User talk:Knorrepoes~enwiki

Please contact me on my [Dutch Wikipedia user page].

Thanks
Thank you for comments on the probiotics article. Would you like to look at endocrine disruptor and phytoestrogens as well? These article need a skeptical eye. Pustelnik (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Coffee Hag albums
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Coffee Hag albums, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Coffee Hag albums is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Coffee Hag albums, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Coffee Hag Albums

 * Copied from Hu's talk page:

You [Hu] put a copyright notice on this page. This is not a copyright violation, see also the remark on the talk page. I am the author of both the Wikipedia site as well as the original site, see my own user page as well as the whois information of herladryshop.biz.Knorrepoes 18:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You put a copyright notice, I did not. What I put was a notice of copyright violation. You have to either decide that you own the copyright or not. If you give up the copyright to Wikipedia, then you can't claim copyright on it and must not put any notices on Wikipedia. I did this to force you to decide. You need to read up a bit about Wikipedia and Copyright. Hu 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Copied from Talk:Coffee Hag albums page:

The writer needs to decide who owns the copyright. If they want the text on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia must own it. There can be no copyright notices on Wikipedia except Wikipedia's GFDL license (so-called "copyleft"). If you remove your claim to the copyright and state here that Wikipedia has your permission to use the text from a page or a site that you own (so that it is clear that there is no copyright violation), then I will be happy to remove the notice. It just needs to be clear. As it stands now, there is an overlap of copyright claims here and that can't continue. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. Essentially, by placing text and images on Wikipedia you are giving them away for public use. Thus if you own the copyright because you created them and claim copyright elsewhere, then you must make it clear that you are giving it away. In practice, I would advise you to keep your text on your site and publish a condensed or reworded version on Wikipedia. Then there would not be any conflict or confusion over copyright. Hu 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the Speedy Delete tag to a ProD (Proposed for Deletion) tag, which gives the writer [you] more time to read the policy page and decide what to do. Hu 00:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem to give permission (otherwise I would not put it on Wikipedia...). The text as used now on Wikipedia is free to use and change by everyone. It is taken from my site heraldryshop.biz by myself and by doing so the texts have become available for public use. Knorrepoes 08:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You have gone half-way, but you still have the outstanding copyright claim on the article from it's talk page (use &lt;s&gt; your claim &lt;/s&gt; to strike through your claim). Until you remove your claim of copyright to the material from everywhere in Wikipedia that you have made it, then the copyright situation is still clouded. Perhaps I am making too much out of not much, but that is my understanding. One thing is not in doubt, and that is that Wikipedia is very serious about getting copyright straightened out. Hu 13:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * doneKnorrepoes 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the strikethrough of the claim at the head of this page, I am withdrawing my ProD from the article, because my concerns have been satisfied. Looks like a good article! Well done. It is just the kind of article that could become a featured article, but that is a lot of work to chase down references and all the other details involved in getting it to that kind of status. First step is to get it up to Good Article standards. Hu 00:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Helminthic therapy categorization as Probiotic
Hi, you recently removed the category tag Probiotic from the Helminthic Therapy page. Since according to the Probiotic page here on Wikipedia the definition of a probiotic is "According to the currently adopted definition by FAO/WHO, probiotics are: ‘Live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host’.[1]" it goes without saying that any Helminthic therapy should be classified as probiotic. Helminthic therapy is inoculation with a microorganism that in adequate amounts confers a health benefit on the host. The only difference is that it is a heretofore unused class of microorganism and the route for administration is not in all cases oral. Neither of those differences is relevant to the definition however.

So, I would like to restore the Probiotic tag to that page.

Thoughts before I do so?

FQ1513 (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see your point, still I have two objections (..), a helminth is a nematode and those are generally not included as microorganisms, shich thus is not in agreement with the definition. Secondly a probiotic is normally a very well defined strain of a bacterial species (in nematodes you can't talk about strains I guess), which in this case is not true either.
 * The WHO definition is rather poor and scientifically not really used. The two more common definitions are :
 * ''Probiotics are officially defined as:
 * Oral probiotics are living micro-organisms which, upon digestion in certain numbers, exert health benefits beyond inherent basic nutrition.
 * A more common definition is:
 * A probiotic is a live microbial feed supplement which beneficially affects the host by improving its intestinal microbial balance
 * Here it is also stated an intestinal balance, although other applications are now included. The first one therefore is the most widely used.
 * So, although I see similarities, it is too far off of what is normally seen as probiotic. Maybe we need a new word...Knorrepoes (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy copyedits
Thanks for your copyedits at Aspartame controversy. Do you feel informed enough, yet distanced enough, from the subject to offer an opinion on the neutrality of the article at Talk:Aspartame controversy? If you don't want to, please don't feel pressured. --SV Resolution(Talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please read 3RR. Thanks Hobartimus (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there
I am about to report you for violating 3RR with your edit warring on the Hungary-Slovakia relations place. However I think you are a good user overall, just caught up in the moment so I wish no conflict with you I just don't want most of the article being blanked. If you revert to the original non-blanked version, your last revert will not count and It will be seen as a good faith attempt to undo the violation and there will be no report by me. Thank you for your attention.Hobartimus (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are your 4 clean reverts with diff-s

As you can see it's not within 24 hours its all within 40 minutes... I suggest you revert the last one immediately. Hobartimus (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 10:20, 28 March 2010
 * 2nd revert: 10:23, 28 March 2010
 * 3rd revert: 10:29, 28 March 2010
 * 4th revert: 10:59, 28 March 2010
 * Did you read the stuff I wrote above? Hobartimus (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a note
User:Happenstance is a member of the Wikiprojet Slovakia, redirecting to User:Hexagon1 since 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Slovakia#Participants

--Nmate (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Should you make another revert to Hungary–Slovakia relations without discussion, you'll be blocked from editing. Go to the talk page to discuss future edits. I don't expect to see a single revert from you within at least the next week.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Draft on fermentation for article kimchi
Hi. This is the draft I wrote as I promised. Sorry it was late: I was reported by user:Sennen goroshi and got a 24-hour block. Can you have look, revise it as you would like, and upload the section? Thanks. Hkwon (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The vegetables are sliced, highly seasoned with ingredients such as red pepper, onion, and garlic, and fermented in brine traditionally in large earthenware jars. Dried and salted shrimp, anchovy paste, and oysters are sometimes used as additional seasonings. The fermentation process is initiated by various microorganisms originally present in the raw materials, but is gradually dominated by lactic acid bacteria. Numerous physicochemical and biological factors influence the fermentation, growth, and sequential appearance of principal microorganisms involved in the fermentation. The early and intermediate phases of fermentation are considered crucial to the taste of kimchi. When optimally ripened, acidity increases with sourness and a unique flavor with refreshing and coolness results from ethanol and other products.

During fermentation, which takes approximately one month depending on weather conditions, the kimchi jars are stored totally or partially underground in cellars or sheds built expressly for this purpose. Recently, however, kimchi refrigerators have become very popular in South Korea. This household electronic device maintains the temperature for the proper fermentation of kimchi, saving the trouble of burying kimchi jars underground.

FYI
Please check out .Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Heraldryshop
What happened to this? Are the images still available? Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

All images are now at www.ngw.nl, as Heraldryshop was included early 2009 in that site. Now I am changing all to a wiki environment and the images that are uploaded so far you can find here: http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Category:Thumbnails The server is rather slow, so sometimes you will need to reload the page opr press F5. The provider is making an upgrade, so that will be faster in the near future.Knorrepoes (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

What the f.
You justified changing "Yogurt" to "Yoghurt" by saying we shouldn't link to a redirect, I fix your blatant ENGVAR violation, then you edit everything back to Yoghurt and additionally change "Streptococcus thermophilus" to "Streptococcus salivarius subsp. thermophilus", which is itself a redirect. Really? Do you not see a strange double standard? -Kai445 (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First be polite. Secondly I realised that the article S. thermophilus still existed. That is now changed to the proper name Streptococcus salivarius subsp. thermophilus.Knorrepoes (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The move of S. thermophilus looks okay to me, and your edit to "L.d. bulgaricus" is certainly with merit (it certainly looks like the correct abbreviation), but the abbreviation does not appear to be used (extremely rarely, perhaps), which is why I thought it was proper to revert that:

scholar.google.com/scholar?q="L.+bulgaricus" (6140 results @ Google Scholar)

scholar.google.com/scholar?q="L.d.+bulgaricus" (0 results, no space between "L. and d.")

scholar.google.com/scholar?q="L.+d.+bulgaricus" (7 results, a space between "L. and d.")

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22L.+bulgaricus%22+site%3Anih.gov (690 results @ NIH.gov)

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22L.d.+bulgaricus%22+site%3Anih.gov (NIH.gov, 0 results, no space between "L. and d.")

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="L.+d.+bulgaricus"+site%3Anih.gov (NIH.gov, 0 results, a space between "L. and d.")

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="l.+bulgaricus"+site%3Aijs.sgmjournals.org (25 results @ IJSEM)

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="l.+d.+bulgaricus"+site%3Aijs.sgmjournals.org (0 results)

Should we aim to be "most correct" or "most common"? Are there instances you can dig up of its usage in a journal or other authoritative source? I'm going to leave it as is for the time being, but would like to hear your input. -Kai445 (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In common language it is L. bulgaricus and S. thermophilus, in proper scientific journals it is the full name, not so much with the second name abbreviated. But if you look in the taxoboxes of any subspecies, you see that there the second name is always abbreviated. I don't know exactly where, but I have seen that in the wiki th eproper scientific names should be used.Knorrepoes (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Lactobacillus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Food Valley


The article Food Valley has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No independent sources, not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Food Valley for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Food Valley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Food Valley 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Coats of arms
Could you please elaborate on the reason for moving the articles about the coats of arms of the federal subjects of Russia? The link you provided in your edit summaries did not clarify things for me. "Coats of arms" is precisely what these symbols are called in the legislative acts which deal with them; if that's incorrect from the heraldic point of view, then clarifications (preferably sourced) should be made in the articles, but renaming the articles seems just wrong. If I remember correctly, some of the federal subjects have "emblems", but those are different from the "coats of arms", and the articles you moved so far deal exclusively with the latter, not the former. Thanks,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 12, 2012; 12:04 (UTC)

P.S. This can be done for all of them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 12, 2012; 12:08 (UTC)
 * These are obviously no coats-of arms, see the Coat of arms article in Wikipedia and any heraldic (hand)book that you can find. That is why there is the naming differences in the list of coats of arms and emblems by country. The fact that someone calls it a coat of arms, even in legislation, does not make it one. If the law states that the sky is red, it does not make the sky red, it is still blue.... Therefore the international correct terminology is State Symbol (which I prefer), State Emblem (which is used on Wikipedia) or State Logo. The same is for crests, many Americans call a coat-of-arms a crest, which is often even put in local legislation, but again, a crest is only the part on top of the shield... Often legislation is made without any help of a heraldic expert.Knorrepoes (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. However, they would only be "obviously non-coat of arms" when there is a reliable source saying that they aren't, not when a Wikipedia editor says so. The official descriptions refer to these symbols as "coats of arms", and so do the secondary sources which mention them. And while even my very basic understanding of heraldry is enough to see there is something amiss here, unless you can support your statement with a source, you are firmly put in the area of original research. Our articles are built around what the sources say, not about what may or may not be right.
 * I don't know anything about the symbols of other countries, but the symbols of the Russian republics are in fact developed with the help of heraldic experts. Whether those experts dropped the ball on these ones I can't tell, but the symbols are included into the heraldic registry where they are described as coats of arms, hence this is how our articles should refer to them. The best course of action would thus be to move these articles back, to add references confirming that the symbols are indeed referred to as coats of arms (I can help with that), and to add a referenced section explaining why it is likely wrong (which is probably best done by someone like you). Having the articles under "emblems" when no single source calls them that is a textbook example of original research and is a misnomer regardless of how true it might be. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 12, 2012; 13:25 (UTC)
 * P. S. And regarding your "the sky is red" remark, if all available sources say it is red, we will also say it is red. Verifiability, not truth is the principle on which our articles are written.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 12, 2012; 13:27 (UTC)

Delete
Hi Knorrepoes! Please, do not delete text, especially not sourced text, without motivating why it should be deleted, as you did in Probiotic. Somebody has worked on this text, and it's not very respectful to just remove it. Also, if you don't tell why, the one who wrote it cannot learn anything from it. Dank je wel! Lova Falk    talk   16:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salus populi suprema lex esto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harrow (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Irlam F.C. badge
Hey Knorrepoes. Rather than get into an edit war I thought we should discuss it. Has Irlam F.C. changed its badge recently to something other than the town crest of Irlam? I can't find anything on their website or their league website to suggest that they have. In fact their official twitter account, their league website profile, their match programmes, and their official website activity feed (down the left hand side) use this crest as the club badge. Using a town crest as a club badge is not unusual, it is also done by Stamford F.C., if memory serves me well.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  11:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all it is not a crest, but a coat of arms :-)... I see that they use it indeed, but the arms are officially granted to the Irlam UDC and these may not be used at will by others, unless there is permission of the present council...(even though the arms are obsolete since 1974). Maybe there is, but it is to be mentioned that the arms are those of the UDC, now (illegally ?) used by the club.Knorrepoes (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine for that to be mentioned, perhaps in a section on the article. But seeing as we agree that it is used by the club, and it cannot be shown that they are using it illegally (they most likely have an agreement with the council), I'm putting it back into the infobox.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  19:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe good to add that the original image (in Black and White) is taken from the book Civic & Corporate Heraldry by G. Briggs. Heraldry Today, Ramsbury, 1971. It is not the image as was origianlly granted to the UDC in 1955. The colours were added later.Knorrepoes (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The use of the arms is indeed illegal, se ethe mail from the College of Arms below on my question whether it was allowed :

Dear Mr Hartemink,

Thank you for your e-mail of 7 September regarding the use of Arms by Irlam F.C. You are quite right to say that this use of Arms would appear to be unlawful. Arms are as you know granted to specific persons and bodies under the authority of the Crown and only those to whom they have been granted can use them.

Yours sincerely,

Peter O'Donoghue York Herald College of Arms Queen Victoria Street London EC4V 4BT 020 7332 0776

So I remove the image again.Knorrepoes (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Knorrepoes. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Knorrepoes~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group


The page European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from http://www.food-info.net/uk/eng/ehedgdocs.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Deletion Review. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)