should. It is a heated debate [4] and you want to put Wikipedia into the middle of it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not British, perhaps you're not aware of the strict non-promotional guidelines that the BBC has. This is to the point, for example, that a well-liked chef on a cookery programme was forced off the air because he endorsed a brand of potato. The BBC would not use the term if it was promotional, pure and simple. What's more, even if the term is deemed non-neutral, it still must be mentioned by the article. You can't censor a common name, obfuscating the edification of the readers. You can say "the storm was frequently called such and such by many people, but the validity of this name was questioned", but you certainly can't ignore it completely. RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then how does "and controversially named Juno" sound? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the Nemo example, and add a "naming section", explaining the "controversy". Include the frequently used names in the lead, with citations. RGloucester — ☎ 00:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will put in the info when the article settles down, thanks for the advice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am a week-and-a-half late to saying this, but is the use of such a title necessarily a violation of WP:NPOV? I actually understand that concept of "it is easier to recognize the storm being referred to" when using The Weather Channel's names even though I don't use them personally. Also, in some circumstances where the name is used frequently enough, winter storm names might warrant a mention in the lead section of articles. Maybe that can be mentioned somewhere? Perhaps that is their purpose, but is there actual proof that the names are purely promotional? Yes, it would not be good practice to use these as titles, but should there not be some sort of section at the new essay discussing usage in the lead sections of articles? I think this is worth consideration. In any case, those are just my thoughts. Dustin (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the citations for Chi (Chobits)!

AngusWOOF (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Thanks, hopefully it can become a good article. Given how outside sources are so hard to come by regarding anime/manga characters I have to say im lucky on what I have found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map you should restored has not been updated since November. The original map depicts the progression of territorial control as it happened historically until August, when the last significant territorial changes took place. The map you added does not show the progression, only the outdated November update, and hence has no use whatsoever. We have no maps of the current situation, and given this, we should use the one that shows the territorial progression, not the stagnant one with no update. Keep in mind that territorial control did not change in the span of August 2014 to late January 2015. Please revert yourself at once, so we are not left with a crap map that has no use. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "five months out-of-date". No changes took place between 31 August 2014 and January 2015, because of the Minsk Protocol. It is only out-of-date as of the Donetsk airport battle. It is much more useful than the map you put in, which does not show the historical progression. RGloucester — ☎ 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The historical progression is nice but it goes against what the timeline says, I feel that there is a more recent map out there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does it "go against what the timeline says"? What "timeline"? There is no "more recent map". RGloucester — ☎ 01:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chi (Chobits) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, I found the award for Choice Web Collaboration on the TCA website here, with the winner being Troye Sivan and Tyler Oakley - The "Boyfriend" Tag. The page only showed the winners, but the Hollyfood Reporting has an article featuring the nominees as well here. WeezleBeezle (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chi (Chobits) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chi (Chobits) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For asking about my identity. I appreciate it more than you may realize, so here's a kitten.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note in talk Talk:January_2015_North_American_blizzard#The_use_of_the_TWC_name_in_the_first_line_is_an_endorsement_of_TWC. You seem interested in this, so, I'd love to hear your opinion. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chi (Chobits) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chi (Chobits) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your hard work! :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks =) Thank you for your help as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KK, I think it would help if you were to stop posting about RO and the SPI. You were the top poster to the SPI page, plus all your posts about it elsewhere. All it serves to do is increase the heat. If you'd like things to calm down, the best way is to lead by example. Cheers, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: I would love for the issue to end but of course you know Wikipedia as much as I do that it just doesn't happen. [5][6]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One voice fewer would help at this point. I'll try to take my own advice and leave it there. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you too, I will just let it drop, I have been trying to help RO out though as she has been through a-lot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KK87, I appreciate that you were there to defend me while so many others were attacking. SV says that more voices to the discussion is bad, but she pinged an editor who called me a cunt and another who harassed me all over Wikipedia for 6 weeks that I agreed to an IB with. Thanks for being there, if not for you and Viriditas, I would have had little support. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to put blame on SV here as maybe she didn't know about the cunt thing (I hope not). I feel it is best going forward is to put this SPI behind us and either voluntary staying away from each other for like a week, or through WP:AN seek an IB between you and Victoria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KK87, SV linked to this thread at SPI, which clearly states that the editor she pinged had called an admin a cunt, and later clarified that they were referring to me, as they edit warred to keep the slur at talk. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Id like to WP:AGF but SV if you are watching I don't see how it was helpful to ping someone who has had a bad past with RO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She pinged an editor who had been indeffed for harassing me to pile it on; it was no accident. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I think you should try to go back to normal editing, this isn't right I know but here on Wikipedia things like these build up over time. Going to WP:ANI about it for example is just going to cause other editors to rehash the SPI case all over again and it will be a mess. Hopefully it ends here, if not then the small things will sadly add up into a case that would be in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like your controbutions to Wikipedia, and are happy that you like manga if you can I would like one of your Manga drawings.

Glistensnow (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks =) I haven't drawn in awhile but can show you what I have done via youtube. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Knowledgekid87, for your kind comments at [7] about my quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia to improve articles related to freedom of speech and censorship to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA. Please also note that the article includes commentary from secondary sources written by women, including: Carly Milne, Regina Lynn, Annalee Newitz of AlterNet, author Violet Blue, author Audacia Ray, Bonnie Ruberg of The Village Voice, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Jessica Roy of The New York Observer, author Sarah Schaschek -- indeed, the majority of the secondary-source-commentary in the article itself is cited to female authors. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Knowledgekid87, There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: List of participants. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}. Join in discussion at project talkpage. Notify other editors you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject. Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, -- — Cirt (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

So, do you have an anime and manga project in mind? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only other one I was thinking of improving was Missions of Love for right now, other than that in the short term have been working on general cleanup issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my help, just ask! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks =) I am going to take a break online for a bit (Like an hour) but will be back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of a bad article rather than a non notable subject. i am restoring the article in order to work on it, my user space is already full of WIP Lupin stuff so I will do it live. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SephyTheThird: if you know the series then yes by all means fix the article up. Right now though it is all in universe info that if trimmed down would fit nicely into the list of characters article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The character articles all suffer from the same issues but they were low priority compared to the job of the wider franchise (which is never ending work). However I have a pretty good idea of what is missing, needs removing or sourcing it's just a case of time. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well for Chi (Chobits) for example which I worked on to GA status I found that linking to episodes count as a plus. The biggest thing you need to find are real world information the more the better best of luck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sounded rough at List of anime by release date (pre-1939)'s afd. I see you worked on the others. I been focusing on American short films for awhile since I has better access to the original documents. You are trying to improve Wikipedia - and I need to sometimes take a step back from the actual bad-faith person I sometimes have to deal with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri: Its okay, no worries, Im not making any promises to edits right away as im going through the cleanup list ATM but will put the list on my watchlist to look at and improve upon at a later time =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have some 1030 articles that need to be created and about 100 more that need to be pushed to GA status. The project - unlike A&M - is not controversial and coverage of the content is abysmal. A&M is probably something I shouldn't edit too much because you know how I tend to swoop in, drop a bunch of content, and move to the next article. I can do that without ruffling anyone's feathers in the boonies that is American silent films. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with your idea of tagging Expand Japanese on the articles that are built up for the BLP stubs. That should remove the tags for BLP sources until that exercise has been done and will bring over a decent bio which can then be referenced. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Okay sounds good! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Knowledgekid87,

I noticed that you shut down the Tvx11 imitation account the other day. I have found another one whom I believe to be the same editor, as his user talk page was created with the description "for fun" before he blanked it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADarrandarra&diff=650895838&oldid=650895532

I am on the lookout for others. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisonermonkeys: Sorry but im no admin, the person you are looking for is User:JodyB. I merely suggested that this could be something of a bigger thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be one of those times where several individual works are actually part of an anthology series. You may want to consider adding/merging The Cosmopolitan Prayers and Love Love?, they are all listed together in Anime Encyclopedia. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the three Love Love? has the most potential of being notable. I will prob add/merge The Cosmopolitan Prayers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have removed the PROD template from the above article. The PROD was due to expire on March 22, which is 10 days before the new series started. There are separate list articles for series 1-4, 6, 16 and 17, so it would seem likely that the article for series 18 would be recreated next month anyway.
I have also raised a separate issue on the talk page of the main article, Talk:Prince Mackaroo. Your user page suggests you are an anime person, so you may be able to contribute an opinion there. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there should never be a need to create a episode list before something has even aired, regardless of how long the series is or how many other articles there are. Episodes should be listed on the main list until a reasonable number have aired, when they can be moved onto an article (assuming they have summaries, otherwise no reason for a separate article at all).SephyTheThird (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, @Athomeinkobe: can you show how the new episodes are notable or have had an impact? A mention of the episodes in prose on the main article should be fine until notability is established for a split off list. I feel like bringing this to AfD as we cant and don't have lists of everything just because they may or do exist. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your other message on the article's talk page. I now see that you are proposing that the lists be removed in their entirety. In that case, I suggest you take it up with the author of the lists. I am not an anime person myself, so I am not particularly interested in investing any time in sourcing the notability of individual episodes or series. However, looking at this list, the show seems to be in fairly esteemed company. Sources to satisfy notability require are bound to exist in Japanese, if not English. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to keep bothering you, but I see you've listed List of Chibi Maruko-chan episodes at the page Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I am now having second thoughts and tend to agree with you that there is not much that establishes these long lists of episodes as being notable. On the other hand, most TV shows tend to automatically have a list of episodes, don't they? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Athomeinkobe: Its okay you aren't a bother, I just haven't the time to take a good look here, as you said there are tons of lists and articles that really need help. If you want I can point you to some lists that are in better shape than the ones for Ojarumaru that have outside coverage in the form of a better lead/reception section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user has just blanked a reception section I wrote for Gundam Reconguista in G. I believe he did so because he was a fan of the show and did not want any negative reception to be noted. I provided several sources and backed up my claims. 72.238.104.64 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It never ceases to amaze me, in my years here, to see when socks seem to think they're the first ones to try that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Same here, you would also that even if they do say such and such they expect it to actually work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've made quite a few comments about me that are either filled with innuendo or are simply not nice. It's not conducive to a collegial and collaborative editing environment. I'm asking you to stop. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to provide concrete evidence for ILT isn't asking much, you are suggesting that the community supports sock puppets "It's sad that "the community" would rather support a person who to date has created over 108 confirmed accounts and perhaps hundreds of articles that need to be scrubbed." I do not see that as collaborative editing either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A couple weeks ago Eureka (Eureka Seven) was placed for AfD along with mentions of Dominic Sorel and Anemone (Eureka Seven). Since the relevant discussion has now closed, I was wondering what should become of these remaining articles since the AfD tag remains on them. Based on the mentions by the nominator and the closing admin's decision I say we merge them. Thoughts? —Kirt^Message 14:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be merged, the reception of the characters will really benefit the characters list with the out of universe info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There wasn't much reception. —Kirt^Message 16:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the series articles are pretty much cleaned up now. I was thinking of further merging the AO characters to the main ES character list but I'm not going to force a merger or anything. The last thing that concerns me is the existence of the mecha article. —Kirt^Message 12:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would be best if it could be merged into the plot and explained there in like a paragraph not a full article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchback_(Celldweller_song) I know about this subject area. Is a source form the original artist's website, or a documentary of creating the song a good reference?Doorknob747 (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that im now looking to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Levante I only want to learn how to format ref area so bullet points do not go on pic.Doorknob747 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also tell me how I did by putting the wikiproject automobile stubclass article box. Doorknob747 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment from uninvolved editor) @Doorknob747: The types of reliable sources are outlined here. BTW, the cheat code for the image question is to put the bullet points above or below the image, or put the image on the right side of the page. That is currently a glitch. Epic Genius (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epic Genius: I fixed it. Doorknob747 (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doorknob747: I will be happy to answer any questions by Monday. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotech Armed Forces received a non admin closure as no consensus despite it being 2 deletes+nom vs 1 keep and the arguments presented. What are your thoughts? SephyTheThird (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SephyTheThird: I feel like it was speedily closed and would take it to WP:DRV. My thoughts were going there but then its another thing to do, and I have been trying to condense the character list as it is. If you want to take it to DRV I would support an overturn. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

another editor took the issue up with the closer who has now added his own comments.SephyTheThird (talk)<

Yes I see that and thanks for mentioning something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had voluntarily agreed to back off from this sort of thing? Presumably I was mistaken but you seem again to be stoking fires that really do not concern you. Please justify what LB said and explain what EC is supposed to do in circumstances of baiting such as that. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just stated my opinion, normally a person would ignore things just as they would irl. Two wrongs don't make a right, as soon as you take action it can have an effect. LB was blocked btw for an unrelated thing so in the end it comes back to the person who starts the fight in one form or another. I also want to point out this isn't an indef block, a 72 hr block would be punitive here as Eric should ignore these type of things and not get involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to believe that I'm one for ignoring things in real life? What do you think I am, some kind of happy-clappy Christian who's always turning the other cheek so that it can be hit as well? But like Sitush, I thought that you'd agreed to reform yourself? Eric Corbett 13:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have, I have been editing articles over the last few months but your name keeps popping up on pages I watch. Its no secret that I watch the arb cases as there might be something major along the way. I will withdraw my statement but I wish your name would stop popping up at arbcom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe your statement to be a dispassionate and unbiased assessment then why are you withdrawing it? If you don't, then why did you make it? Eric Corbett 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew it because I don't want to get involved, I would rather work towards getting some of the manga articles I like up to GA. I am at work now so I cant really dive into edit diffs at this moment but want to say overall I have been impressed by how you have managed to keep your cool. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you still want to see me blocked for 72 hours, for absolutely nothing? That doesn't really compute. Eric Corbett 13:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall doesn't mean all of them, again I could point to some of your recent edits but don't have the time right now to dive into them. I know you aren't the type of person to just take hits but snapping back is just going to get more editors upset with you. Why should it matter? More drama for you, more stress down the line, and more chances of you losing your cool. Nip it in the bud and do your best to ignore it or else the problems wont go away and hang over you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) A/my name popping up at arbcom doesn't mean anything. (I have been cited to AE, always dismissed, - a learning experience which takes time.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One might reasonably hypothesise that the number of appearances at ArbCom/AE is directly correlated with the number of one's enemies. Eric Corbett 13:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People have cited me arguing that I must have done something wrong because (!) I was restricted. Does anybody know why I was restricted? I don't. I enjoy my restrictions, though, because they save me time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, could you slow down and stop steamrolling with 2015 Baltimore riots? You're acting against consensus on the talk page, where the people who want a split are in the minority. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would send the proposed article to AfD, there is a split here and I feel other editors should weigh in. Adding an info-box is not much of a streamroll. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also gay