This is an archive of past discussions with User:Knowledgekid87. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
National Gold Bank Note
Hi Knowledgekid87-
Thanks for setting up the table to accommodate the images. I will be happy to create reverse only images so each note can be seen obverse/reverse. I'll add some text in the remarks column about numbers of existing notes known for each denomination. Do you mind if I replace the existing $5 note with the new one? Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Knowledgekid87- I've been making some additions and a bit or re-organizing. Are you cool with how it is looking?--Godot13 (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi KK87 I am a colonol for the Ukranian army. I know English and Ukranian. Our government has kept hidden the total number of deaths in this war against those bandits. I didnt want to keep anything hidden from the world so I wrote the true number.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Otakon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Stocker (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.
Hi, I reverted your edit the Puella Magi Madoka Magica article, because I am disputing the claim that it is a horror anime. While I was doing my research in writing the Production section, I was unable to find any information to indicate that the genre would be considered horror. I don't believe it fits the definition, nor do I believe the creators intended it to be anything more than a fantasy with some dark themes. I have started a discussion at Talk:Puella Magi Madoka Magica#"Horror" which you are welcome to respond to if you feel strongly about this issue. Artichoker[talk]03:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "This what you mean Mondolkiri1?"
I'm trying to be objective here! I'm not an admirer of Putin, nor an admirer of Svoboda. Neither an admirer of Al-Qaeda nor an admirer of Anders Breivik. Neither an admirer of Hitler nor an admirer of Stalin. Neither an admirer of Netanyahu nor an admirer of Hamas. Neither an admirer of Julius Malema nor an admirer of Pieter Botha. Mondolkiri1 (talk 08:47, 15 June 2014 (WEST - Lisbon Time)
Wait. The geolocate feature indicates that this IP address is from China. I thought Wikipedia was illegal in China (although I may be wrong). Dustin(talk)06:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S.: Yes, anyone in china caught editing Wikipedia is likely to be in for trouble, but the point is that the IP address hosts an open proxy. That means that anyone anywhere in the world can connect to it and use it to edit. (I did so myself, in this edit.) The editor was probably not in China at all. The great firewall of China does not always block access to Wikipedia; I have no idea why. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, okay then. I guess that makes sense. If an editor uses an open proxy, that means that vandalism may be very difficult to track as may other issues. Well, thank you for the response. Dustin(talk)18:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of the Federal State of Novorossiya 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.
Yesterday (June 28) I added flags to the infobox regarding the 2014 Pro-Russian Conflict in Ukraine. Today (June 29), you removed my work, and told me to read WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Well I did read this, and it clearly states "Examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates..." If you have any concerns, fell free to leave me a message on my talk page. User talk:OBCPO1— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The sad truth of it is that this isn’t total drivel, but it’s not so bad that it’s good, like “Friday” was. Will anything ever be able to match the awful goodness of that video? Seems very unlikely we’ll see such genius again from Black.
As such, the original wording was fine, and your version was completely wrong. Please be more careful in future- introducing errors into Wikipedia articles like that can be extremely damaging. J Milburn (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The sentence makes perfect sense. Something can be "so bad it's good", but, "unlike Black's previous song" this one was not. (I concede that "so bad it's good" is a questionable concept, and that contractions don't make for good formal writing, but that's why the phrase is linked.) J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Knowledgekid87! I've been thinking for a while about what we could to the Survivor template. I'm actually sympathizing a little more with your version than some other users, but is there any possible way that we might could remove the duplicate links to make it more navigable and maybe change the title back to "Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants"? I tried doing it myself, but I'm really unsure how to edit complicated templates such as this one without messing them up. If you have any other suggestions, feel free to tell me. Thanks for your time! X936?F57 (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@X936?F57: I can remove the duplicate links under "Single season" if that is what you mean, I also don't see any issue with changing the template to US series although when you click on survivor or contestants it leads you there anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noted your suggestion here with interest. In a way it doesn't matter as your suggestion was (quite properly) ignored, but I am curious to know; on what grounds do you think I should have been topic-banned? --John (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the point was just to keep this dispute from interfering with every single other editor on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 while you and TheAirplaneGuy resolve your own issue. In that way, it wouldn't be necessary to fully protect the article, keeping everyone out. Dustin(talk)06:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@John: The issue being your edit wars, I suggested a topic ban not as a punishment but as a way for you two to work out your dispute perhaps on a talkpage or a different venue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@John: Despite linking my name, I didn't actually get pinged, so I apologize for the late reply. There obviously is some sort of issue otherwise it wouldn't have been brought to ANI. You should discuss the issue there. Dustin(talk)16:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth your looking at issues in a wee bit more detail before commenting on them at a central noticeboard. I was not edit-warring, TheAirplaneMan was. Which is why he was blocked. --John (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@John: It is moot now, the discussion was closed before I could make a response to the idea of a topic ban. Sorry if you took it personally and I agree I should have seen that TheAirplaneMan was blocked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
IP user 82.123.63.47
Could you send a warning message to this user, please, for vandalism and name calling, please? (I don't know how to do it) At this rate it won't take a lot of time until he or she is blocked. And in what ways is the 2014 insurgency in Donbass article semi-protected? I don't notice any protection.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It is only move-protected. The IP has been blocked. I'm thinking of applying for pending changes protection for the article. RGloucester — ☎21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to explain it as best as i can, but unfortunately a lot is being ignored or read too quickly. i'll explain it again as "slowly" as possible. But there's very little room for me to explain it any simpler than what i'm already saying, but i'll try.
part 1: We organize things different from other articles outside of WP:ANIME (i'm here to establish "WHY" we do that). And there is a reason for that. a universal media section benefits two situations. 1) When the focus of the article is mixed between multiple media, not just the original. For example, Tokyo Mew Mew has reception on anime and manga. School Rumble has reception AND development from both media as well. 2) The other situation is when the original media is not sufficient enough or is being overshadowed by the adaptations that the adaptation can't be split nor can the original can stand alone. Blue Submarine No. 6 is a prime example of this. But there's also Durarara!! too. Even though it has no reception section, most of the reception we will find is based on the anime or manga, not the original light novel.
part 2' There is a third situation, but it does not benefit from a universal media section. That is when the topic of the article primary focus is the original media, and the adaptations or any other related media is either split off, or just briefly mentioned. This is where the "Release" and "Related media" benefits the articles that fit that situation.
Here's your response in Rozen Maiden's talkpage your reasoning is that the article focuses on more than just the manga. And in that situation you're right. Because the article contains reception from both anime and manga. But if hypothetically only the manga reception (and development) existed, a "Release" section would benefit that article, to highlight the main focus.
I have pinged you on the talk page prior to your revert, I have even clarified it prior to re-reverting your banner. Your suggestion to turn this to prose is contested and the banner is not to be added all willy-nilly to a Good Article when the "linked discussion" is not even about that page or topic. Please do not reinstate it again without discussing this. I will take it to edit warring if you do, because I pinged you for the discussion and you chose to avoid it to reinstate an ugly cleanup banner which can instantly fail a GA if "applicable". This is at-best a style issue and some titling discussion is not applicable, take your reason and discussion to the talk page please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Please remove it and begin discussion, it is really sad you are going to edit war a personal opinion with a banner on a good article - I have been waiting to hear your argument since I reverted it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri: Chris three editors (myself included) have agreed that cast lists would be better replaced by character lists, a discussion has been started, if you wish to continue take your views to the right place I do see a consensus though that character lists are better presented than cast lists are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not care what you call the section header, but as noted WP:FILMCAST specifically recommends Japanese animated films to use tables to display the character and the voice actors in a simple way. My concern is that you are going against WP:MOSFILM and placing a clean up banner ad despite it being the recommended display and I've already stated the reason for it twice. I ask that you please check the link, read it yourself, and remove it in accordance with BRD, the status quo and the MOS which specifically and explicitly recommends the table. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh you didn't see WP:FILMCAST? Okay, got up to speed? Okies, no worries. Sorry, if I irritated or angered you with the "edit warring" board threat, I thought that a bit too hasty myself. After writing it and seeing you bounced my revert, that's why I was sad you continued it. This page is much much lower in traffic and you didn't see it, no worries - all things fixable and discussable. Hmm... things moving too quick? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm too used to the -HELP section, but I really need to remember that an hour or so on these pages really don't matter for anything. If it was on the main page or on something like the Top 100 pages, yeah, different story... maybe? I shouldn't be quick and assume you know everything and anything, heck, I don't and I've been here for some time. Anyways, thanks for linking me to the voice actor /cast discussion. I'm all for precision and readability, the "cast" is probably obsolete, but we need some more FAs to really form a decent style and format structure.... I dunno which to take to FA. I only did a lighthouse list... you have anything you are working on? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Im not working on anything right now but have mentioned that we need a new FA article for the anime/manga project, do you have any suggestions? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is the sourcing of Japanese texts which elude most of us. Being able to read Japanese is only part of the problem. American voice actors might be the easiest to source, but few have the high quality sources or the depth of coverage needed. I have a plan to do the scholarly texts, but I doubt they can get above GA. Those like Katsudō Shashin are works are likely to be the ones I could bring up, but the problem is that most of them burned in the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake. I was wondering about some of the lost films, since all that ever can be known comes from the records we already have unless we discover something new. These articles are really easy and I've been assembling a history of some silent film and vaudeville stars. Just an interest in the early days. Same as ever. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war on Syrian Civil War topics. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the one-revert rule of the Syrian Civil War sanctions, which state that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page of Syrian Civil War topic within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time, counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GreyShark (dibra) 20:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
...that a trans woman should be referred to as he/him for some purposes other than the following situations:
Direct quotations must keep their original words. A trans woman must be referred to as he/him in a direct quotation if that was the quotation's original words.
WP:VNT. This means that a person known by reliable sources to be a man but rumored without verifiability to be a trans woman must be treated like a man in Wikipedia and be referred to as he/him.
Have you carefully read the section of Wikipedia:Gender identity that focuses on the question "Shouldn't we wait until the new name is used more frequently in reliable sources??" Please read that question's answer, including the However sentence at the bottom. Georgia guy (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This is an IAR situation — our policies simply aren't made for situations in which our article might put someone's life at stake. I'm in the middle of attempting to remove on-wiki mentions of this guy's name; if you wish to dispute it, you would do well to contact Arbcom (see WP:ARBCOM#Contacting the Committee) about the situation. Please don't think that I'm challenging you to some sort of arbitration case: it's just that they know what they're doing about potentially significant privacy issues, and they can discuss this kind of thing offline. If you ask them for input, please ask them to contact me; I'll happily undo myself if they ask. Of course, you should feel free to contact me offline as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have already emailed Oversight, removed it from Deletion Review, and was in the middle of removing it from Jimbo's talk page. Please be slightly patient, since this has been broadcast in numerous places, and it's more important to remove it quickly than to explain quickly. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. That's precisely why I was trying to work fast. As I said to Technoquant, I'll happily speak far more freely offline, if you so desire. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
My narrow point is that you section heading isn't very clear. Maybe some will guess you mean an IBAN, but it is not obvious. I don't see any justification for such a ban, which may be why I was mystified as to what you meant. If you want to propose an Iban, please provide some evidence. I've read quite a bit of the exchanges, and don't recall anything that would qualify as a policy violation by Eric. Perhaps you could provide some diffs, and not just a pointer to a general conversation.--S Philbrick(Talk)20:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Your ANI Post
Your ANI post was boxed as not being relevant to the section that it was subordinate to. I would suggest opening it as a main section (two bars rather than three). My own proposal about Eric is a partial ban, specifically a ban against all posts by Eric in Wikipedia space and Wikipedia talk space. He is not merely a net negative in WP and WT space. He is a pure negative. He contributes nothing of value in WP and WT space. I am not proposing a ban, because he is a content creator in main space, but that doesn't justify him in Wikipedia space. That is my suggestion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year block topic ban due to my nomination of American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, "getting" a page locked from IP editing, and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here: ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.) DocumentError (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
When reverting vandals, I invite you to not comment about their intentions, as it gives them fuel to continue. Comments like this diff's edit summary are a reaction and that's what vandals often strive for, a reaction. If they vandalize a page in a humourous manner and all they get is 'reverted edits by USERNAME' then that's no reaction. No one appears to care. It denies them recognition. Since this page has already been vandalized by the same vandal, you'd be entirely justified to either just continually rollback them or something similar. Tutelary (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:List of One Piece characters#Protagonists vs. main characters
I encourage you to stop insulting Eric Corbett anywhere, esp. on his own talk page. The way I read "Keep your crap to yourself, don't shit on my talk page" should be clear. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies: I was standing up for Chillum who was clearly the target of attacks based on his edit history. I am not sure why you are accusing me of throwing out any insults. Anyways yes I read the message at that point I saw that commenting any further was going to be a brick wall so I stopped. You are barking up the wrong tree here, the people whom you should be addressing are the ones going after others unprovoked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Chillum is a big boy. He can take care of himself, and he should certainly be able to take responsibility for his own block. No, I am not barking up the wrong tree. You don't go to a blocked editor's talk page and rag on him some more. If you wanted to tell Chillum to not respond to Eric, you could have done so on Chillum's own talk page; instead it looks like you saw a nice opportunity for some gravedancing. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, Knowledgekid87, please stop baiting Eric at his talk page. It's obvious you are in dispute with him so maybe it's better to stay away from his talk page.--MONGO02:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@MONGO: Can you please provide a diff on where I am baiting him? I feel every person has a right to their opinion and not everything in the world has a hidden motive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Was I being obtuse? What part about my comment seems bewildering to you that you'd ask me a comment such as "please provide a diff"...how about all of your comments? I'd explain further, but how about you just avoid him if he's that upseting to you....its not like you're going to change things...all you're going to do is piss him and maybe others off.--MONGO03:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah okay I said my opinion and I left, case closed the world didn't end. If Eric had said or says he wanted me off of his talk-page or not to comment there I would respect that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Any fool can see that what you're trying to do is to provoke me into a response that some will see as justification for a block or a ban. Let me tell you this sunshine, it ain't gonna happen. EricCorbett03:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to tell you that i made a mention of you regarding the previous AN discussion at Jimbo Wales, if you feel i misinformed Jimbo Wales, or forgot to mention a specific detail, i urge you to respond and clarify. Other than that, i hope this isn't a bother to you. If you feel an additional opinion would make a difference, i urge you to give it. I believe it just takes one to really put things into perspective. Lucia Black (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see NPOV listed as a reason to edit someone else's contribution to a Talk page. I also don't think "capitulate" violates NPOV. Tinmanic (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I find this very inappropriate. NPOV does not apply to talk pages, and even if it did the user's choice of wording does not invalidate the truth of their statements. If the AG has decided not to appeal, that means that the legal situation is changed. Using "capitulation", "given up" or "changed mind" doesn't change anything. Fry1989eh?19:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Most people create a separate throw-away Gmail for the purpose. The settings as such are in the preferences pane, so nothing appears on your user page or whatever. RGloucester — ☎23:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I think that if you have enabled other users to email you through your preferences, they can do so using Special:EmailUser, but they won't actually ever learn your email address unless you reply via email. Dustin(talk)23:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
[1] Well said. As another example, I think white people shouldn't marry black people, but some of my best friends are black... That's not racist, though, right? It's just my beliefs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: It is sort of like someone smoking a cigarette, I can walk up to them and say put that way that is bad for you! Chances are they will shrug it off and keep smoking. In a nutshell: You cant change people easily, telling them to get rid of infoboxes isn't going to help anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
That's true; but it's certainly not what you said at ANI. What you said there I find disappointing. Still, this has pretty much nothing to do with Wikipedia, so I probably shouldn't have brought it here. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I think commenting about something when you know nothing about the issue that was referred to is bonkers. But horses for courses, I guess. It's just my definition of "bonkers" would have wider support. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I know about it, how you have been under the microscope ever since your I quit announcement due to all of the stress here, how you are against the WMF and want to take a stand. How long do you intend on going on with this, Months? Years? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
No, you know nothing about it. The reason for that is because the details have never been given on Wikipedia and cannot be for various reasons. You could try asking the people at WMF but they would most likely refuse to answer, although they probably would confirm that there is a huge thing going on in which I am one of the good 'uns. I suggest that you tread very carefully here because you haven't merely got the wrong end of the stick, you've got a completely different stick. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Sitush why not just let it go? I asked other editors who are in your position the same question, taking Mondays off just to prove a point? Do you really think that the editor community are saying "Oh no what will we do now that Sitush is gone?" When someone leaves the empty space is filled again over time. If you were greatly wronged in the past im sorry but isn't there a point where you have to look ahead? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Knowledgekid - Another possible issue just FYI is: this issue. (Though I'll note that the long term abuser I mention may not be the actual culprit in my case but someone still active who posed as him back in 2010-11 and still may be doing so today, given personal attacks of just last couple days.) Some related issues mentioned there were brought up by his friends at arbitration and thrown around in more explicit detail. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)13:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Carolmooredc: Thanks for the heads up, it does not take someone with a-lot of back-round knowledge to see that something is going on. There are two sides clasing against each other here on of all things an encyclopedia that everyone is welcome to edit online. I don't like to judge people based on what I see on the surface but I do not like it when I see other editors being mistreated here on Wikipedia male or female. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Re: India Against Corruption, I haven't studied the issue enough to know if it is 100% and only about a ragtag bunch of nuts who have taken over the original group, tried to put a lot of nonsense in the article, and turned to sockpuppetry when it was removed. But I know that snotty attitudes and massive and constant deletion of material in a topic area, sometimes on flimsy grounds, can piss off a lot of people. And when it's a person of one race whose (now blessedly failed) imperium historically conquered that other race who is doing it, that's going to raise hackles, whatever the real situation. In short, systemic bias is an awareness issue and being aware keeps things happier at wikipedia.
Actually, as I considered it, it seemed an issue that might be brought up Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. Searching the talk archives I noticed one or more solid editors had retired a few years back already over the India vs western/anglo bias issue in general. But I am trying to UNinvolve myself in issues now. Anyway, in the link I presented racism was charged and the context is relevant, even if in the specific case they are 100% wrong. Hmmm, I can think of a great romantic script for a bollywood movie about wikipedia. Enough, must write out a treatment quick. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)16:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday I performed this edit. I wrongly thought it was an edit to the main article and assumed it to be vandalism. Only when you reverted my edit did I realize my mistake. I am aware that this particular article and its talk page warns contributors to edit carefully. I apologize for this careless mistake and will try to be more careful in the future. My edit was in no way a reflection on your contribution to Wikipedia. Best regards, Lklundin (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
...I just said that in my opinion it is harder to block someone over friendship. DS is clearly well liked even after it was shown he was a sock.
I have seen this pattern over and over again. An editor repeatedly disrupts a certain topic area over and over and over again, with little to no repercussions. If there are blocks, they are short in duration. Again and again the editor ends up on ANI/AN/AN3 with no major sanctions while article after article is disrupted and chaos ensues. Meanwhile, many admins make "friends" with the editor, with some saying they would never block them under any circumstances. How do you explain this strange behavior? In this case, we see that the political beliefs of the editor in question closely align with this group of admins; the admins refused to enforce the rules because they personally agreed with the editor disrupting the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Like I said we are all human, this friendship with people who make the rules happens in real life as well and it can lead to corruption. In other cases it can case people who make the rules to look the other way with the "Nah it cant be" approach. These are reasons why I see people not wanting to become admin, in a way you need to isolate yourself and you do need to enforce things even if it means hurting people you have been friendly with. Admin can be friends with other admin but an admin/editor friendship while okay needs to be understood by both sides in the end where things lie. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
My point of view on how long the Powerpuff Girls were popular is unchanged. Your reasoning is not sufficient enough to warrant reversion of my rating changes on the talk page. From my knowledge, excluding what the media has to say about it, the show was very popular from late 1999 up to the end of 2000. The show's popularity died down by the time 2001 arrived. The show's popularity collapsed late in 2001, and evidence of this sharp decline is seen in how poorly The Powerpuff Girls Movie did in movie theaters. Therefore, what you said about merchandise being released and the show lasting six seasons is quite irrelevant. Classicalfan626 (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank You
Thank You
Thank you for participating in my topic ban. This really is a genuine thank you, no sarcasm is intended. I was in the wrong and I accept that. Rottenregard23:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
To me restoring the image in Fan_service? I thought it was an excellent photo and was just going to check up on it only to see you removed it in August with no protest. Tutelary (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
What I see in that discussion is one user trying to remove an image based on weak basis. I see no similar discussion for Fan_service and it's peculiar that a decision was made based on another page what to that page. I feel that the article should have an image and feel that the image was appropriate at the time. Thanks for providing me your blessing, I have boldly restored said image and am waiting to see if there's any minutely controversy that results. Tutelary (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I was just wondering how you knew that Elaine Mirk and Valerie Shepherd had died. I was under the impression that they were still alive. I've scoured the internet and not been able to find anything regarding them passing away.
Like Betty Ann Cain, Ardith Dondanville and Joan Kenmore, I would imagine that Eva Lee Kuney is still alive because, had they died, their deaths would probably have been widely reported. However, it's impossible to prove either way so I've added her to "Unknown".
Are you aware that, after me, you are the person who has contributed the most number of edits to the GGTF proposed decision page? I have an excuse, indeed two of them: the first is that I am a party to the case and the second is that many of my edits have been attempts to persuade you to butt out and to fix your obvious errors.
There is nothing wrong in principle and I know that, like me, some of those edits are minor copyedits etc. Generally speaking, you have as much right to comment there as anyone else. However, the extent of it is ridiculous, especially since it seems mostly to be just noise. I am not the only one who thinks this, by the way, although it is entirely possible that I might be the only one who thinks this bears all of the stamps of a "pseudo-admin", a type of person regarding whom generally the community would be better off reading less rather than more. No offence intended but perhaps it is food for thought? - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
You are a smart and knowledgeable kid! Don't waste too much good mental energy in thankless tasks! The world needs smart kids!!
I hope you have seen my thoughts on this [[2]]. Lightbreather may have a point and it's a good question, I've also raised a few at the SPI. The request of checkuser however should be made at the arbcom page per WP:CHECKUSER. It is under when a user should not request checkuser and the corresponding instructions are to notify the arbs at the case page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Userboxes big mistake
That I self-identified as a PH.D. in Psychology was used against me as evidence by Flyer22 and Lightbreather in a sockpuppet investigation, so I don't think it's a good idea to suggest that to editors. I've removed any boxes that suggest my education and where I got it. I may remove the other two, though they seem harmless, but the "POV" was also used, so I may remove that too. EChastain (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@EChastain: Why would you remove them though? You know you aren't using other accounts to sock so how could the information be used against you here? In my opinion it could have added additional suspicion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
That and other bogus reasons. Nevermind that Lightbreather, the accuser, has been caught socking at least twice in the last few days. And an arb just raised her block for account creation from one week to two.
The whole thing is so unpleasant. It's time consuming, stressful, I have to keep my eye on a whole bunch of places, instead of reading articles and editing. EChastain (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@EChastain: Again why would you need to? The socking process is checked upon by more than infobox evidence, if you have nothing to hide then don't worry about it. I highly doubt that someone is going to ban you as a sockpuppet based off of an infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
That I have a Ph.D. in Psychology is a major piece of evidence in Lightbreather's evidence that I am a sock of Sue Rangell, so why would you mention that as "strange" in the SPI case? EChastain (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@EChastain: Its strange that it was made into a huge deal. If someone accused me of being a sock and used the fact that I like manga as evidence I would say "yeah so what if I like manga? I admit it and have nothing to hide" or in your case "So what if I have a Ph.D.? I admit it and im proud of it" lots of users use the same info-boxes. I don't know just this feeling I guess, but before I could really ask more or talk about it you asked to drop the subject above that made me think about it a bit more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) p.s. I think you think I am a sock, right? That explains you bothering to remark about the removal of boxes (really, was that necessary) on that on an SPI that's causing me major stress. I don't even know who Sue Rangell is. Don't you think it's strange that per WP:EVADE, Lightbreather is being enabled in her dysfunctional behaviour? The SPI has nothing do to with her block. She should just apologize and get unblocked. But no. Something else is going on.
EvergreenFir was good enough to add to the SPI investigation that she used "sigh", not me. Nonetheless, after she posted that someone posted that my use of "sigh" is evidence that I'm Sue Rangell. I appreciate that she did that, so not everyone is screwed up and evil.
Another p.s. I did say that yesterday. I said what does my having a PH.D. have to do with anything? The reason is that Sue Rangell had some sort of degree in Sociology, so according to Flyer22 and Lightbreather, that's very suspicious and indicates I'm a sock of Sue Rangell.
My responses to the "evidence" were habbed into invisibility. I was unaware of what was going on until another editor let me know. So while Lightbreather's enablers were happily posting her ridiculous "evidence" for her, I didn't know that. Then when I did figure it out and posted my responds, I was told I was responding too much. No win situation. I can see why people hate this place. EChastain (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@EChastain: You are fixated on Lightbreather who currently is blocked for 2 weeks and has issues of her own. I have been accused as a sock before as well based on behaviors it happens and while it hurts, I ignored it for the most part and in the end the user was proven wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
She's blocked for one week. The two week adjustment just prevents her from creating any new accounts; it doesn't prevent her from posting as herself, after her one week is up. EChastain (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Again so what? Unless you are Sue which I know you aren't and you know you aren't there is no case here. Your posting and actions are drawing unwanted attention to yourself as most would ignore things that are false and brush them off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
So what? I thought you'd want to know that the block is one week not two as you stated, just because I thought you'd want to correct inaccurate information. But since you don't, I apologise for having posted the info and won't bother you again. EChastain (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
EChastain, didn't I tell you in the #Userboxes big mistake section to not mention me unless you are going to mention me correctly? You are not a new Wikipedia editor, which you have also confirmed. What I stated about you is that I knew you were not a new Wikipedia editor, because, obviously (to a very experienced Wikipedian such as myself), you are not. Now keep my username out of your mouth...er away from your fingers on the keyboard...unless there is an actual good reason to mention me and you mention me accurately. If you keep misrepresenting my statements and pinging me via WP:Echo when I don't want a thing to do with you, I will take you to WP:ANI for WP:Harassment. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Request
I'm politely requesting you to just ignore me and not try to help. You don't seem to understand the situation and others do. This and this indicate that. I'm asking you to stay out of it, please. EChastain (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing my request at ANI, or at least I requested to do so. I guess that's how it's done. This Lightbreather circus is way more fun that the hard work of creating and editing articles, especially since I don't have a POV to drive me like she does. I think I'll just hang out and comment. Maybe take up arbcom comments as a speciality like Robert McClenon has done. (He started the GGTF arbcom, copypasted some diffs from ANI Disruption of Wikiproject opened by Carolmooredc (now banned indefinitely) targeting Eric Corbett, Two kinds of pork and SPECIFICO that had to be struck in GGTF arbxom evidence because the diffs didn't show the purported behavior; then he bowed out.)
I'll put a bunch of userboxes up that are meaningless, like "This user speaks English", "This user likes elephants", "This user's favorite color is a orangeish-purple-green", and look for an interesting arbcom to have opinions about. The GGTF was rather shocking because almost nobody posted relevant evidence. Mostly they argued and cast aspersions, and make personal attacks without any diffs. I was surprised how inadequate it was. EChastain (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Honeymoon Bridge (Jackson, NH), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ellis River. 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.
I noticed you applied strikethrough to some comments by User:SparkUpAFatOne, who has been blocked and confirmed as a sock. You should be aware that comments signed Sparki*SmokeWeed!* are also by that user. It might also be a good idea to clean up the first "Christianity?" section, which seems now to be interrupting the flow of the page. As far as I can tell, that heading was actually intended as part of the comment I can only agree with Retartist. I don't know which side wants which to happen now. Off-topic, why is everyone talking about, with the heading markup just being used to emphasize the word. (Incidentally, you also missed striking through that comment).
Hello: When you click Fatigues (uniform) you will come up with a link to "battle dress uniform". This is rather incorrect, because the US Army fatigue uniform was actually one used for day-to-day "fatigue duty" on military installations. Day-to-day military fatigue duty meant kitchen police, work details, picking up trash, etc. It so happened that when US Army soldiers fought in battle they wore fatigues. Soldiers put on their "Class A" uniforms for parades and other formal occasions and official photographs. Chelsea Manning is properly wearing her Class A uniform for her official photograph, not her fatigues. – S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure "civil rights" is the appropriate word to be using, here. The problem is not one of a lack of legal rights, but of legal discrimination. RGloucester — ☎15:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I've moved it to 2014 police brutality protests in the United States. You have to understand, the people at issue here, such as Brown and Garner, have "civil rights" in law. They were just not applied correctly. This year's protests by LGBT activists are about what are called "civil rights", because they don't have legal rights under law. That is to say, WP:PRECISE demand that we be clear which protests we are talking about. RGloucester — ☎15:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Manner at the Fake denominations of United States currency Talk page
As I indicated there, User:Knowledgekid87, I do not appreciate your manner. There is no intentional WP:LAWYERING going on, merely laying out rationale for a series of edits. If anything, you are the one trying to hide behind a literal interpretation of things (i.e. that just because a fact or factoid can be cited, it not only is relevant but must be included in Wikipedia (and protected from removal). That simply is not the case.
Considering this Talk page alone is littered with contentious actions/interactions with others I would very seriously reconsider your approach here at Wikipedia, whether with content, policies, or other good faith editors. Ultimately, it will be to the benefit of all. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Revision of Tsukuyomi: Moon Phase characters
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. --KanashimiHyoketsu12:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
@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'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))
@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: [3]. 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)
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))
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. JehochmanTalk14:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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" [4] we cant please everyone here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
Please don't interfere if you're not paying attention
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)
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)
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)
Re:Rebecca Black
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)
