User talk:Knowledgekid87/Archive2

Libyan civil war (February 2011)
It may interest you that the article you recently created (linked above) is virtually a duplicate of February 2011 in the Libyan Civil War, and is therefore perhaps subject to the result of the AfD for that article, in which consensus seems to be pointing toward either deletion or merging back into Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war. Guoguo12 --Talk--  19:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I made the page you created into a redirect, if that's okay with you. The two are identical. Guoguo12  --Talk--  19:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is fine I was about to do that anyways, sorry for tha tI did not know of the other page as nothing was linked to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Civil War
Hey, there was a disambiguation page created for "libyan civil war" located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war. Having read your comments on the validity of the pre-2011 'libyan' conflicts I figured you might be interested in weighing in on whether having a disambiguation page is worthwhile or not. The discussion is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Libyan_Civil_War. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion with the caps on the redirect change request, when I made the request I typed all caps and then realized what I had done and changed it all back but forgot to save it before I went to sleep. I didn't intend to interfere with your RM, which I support.174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ya, I realized I had done something wrong when I saw Thryduulf's comment ha ha ha, thanks for explaining it, I had never done this before. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedure for splitting articles
Hi, next time you want to split an article please note the article titles in the edit summaries, as this is necessary for our licensing. See Splitting for more information. Yoenit (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Digimon Xros
Being disruptive is not my intent, so I do apologize for the uproar and have asked The New Angel to knock it off. While I am against removing the articles of Taiki, Kiriha, Nene, and Greymon, the rest I do feel need to remain on the main character page because they are not notable enough.Fractyl (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have found a source in the form of V-Jump. Would that count?Fractyl (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lucemon
He was the main antagonist of Digimon Frontier, his first anime appearance, you can't just remove the article like that if he appeared in two series as a major villian.Fractyl (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Need your review
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation. JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 07:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (Using )

OK. Since that WP:BLPPROD-tagged version was deleted, I moved entire thing to Niki Yang article. Please discuss further at Talk:Niki Yang. JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 02:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

NTC map
It's a good suggestion. My only concern w/r/t it is that due to translation issues as well as the counter-intuitive nature of recognizing two governments in a state that you also say should not be divided (as Russia has allegedly done, according to one source), I'm not confident in the accuracy of those reports. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me, and I think it's more likely those countries simply recognized the council as a "valid partner" a la the U.S. and the Netherlands. But I have no way of proving that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Literally took two seconds; there was already a Sudan version. If you want to change the style to something more fitting of South Sudan, however, go for it. CycloneGU (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Lincoln (2012 film)
I feel a redirect at this time is far better than an outright deletion, as it saves the history until such time as the topic might become notable enough for a seperate article. However, and as the film is already spoken of in the proposed redirect target, I believe a merge would place too much extraneous information in an already large Speilberg bio. Your thoughts?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Possible sock?
Re your message: At first, I thought that it was just two long term accounts that had similar interests, but were unrelated. However, I am beginning to wonder about it since ToonsFan blanked HeinzDoofenshmirtz's talk page one time for unknown reasons. You can file an SPI report, but you will likely need more evidence of dual account usage than the single characterbox insert/revert than you pointed out to establish that they are socks. The two accounts activity on the same character image uploads is something you might want to look into. The activity of also looks suspicious. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:70.138.99.13
The above user has been continuing to vandalize numerous entries, paericularly in The Powerpuff Girls universe, as the Special:Contributions/70.138.99.13 list indicates. Neither you nor I seem to be able to keep up with this user, and I;m not authorized to block anybody, so I'm letting you know that it's time to do so. — Glenn L (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania
What do you mean they don't match up? Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox
Regarding your comment, you should take it to Deletion_review. -- samj in out 22:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with your changing the name from October 15 Global protests to 2011 Global PRotests
I do not agree and do not feel there is consensus on changing the name. Please have a discussion about this. You just did it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacobi (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been discussions to change the title as the October 15th date is misleading. - 16:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Where, show me the discussion and vote, and where I can post my point of view?

This article is about the organizing of the protests for October 15. There is even an entire organization that did nothing but organize and to the October 15 protests. www.15october.net. These were organized separately from Occupy and other protests across the world. These were not organic, on-going protests that just kind of happened, like the on-going occupy protests.

When there is a name change proposal, it clearly states it on the top of the article and there is a process that is followed. I did not see that, I do not see it in the history. You need to reverse the name change and propose it officially.

If you look at that article, the protests actually aren't ongoing at all. The article that discuss the ongoing protests is "Occupy" Protests. Which currently has a discussion about merging with this article. I disagree they should be merged either because the October 15 protests were an event, in and of themselves that should be documented separate from Occupy and separate from the Broad Based and on-going Global Protests that relate to numerous organizations and separate yet merging movements. Xacobi (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The name has been changed back, and I encourage you to use the proper channels of proposing a offical name change or move as you wish with the banners and all, and then everyone can have a discussion about it, and vote.

I actually agree with you that we need an article called 2011 Global Protests, see my proposals on creating one in both this article, as well as the "October" Protests article. I just feel that we should not turn this article into the umbrella article, cause that just doesn't make sense. There are people who disagree with creating an umbrella article. Please support my proposal and we can create a new article called 2011 Global Protests together. I just feel that it should start from scratch, again see my proposal for details, and that it will clearly state how the October 15th Protests were the turning point when many disperse groups merged to create the current global protests.

I look forward to hearing what you think about my proposal Xacobi (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shooting
 SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD for Chronology_of_diplomatic_recognitions_and_relations_of_South_Sudan
You participated in a related discussion before. The current one is here. Japinderum (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on when to edit File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg following new legislation/court-rulings
Hello, I have noticed you made edits on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg and/or File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg/Archive 5, so I am contacting you to take part in a newly-formed discussion at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg as for whether we should update the map directly when a new legislation or court-order hits the books or if we should wait until said action takes effect. Historically, we have been updating the map when the new legislation is signed (or veto overrode or won at the ballot box, etc.), and thus it can be inferred that the consensus is to update as soon as one of those occurs. A discussion has emerged in regards to whether we should begin updating from the effective date instead of from the date of signing/etc. If you have an opinion over this matter please post it at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A possible compromise
One of the people on the discussion made a suggestion that I like and I think you might like it too, so I thought I should run it past you. What if we got the footnote numbers directly on each state, so for example for WA it would be blue, but there would be 1 on top of it, so it is unambiguous about the present day status? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Look at the map now. We have explicit footnote numbers on WA and MD. I thought I should tell you. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States'
Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with Dead link. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://advocate.com/news_detail_ektid90619.asp Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
 * You added this in June 2009.
 * I tried to load this link on 30 March, 1 April, 3 April and today, but it never worked.
 * I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

nominated List of winners of the Boston Marathon for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained?
How was this undoing unexplained removal of content? It was tagged in 2011 as dubious. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Anime conventions
As your active in Anime conventions, I would like to get a second opinion on Godaikocon and Anime Crossroads. I've proposed them both for deletion as I couldn't find any close to reputable sources aside from official websites and animecons.com, and I don't think its possible to rework the articles into an acceptable form. Esw01407 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing you cant find any reliable sources other than primary I would not object to them being deleted. Godaikocon is full of WP:OR, with the only source being primary and as an external link. Anime Crossroads just has sources as you have said from animecons.com. Both conventions fail per WP:N without sources to help them out, if new sources are found by someone in the future then the articles can always be remade using the info from the limited sources plus the new ones found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Survivor
Re your message: Yes, I think it is reasonable to ask for semi-protection to cut back on all of the unsourced speculation on the article. I was thinking about asking myself sometime soon. I don't want to set it myself since I'm heavily involved in editing the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Re your message: I see that protection was set for three days. Hopefully that will be long enough.  Maybe the IPs will forget about changing the article after the protection expires.  If not, it may be necessary to protect the article until whenever CBS announces the full cast. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Question...
Hey, Knowledge Kid! Since you promoted The Powerpuff Girls to GA, I was wondering, are you a fan of the original CN Cartoon Cartoons? If so, please message on my talk page, I have a question for you... Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 17:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could say it relates to those. Since I've already promoted Ed, Edd n Eddy and you've already promoted The Powerpuff Girls to GA, it's a good start for the Cartoon Cartoons article being a GT (Good Topic). So, I thought you might be willing to help on some of the other Cartoon Cartoons-related articles, for example, the ones you named. --Khanassassin ☪ 17:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Monique Jeffries
Hi Knowledgekid; just checking to see if you could finish up the last point on Talk:Monique Jeffries/GA1. Your edits so far have brought it to nearly being passed so if you have the time or can do the last point there, I'll be able to pass it (I'd sort it myself but I don't know which of the episodes being cited is the right one to use). I've also contacted the article's nominator so don't worry if you're unable to see to this, just dropping you a note in case you could. GRAPPLE  X  23:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Metrocon
Hi, I'd like to get your help/opinion in Metrocon, there have been what appear to be BLP issues, I've reworked the article and removed names for the time being to be safe. It also appears that staff members have been potentially involved in edits of the article. Esw01407 (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I have any more sources to pull from at this time unless I return to the press releases. Esw01407 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Shakugan no Shana assessment
Knowledgekid87, I was thinking if you could assess Shakugan no Shana and see if it's ready for B-class or even for a GAN. It's been improved lately, so I was thinking if you could assess it. Thanks! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Shana ready for a GA yet?
Thanks for the assessment Knowledgekid87 on Shakugan no Shana. You stated that it shouldn't be difficult for it to become a GA. Does that mean it's ready to become a GA, or it still needs some work? If it does, which particular parts need to be improved? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Mami Kawada
Hello Knowledgekid87. I hope you know a lot about BLPs, because I would really need your advice about one of them. You see, the Japanese singer Mami Kawada, who sings songs for anime like Shakugan no Shana and Toaru Majutsu no Index, is my favorite singer, but unfortunately her article is merely a Start-class article with a big BLP-refimprove tag at the top. I wish I could improve the article more, but there are relatively few known details about her early life. What is known is that she is from Sapporo, she was born on February 13 on a year that I estimate is between 1977 and 1981, her blood type is O, and that she was discovered by Eiko Shimamiya at the latter's vocal school. I need advice on the following parts:

1. What parts in her article need to be trimmed or expanded? Is there a better way to organize all the information? Do her collaborations with Kotoko Horikawa KOTOKO (yes I'm aware that Horikawa is probably not her last name) even need to be elaborated?

2. Can her official site be used as a source for certain information? If so, for which ones?

3. Are there good reliable Japanese sites which I can use as a source?

You advice would be truly appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Uprising
Thanks for your cool-headed intervention at the right time and in the right manner, we have now avoided a huge blunder and war between editors. I am also very satisfied with the outcome and reverting to the very accurate title Syrian uprising (2011–present) rather than "civil war" that did have majority voting in discussions but was erroneously based on subjective look into things rather than the international media that continuously refers to it as an uprising. My firm conviction that even majority votes on talk pages should not be binding. I nominate that this discussion becomes a precedence to other talk pages where we don't automatically follow majorities but we rely basically on reliable and objective outside sources. Talk page votes may be taken into some consideration, but should never be the basis of final decision. I also applaud colleague Tradedia whose attentive following and vehement opposition and putting to my attention about the premature move to "Civil War" did give its results. Again thanks for you for your patience. werldwayd (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article SHOULD be protected from arbitrary moves for quite a while. We didn't discuss all this for somebody to come and change it just for ideology or for plain egoism. Is there a way of making it absolutely protected for a considerable period? It's well worth it. Of course if and when it becomes a civil war, a responsible administrator can always make the move himself. No need for just any editor to do that. Inform me if there is a good way of achieving this so that we don't make mockery of the concensus process. werldwayd (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * List of Saiyuki characters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Saiyūki


 * List of Tekkaman Blade soundtracks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to BGM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Cons
Hi, I'm glad you could expand on Anime Festival Orlando; I really didn't feel with my searches for information that it would be possible to establish notability, and I'm still concerned even with the additions. The Ohayocon article is in similar need of help if you have some time, I can’t expand it any further with how I construct articles.

Anime Mid-Atlantic is the main reason I’m contacting you, there’s a huge mess in there, details here:. Sadly, the dispute over the attendance figures can now be resolved because AnimeCons.com has been updated with said numbers, but an administrator came in and deleted the event history table with the reasoning “verified or not (and not all these sources are reliable), this does not seem like encyclopedic information at all--this may be of relevance to the club, but not to the world at large (esp. the lists of non-notables.” I can’t agree with their reasoning as the information was properly sourced, from a source that’s generally accepted within convention articles as accurate. I’m not sure how to approach the issue and would appreciate your help, as I’m worried if these edits stand it could cause great problems for editing convention articles in the future. Esw01407 (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem I feel with any kind of phase out is that not all cons release information when guests cancel, or guests change, and it will lead to severe reliability issues. Animecons.com does require sources for when an update is put up, which I feel enhances their reliability. I also have to raise the point that most of the ANN pieces are press releases about cons and are just reprints of what the cons send. Animecons.com has actually stopped publishing most of these due to the raw amount received. I am not questioning when ANN does editorials or reports, but even those many times are mostly fluff when related to cons and guests (except when something goes wrong). If it becomes necessary, I have no problem using ANN as a double confirm on guests even with press releases, but as the only source I have to raise concerns. Esw01407 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sam-sex isn't a word???
Sam will be so disappointed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Legend of Korra organization RfC
Hi, I'm contacting you becaused you expressed an opinion in Articles for deletion/The Legend of Korra (Book 2). Because it appears likely that the AfD will not end with deletion, I've set up a request for comment (RfC) on the talk page of the article about the series about how to organize the topic into subarticles. If you are interested, I'd appreciate it if you would add your opinion in that RfC. Regards,  Sandstein   06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WTF
..was that crap? --Canoe1967 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Some kind of error made my edit history show you and not the IP. I see it was an IP edit now. --Canoe1967 (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Haré+Guu characters for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Haré+Guu characters 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/List of Haré+Guu characters 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 template from the top of the article. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Presidential Polls
Do you have another source for the August 19th Rasmussen poll in PA you added (With Romney 44, Obama 43) on the Statewide Polls article? The link you have on the poll leads to a generic page on Rasmussen's site with no specifics on a new poll and I have not been able to find any other sources online for the poll result you site. Rasmussen's own site lists their most recent poll as dating from July 20th. Was this really a poll in a different state or about something else?

Abulsme (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mami Kawada redux
Hello, would you mind taking a look at this article? I put it up for peer review but no one has commented yet. Any input would be appreciated. I also put it up for assessment to see what needs to be done before reaching C-class. Mind if you see what needs to be done? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you as well =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * List of Tenchi Muyo! characters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Neuter


 * List of Tenchi Muyo! supporting characters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Sapient

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy
Hi. Its been pointed out on the talk page that the "quote" you added isn't a quote - or at least, I can't see it in the article. Did you mean to add that? You do appreciate that things inside quotation marks are supposed to be actual quotes? Or did you get the wrong source? I can find the same text at, e.g., or less reputably at , but that's not Hoerling speaking William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Election
Just for the record: you moved the election page just half a second before I pressed the button and I was gazing at my screen without knowing why couldn't I move the page. Funny, isn't it?--The Theosophist (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like we both have super fast fingers =p. Anyways I feel that a move for the page should be discussed first why I made the move back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Same with me. My move summary was "Unless you move EACH US presidential election page, you should not change the longtime pattern on just one of them. In fact you'd better initiate a debate in the talk page".--The Theosophist (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning Just a friendly reminder, keep the RR's down to three. United States presidential election, 2012 is subject to sanctions, see General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. But thanks for making the revert... Apteva (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Palestine-Israel enforcement restriction
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Azumanga Daioh characters
I fail to see how " Chiyo Mihama" is "sourced well". All of the sources are primary (the manga/anime itself, an interview with the character's voice actress) or don't mention her (the case study on Japanese education, which only verifies that grade-skipping is rare in Japan; including this is WP:SYNTH and of no import to the character herself since it makes no mention of her). The other article redirects you undid are just as poorly sourced — nothing but the anime or manga itself, plus very thin secondary sourcing at best that tells very little on the character. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted the redirects with sources because I wanted a third party opinion on this, if they are redirected okay but is the characters are winning popularity aewards there could be some sources in Japanese that can be helpful. I did not undo all the redirects you made, most of them I had agreed with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries
BTW, using edit summaries like "See talkpage" on an article with a talk page as large and fast-moving as that isn't much more useful than no edit summary at all. Please at least refer to a section within the talk page. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I usually provide an edit summary the edits are being made so fast though I am getting alot of edit conflicts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally understand. It's pretty frenetic.  However, with folks getting blocked left and right related to actions on this article, decent edit summaries sure do help.  Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Bath School disaster & Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
Citing a death-toll (clearly stated in the literature, clearly-stated in contemporaneous news-reports and clearly-stated in more recent news-reports) is OR? I don't see how a verifiable historical fact is not a verifiable historical fact... Shearonink (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Im not saying that the bath murders was not the most deadly, my concern is that saying that Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting comes in at #2 behind bath is the bit that worries me. The only thing saying this is the list on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just found an NBC News source that concurs with the fact that 45 people died in the Bath massacre, which makes it the deadliest in US history. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much, I will do my best to continue the efforts. ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Survivor: Philippines
Re your message: I blocked one account. Hopefully that will put a stop to it. If it doesn't, I'll set the protection. You should be able to move the Survivor 26 article yourself. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Link
i think u ought to leave that guy's "survivalist mum" link on the talk page; just lose his sarcastic quip (which i had just called "disgusting" myself. 67.150.86.17 (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The link was WP:POV as it was, if you want you can readd it to start the debate but I do not think it will be useful because of the issue it has. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gundam
I'm not trying to protect all of these articles, as you can see I don't even participate in a lot of those AfDs about Gundam, but the consensus of wikipedia is just too strange to see. It is quite obvious that almost all fictional articles have tons of fans creating multiple articles about those things in it, thus there should be a large number of users supporting these kind of articles, on the other hand, deletionists basically are pretty much the same group of people who stick around long enough in a lot of AfDs to show a consensus, even if the articles do have references, some of them will just give claims about them not being notable or independent on the basis of they don't know them. I have seen a lot of AfDs that go this way, and is simply just tired of all these. In fact, I do prefer merging most of the articles, and keep them in better order, but I guess most of the users who care were driven away but deletionists long time ago. BTW, the Gundam wiki itself became a fan fiction site, with tons of made up stuff in most of the articles, and is quite beyond repair, don't tell me to go there. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 04:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The fans "supporting these kind of articles" though would have no basis of support without sources, and a merge can only go so far before its just moving just plot info back into Gundam. The thing about unsourced info is that it can always be re-added as it is usually plot information or from a fan's POV describing the plot, maybe someone can find it sourced and put it in the other articles to better them for the future. I dont consider myself a deletionist and try my best to look for potential in an article but when I dont see the article going much of anywhere in the future it becomes hard to want to defend it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, a lot of deletionists simply ignore sources that are against them. I don't find you a deletionist, just like I don't find myself a inclusionist.  Lists of fictional items were actually once allowed in wikipedia, and they don't need to have their own notability test as long as the main article itself is sufficiently notable and too long(well over 32kb), lists are to minimize the size of the main article while providing more info for readers.  There is actually an article about the horses in the Lord of the Rings, and was a featured list and an example of lists of fictional items, where it states the names of the real-life horses that were used in the movies to portrait them and how they appear in the show, and now it is reduced to a minimal section with no source.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  13:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a small favor
Hello. Just a small favor. Over the course of the last few days or so, I created the articles Haruka Yamazaki and Aya Suzaki (both stubs on seiyuu). They haven't been patrolled yet, and due to technical issues, I can't patrol them myself (which is ironic since I mainly do new-page patrolling), and I'm not an autopatroller since I have created less than 50 articles. Can you patrol them for me? There's a backlog at Special:Newpages as always, so it could help. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure I will look at them now, sorry for the delay I have been as little busy myself and have only found time to go on here to make an edit here and there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the close
I was about to ask another admin to do so. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem =) Happy New Year! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia! Jucchan (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, happy new year! =).

Tagging of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories
Hi Knowledgekid87, you tagged Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories with undue, but I think you did so based on a misunderstanding. The text of that template says that the article "lends undue weight... relative to the article subject as a whole." I agree that extended content on conspiracy theories at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting would just do that. But as a standalone article, the "subject as a whole" is the conspiracy theories. If we found some whackjob that reptoids were behind it all and really focused on his theory, that would be undue. I don't think the article is currently constructed that way. Only theories that have been discussed in reliable, secondary sources are included. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When I look at 9/11 conspiracy theories to compare right in the lead there is a sourced bit by the National Institute of Standards and Technology which investigated and rejected the claims and while this article is diffrent, it would be helpful to add the critic's point of view to these conspiracy theories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm working on expansion right now, including more critical views. Mind if I remove the tag when I do? If you still think the problem exists, you can re-tag or let me know. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, feel free to expand the article and remove the tag, I placed it as it would help the NPOV issue as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Same thing goes for that tag. If you still think it's a problem after my next edit, slap it right back on. I won't consider it edit warring. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay and thanks for helping out =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, I noticed you went from "[having] no problem with" the article to voting for deletion. You're allowed to change your opinion, of course, but did something trigger that or was it more a matter of further reflection? I don't suppose I can entice you to help me save it instead. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

F91 Gundam Formula 91
Hi,

I noticed you just redirected this article with a comment saying that nothing has been merged since the AFD closed. Since you were one of the two people who voted for a merge in the AFD, I was wondering if you had any content in mind that you thought should be merged. I un-redirected the article a month ago specifically because I thought you had identified some content that you thought should be merged. If there isn't actually any content that you think should be merged, then I'm fine with the article just being redirected. . . it just seemed like you had something in mind to merge at the time. Calathan (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Right now Mobile Suit Gundam F91 has no sources, I have been doing my best to clean up the Gundam related articles and after having a chance to look it over could not find anything worth merging, what the article needs is sources most. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls
You've ruined all my work on the page. I was just settling down and completely revolutionizing the page, why do so as you have replaced before, it's so confusing and too messy. I also put the video as a source for only: how they should be sections and Written by Storyboarded by for each season, and finally some names in some episodes were written in the wrong episodes. You've made it back the way it was again messy, and I have to thank you for this. You've ruined everything! Luigi1090 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Rail accident
What is this mania to remove the articles from the other? keep your business!! http://info.rsi.ch/home/channels/informazione/svizzera/info_on_line/2013/01/10-Sciaffusa_scontro_tra_due_treni the article should be expanded! forget to take care of deleting the rail accidents! Best regards Robyc73 (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN thread
A thread on the issues at Talk:Syrian civil war has been posted on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Director  ( talk )  14:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Syrian civil war". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Winter storm naming
Hi Knowledgekid. Thanks so much for your input in the discussion. I just wanted to make you aware that I sent an invitation out to editors who have edited the article or participated in the AfD. Hopefully, we can all work together to develop a great article. A copy of the invitation I sent is below. Thanks, again, and have a great week.  I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please subst when using afd-notice
Hallo, in this edit you added a notice to DGG's talk page, but didn't "subst" it. As a result later editors to the preceding section got muddled (no new section was created for the afd notice). The template documentation says it should always be substituted: please remember this another time. Thanks. Pam D  08:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi
It seems you know a lot about the deletion criteria so I have some questions. I often come upon articles like these Dendrobates (manga) which are unlicensed and unadapted into other media; Often this makes it nearly impossible to establish notability. I was wondering if I can prod these articles for that reason. Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 23:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dendrobates (manga) should be redirected to Young Champion if the Ip is giving you trouble protection might be needed for the redirect page. The answer to your question though would be yes, articles for manga which are unlicensed and unadapted into other media should usually be prodded unless enough reliable Japanese sources are present. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, I enjoy working with and getting to know new people =). My thoughts are with the victims and families of the sad event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Section combining
The section combining you're doing at the Talk:Boston Marathon bombings is losing edits in the mix, at least one or two I noticed. It's just too busy right now to do that, especially when you're doing it in multiple runs like you are... just let the sections evolve on their own. It's better than silently losing responses, which is what happened. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

PPG
Stop removing prequel movie s like List of Power Rangers Turbo episodes it applies to the PPG as well. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.16.119 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Note The creator of PPG helped with the box set. Amazon.com also post the airdates for the show but on the days before the airdates on iTunes meaning that it is not a glitch. The episodes likely aired out of order and McCracken had them put back in order for the complete series release. I own the box set and McCracken wrote the summary on the back and also made a custom panoramic poster for the set. Just to give some insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.16.119 (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed someone added Hanna-Barbera Cartoons to the PPG page and though I have no idea who the person is I reverted your edit as the HB logo appears at the end of each PPG episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.16.119 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is fine and all but I need a reliable source showing that or else it is WP:OR Original research. Don't get me wrong I would love to see the airdates all added but I don't want to leap into something that may not be right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The page itself also post that the series ends in 2005 and is sourced as well in line to your comment "I commented on my talkpage if you are going by a boxed set then it is WP:OR. The airdates also look all mixed up like this, why would an episode that was made in 2005 be in season 4? While the last is from 2004 in season 6?" Also here are the iTunes and Amazon.com's info on the airdates for seasons 3-6 and if you look both state around the same time just Amazon.com's is the day before: Season 3, iTunes Season 3, Amazon.com, Season 4, iTunes, Season 4, Amazon.com, Season 5, iTunes, Season 5, Amazon.com, Season 6, iTunes, Season 6, Amazon.com. It seems there is enough evidence to support my theory alone but I can try and go deeper but the likihood is with everything I have just shown you a lot of what is shown and what the page itself claims it seems to me the explanation I gave you earlier explains the odd airdate differences and the boxset's release order which I am sure the page is based off of. 65.189.16.119 (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Here is what I must say List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes the airdates are correct, what likely happened is the episodes orders were based of the The Powerpuff Girls: The Complete Series - 10th Anniversary Collection boxset instead of their airing order. Several pages on here do that. I have noticed episodes that air at a different time then another and no explanation as to how it ended up before another episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.16.119 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC) I know I own it too. My point is as I pointed out on the talk page the episodes are in the order of The Powerpuff Girls: The Complete Series - 10th Anniversary Collection not their actual airfares which is why the airdates of some episodes are out of order. Also I think there is an episode of The Powerpuff Girls that proves the movie is part of the series. Season 6 Episode 1 Part 1 "Prime Mates" proves it is part of the series. They would not have used that if the movie was not a part of the TV series as well as actual movie. 65.189.16.119 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC) I think it did air on CN but I'll have to double check that. 65.189.16.119 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah something's wrong with the order on the page even MSN.com and TVGuide.com has some odd dates for some of the episodes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.16.119 (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about The Powerpuff Girls: The Complete Series - 10th Anniversary Collection I own it and no-place does it show airdates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For it to be a part of the series of episodes it would have had to air first on TV the movie was released in theaters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep it made it's TV debut on May 23, 2003 at 8pm on CN apparently the New York Post had posted a report on it but they have since deleted the article but I did find this do not know how reliable it is to some but it did air on CN after it's theater release. 65.189.16.119 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * After its theater release are the key words, what I am saying is it did not first air on CN it went to the theaters first, the others like the PPG Christmas episode were direct to TV movies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Theater release really does not matter point of interest List of Power Rangers Turbo episodes. The movie was a "theatrical release" and never aired on TV (that I know of) and it still is included as part of the series why should PPG any different? 65.189.16.119 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially when the PPGM plays as a prequel to the entire series? 65.189.16.119 (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing in common on the episode list is that everything there was aired on television first, the direct to television movie, the specials and the episodes, there is a diffrence between a television episode and a full length movie. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You told me yesterday that the average reader may not kno what a CGI is and that is should be better if I just included the new special being made in the specials section, but the same anonymous contributor persisted in trying to keep the special out of the special section just to have the average reader confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls title card has been removed from the infobox on the PPG article again. I've tried to bring it back but, It's like the same user who replaced the title card with a file depicted the logo without the creator's name thinks the article is better off without the title card. Now I can't put it back because that same user would snap if I do. I don't know what to do now. 15:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs)

Ghost in the Shell
Hi. Can you please share you thoughts on Talk:Ghost in the Shell? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Farewell
I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In case you wonder
It is not about what WP:ANIME can and cannot do, I'm not going to take your tags down as Juhachi has done with mine. I'm not a card carrying member of WP:ANIME, and no editors need to be to edit such articles. According to WP:Council/G, " A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people." ANIME can keep there tags, we are a sub-section like how Wikiproject Video Games include Wikiproject Square Enix, to which Lucia is a part of. A scope for a Wikiproject, versus a task force is based on the needs and the amount of content to be covered. Taskforces are best reserves for Bleach, Dragonball and so on, usually under 200~ articles. We cover over 2000 articles on works, and that's before organizations and creators like Toshio Maeda. We have no intentions of purging WP:ANIME's tags or scope, we just want to co-exist. And yes... I really prefer not posting explicit content all over any wikiproject (not just ANIME) if I can help it, same with guides and resources about said topic. Its not just a common courtesy either, we need the categorization system in order to function effectively and a taskforce cannot do that. Consider it a Taskforce if you wish, Taskforces have their own subpages, but the only real difference is that a Wikiproject has its own banner and is not subject to the bureaucracy of another. That's all, its not going to destroy or split WP:ANIME and most editors from WP:ANIME do not want to admit it, but the subject matter is embarrassing and difficult to find reliable sources. You were brave enough to say it though, and if WP:HENTAI becomes even a tiny bit useful for you then its done its job, because it is also a resource board for collaboration on the subject matter. You do not need to join it or affiliate yourself even if you do use it, its more common then you think. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing the project's tag as you did at Shotacon. It did not even trigger on the article watchlist because of the way you manually remove it without undoing. You also did this at Lolicon. It is disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong move request closed
At Talk:2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio you closed several of the outstanding move requests, however you closed the most recent (active) proposal Talk:2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio which is the one that should be left open. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, is there a way to fix it? The move requests were becoming a mess and closed all but the oldest request made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were me, I'd just undo my close of the most recent one, close the oldest and leave a descriptive edit summary (and maybe a note in the open discussion) explaining what you're doing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay fixed =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I was just in the process of swapping it to have the oldest one closed instead, but you got to it first. :) We'll make more progress on the newer one, I think. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem ^-^ Yeah hopefully a consensus can be reached. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix, the discussions did need tidying! Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * This is for the repeated removals of tags from pages like Shotacon and Lolicon and your uncivil comments and disruption at WP:ANIME. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I only removed the project tag hentai tags once because I didn't know that they were under Hentai's scope, also the comment was made towards your personal attack on Lucia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Consider it dropped. It was not retaliation, but bad timing on noticing your other edits. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Its okay and I accept your apology, im not out to oust the Hentai project by the way I wish you and it the best of luck, maybe it can become a great project =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to bump heads, but honestly... the GITS matter is weighing a bit heavy on me after 50 pages. I slipped a bit. With Maeda's passing I want to have the actual article reach FA and the destruction and falsification of the article really strikes a nerve with me, especially when its intentional by a supposed expert on the subject. Talk:Ghost in the Shell is enough to see a fragment of the matter. Its not winning or losing; and I have become a bit emotionally involved under the circumstances. My intention is to work it out or open an RFC. I don't care about how much groveling I need to do, but I want things to improve and me stepping out for 2 months only lead to it becoming worse. I am stubborn now because of that, but I am trying to do what I feel is best for Wikipedia.
 * I really want A&M users to think of Hentai as a taskforce of sorts, because I need their input and assistance, but for technical reasons it needs to be split for watch and categorization with different importance levels. The content is another reason for me, but my reasoning and Wikipedia's policies is drowned out by her. Its a complex matter, but I probably should just ignore anything she says or posts because it affects me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the thing I try to do is assume good faith as much as I can it is important not to lose your cool I was coming close in what was a heated RfC here regarding the Hentai Project. As for Lucia why not ask her to have a chat with you? Maybe you can lay it all down in a discussion and if you tried that don't quit at it, talk about what she wants and what you want and hammer out the problems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In a week, perhaps. It is best summed up as 'i want a topic franchise page' and she doesn't. Like Dragonball Z (by policy and other reasons) can have a page because it meets GNG. A matter that I took a lot heat for, but was ultimately tied to a 5 year old discussion about an issue with MOS-AM. I have been tinkering with the page in my sandbox for awhile now, but issues of existence being denied is a problem that is an absolute case. Hence, there is no compromise and one of us will 'lose'. The issues are so different because what ANIME does is not what the rest of Wikipedia has to conform to. Stand alone lists have to meet notability, ANIME says otherwise. Matters like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS are key community wide arguments and the GITS matter is covered under WP:DETAIL, but she denies that as relevant, even with the key sentence, "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs." Which according to common sense that a topic about a large body of works can be split up, especially if it cannot cater to all types of readers, getting more specific and detailed as it goes. The 'this is not how we work' is why I refuse to join ANIME and place its tag on my page; it is expected that joining a project or working in its areas conform with its preferences. Wikipedia does not define distinctions between the PH.D and the 15 year old fan, and the more esoteric the argument the less people will comment on it. The most non-controversial topics are controversial here. Working together is definitely ideal, but we will not reach a decision between ourselves, when you go into discussion with your mind set on not budging and inform others to do so, its not going to be productive. Its why things got this bad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Improper close
Hi KK87. You improperly closed a move proposal on the talk page at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio with this edit. It has been reverted. While I fully agree with you that it should be snow-closed - in fact, I'm the one who requested it - you are not allowed to do it because you !voted on the proposal. If you feel that a proposal should be closed, ask an uninvolved admin or other very experienced editor to review it. Thanks. FYI... another editor improperly snow-closed two of the other alternative proposals. The editor participated in both of them and one of them had three supports and four opposes. I'm not sure, but he may have simply copy-and-pasted your snow close. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I closed the proposal per WP:COMMONSENSE there was a clear oppose consensus before my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * HI Knowledgekid. I'm sorry, but you are absolutely not allowed to close a proposal that you have !voted in. It's highly inappropriate. Also, you have actively participated in some of the other current proposals. Again, if you feel that a proposal should be closed, ask an admin or other very experienced editor, who is totally uninvolved in the move proposals, to review it. Finally, WP:COMMONSENSE is merely an essay; it's just an editor's opinion. Hopefully, the entire matter of a new title will be decided soon. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was the other editor that SNOW closed 2 other proposed name discussions. I just went and reread the WP:SNOW page and a couple related pages. I can't find any of the restriction pointed out by (76.189.109.155 talk). Can you point me in the right direction? Also, how are these controversial - all three of us agree the proposals are failing. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not see anything either, I just went by WP:COMMONSENSE as there was a clear consensus for proposal 3 for a snow close. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * They are controversial because all of us have been active participants in the various move proposals, therefore each of us has a clear conflict of interest. Yes, alt proposals 3 and 4 definitely warrant being closed. But not by any of us. Other editors are questioning the credibility of those of us who support the original move proposal, and this is only giving them ammunition to back it up. Obviously, if someone is participating in a discussion - in this case, the various move proposals - they absolutely are not allowed to close it. Either find a neutral, uninvolved admin or other experienced editor, or just leave it alone; don't worry, none of the alternative proposals will be approved. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you insist I will hold back for now and wait for an uninvolved admin to close them even though I could not find anyplace where it is against policy or a guideline, however closing the alternate proposals is helpful sooner rather than later as it is just distracting clutter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree it's distracting. Especially alt proposals 3 and 4, but they are going down in flames. And don't expect an early close just by waiting. That may happen, but typically doesn't. If you feel the need to see proposals 3 or 4 snow-closed, even though they stand no chance of being approved, then ask an admin to review them. Otherwise, ignore them. They're DOA. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Knowledge and Legacy, I have contacted a great administrator about the issue. The discussion is here. Feel free to comment there. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I still think the sections were properly closed as SNOW. Now I see people supporting stuff they oppose and opposing stuff they support and a table that misrepresents the arguments. 6 different names under discussion makes for a big mess. It appears that there is no actual policy, but that common sense says it is better to have someone else close these things. I'm out of it. Legacypac (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, they were not proper. So you're starting with a false premise. And the fact that they are a big mess is merely an inconvenience. We cannot override neutrality requirements simply because of an inconvenience. What common sense actually tells us in this case is that no one should ever close an !vote in which they've participated. Again, don't worry... proposals that have little or no support obviously won't be implemented. So your decision to stay "out of it" is commendable. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I read what Dennis Brown wrote and I think I may not have been clear based on your response. As far as I can see, there is no set rule that says an involved person can not close a discussion (hence the act of closing was proper), but generally it is ideal if someone else closes if there is a reasonable chance someone will object to the closer. Failing an involved or uninvolved editor closing the discussion, the default is no close at all, which is how nearly all discussions end. Just like I expect we can be BOLD and close per SNOW, I would expect that it is proper for someone who feels that conciseness was not reached to reopen the discussion citing why SNOW is not applicable. Your reversal of the closures basically said we were the wrong editors to close, not that we used the wrong reason or bad logic. Since you objected to the closes, I suppose that makes them not SNOW, but it seems a little strange that you agree they are SNOW. Had you not reversed the closures they may well have remained closed without anyone else objecting (as the first closer did for many hours and other earlier discussions on title still remain closed). I am not going to wade into the mess that exists there now, this discussion is only to try to understand if there is some policy I might be not aware of for future reference. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So much for your "I'm out of it" comment. Haha. I'm not sure why you're replying here again (where Dennis is totally unaware of your comments) instead of just posting there as was requested. Are you worried about how he'll reply to you? Don't be; he's a nice guy. I'm not sure what's strange about me agreeing they are snow-worthy, yet objecting to the close. The reasons are simple... it's not right, it's not fair, and it's not credible. And if you truly believe they're snow and have no chance of surviving, then what's strange is that you're so bothered by them remaining open. I mean, who cares... let them remain open and fail. And if a neutral admin or other editor comes along and closes any of them, great. Don't give yourself an ulcer over such a minor issue. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I finally found the policy about closing requested moves. ;) Rule #1 says, "Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey." In particular, read the "Who can close requested moves" section, which clearly explains the conflict of interest issues I alluded to previously. There you go. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just came here to post I found the same policy, but you beat me too it. Your understanding of the policy is generally correct. I'm not worried about the proposals remaining open, I'm worried about doing something incorrectly. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, Legacy. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone else who snow closed the sections under discussion, I don't see that there was a conflict of interest at all. I had not commented on the specific proposal, which was clearly failing. Even if it wasn't clear from the guidelines you cite, closure was a fine example of WP:IAR. That you had to revert at least three of us independently making the same judgement suggests that you are rather in the minority in seeing a problem with it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, all of us commenting in this thread have a clear conflict of interest. If you don't see that, I suggest you read WP:RM/CI in full. Although you didn't participate in that specific proposal, you did actively participate in three of the others. Since the five move proposals are concurrent, your participation in any of them established a conflict of interest. Closes of move requests must be done only by an editor who has had no involvement in any of the article's move discussions. Not only does WP:IAR not override the policies specifically relating to the closing of move requests, it should never be used for highly contentitious discussions, particuarly in high-profile articles such as this one. Again, I agree that a few of the proposals certainly warrant being snow-closed, but to maintain our credibility we must do things properly to avoid any appearances of impropriety. For the record, snow closes never change the ultimate result; they simply end the misery early. ;) Btw, I did ask an uninvolved admin to snow-close two of the proposals, but he declined. If you can find an admin willing to do it, go for it. But, again, it doesn't matter because those proposals are dead in the water anyway. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are fighting it this much unless you have a WP:COI here, the move request in question is not highly contentitious but an idea that has no chance in going forward as you said. The only one I see pushing forward an objection is yourself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's very simple... because both policy and common sense tell us that we shouldn't do it. And I want to make sure things are done properly, so that there are no more accusations of impropriety against us. Contrary to your statement, the disussions about the title change are without question contentious. In fact, they're highly contentious. There's been a lot of passion and anger. And, yes, of course I have a COI. And so do you. And so does everyone else who !voted or commented in any of the move proposal discussions. I also did what no one else would do... I sought out an admin with a great reputation and a ton of closing experience for his opinion, and he fully agrees that editors who have been involved in any of those discussions should not close them. I even asked him if he would be willing to snow-close some of the proposals, but he declined. For the record, WP:COI really applies to a different type of conflict of interest, which is focused on promotion, advertising, and spamming, etc. This issue is about a general conflict of interest with regard to neutrality. Finally, I'll say again. It makes no sense to worry about proposals that have no chance of being implemented. Just let them sit there and fade away, unless an uninvolved, experienced closer feels like putting them out of their misery. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Dark Shell
You prodded Dark Shell, I've found a few sources and expanded it a bit more. I haven't dug through the old Hentai Jump and related sites in English for more, but I put up the Mania and Saito's review of the works for now. Got some release information and this work has a bit of a weird history behind it with the Nutech lawsuit... something not covered on its own article, but its improving. So I've removed the PROD for now and I need to add the plot in from the review. Its a so-so work, but it will probably meet GNG and I got enough I'll remove the N tag. I haven't put much work into checking into it, but you can see why I am concerned about Lucia's deletion campaign. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually.. why doesn't Anime have its own article alert functions working at full to cover these PROD? It looks like you had to add them manually to the project page... which means if you didn't add them yourself, the project would have no way of knowing what was up for PROD. I only found the two on WP:HENTAI's article alerts. Shouldn't A&M have the same function? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the Notability tag for dark Shell but placed Él (visual novel) up for AfD, im no deletionist but it is the editor's job to find sources for the articles, merely claiming that sources are out there and exist is not a good argument to make. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But I've given reason for it, while they are not perfect. El is now a challenge article for me, it will go to prove that Lucia's deletion campaign is disruptive. Forcing a 'due date' is not productive, but El did not have a RS, so I guess it can't be helped for right now. I already got a few sources for the content after mere minutes of looking. Hope you watch it improve. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murrawarri Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen of England (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) 23:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Message from D3323
Why do we have delete the List of ecchi anime for? Is there something wrong with it? It looks fine to me. Is there a Reason for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3323 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave my reason in the deletion discussion, the word ecchi is not clearly defined and is also hard to come by when it comes to reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

History between Lucia and me
The history is a rather complex one. So allow me to explain for your enjoyment. Ghost in the Shell was updated and improved by Lucia in late 2012 and put up for Good Article Nomination. I liked the work so I took the review. In the review I noticed many issues including the page removing the original franchise scope and merging the manga to be the only focus which ran afoul of general policy. A dispute erupted and I ended up taking a Wikibreak. Only to come back as the merge done again. The problem started all over again, which had the ANIs and Dispute resolution. I made WP:HENTAI for reasons unrelated to Lucia, and the project is valid and budding still, but Lucia refused to acknowledge it. I do not know why I even bother replying to such matters, but I did. Lucia made an essay to attack me at the pump, which was soundly rejected by others. Lucia loves to make everything personal, and refuses to work together or adhere to policy-based arguments.

Lucia's arguments are weak, but the intent to improve is what should be desired over a deletion campaign. Deletion is a last resort and for good reason. The argument of Angelo-notability are moot, Wikipedia has a world-view. WP:BIAS covers that. I would much rather have a transparent IMPROVEMENT campaign which articles are peer reviewed and brought up weekly in the same vein as 'Today's article for improvement', WP:TAFI. That way we can pass articles through the process and identify the issues with sourcing and correct them in a focused way. Stubs and starts are allowed, this C class push is damaging and other editors like Nihonjoe point that out. I do not agree with Lucia, but I try to remain as civil and as nice as possible at all times. I don't hold a grudge for her, the same way our little spat doesn't make me warn you for the PRODs or even identify you by name, and why? Because I considered them a test and the logic while not perfect, was not bad-faith. We want to improve Wikipedia, but the best way is not a deletion campaign. Our focus should be on improving and expanding content. I have been working on the defunct companies and other companies right now, but all this conflict reduces everyone's productive time. Its not about winning or picking sides, its about improving Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ITN credit
ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks will do =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for your help in merging "transatlantic liner" and "superliner"! I appreciate it! --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Your'e welcome =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Anime Conventions
A few general items I want to bring up. I'm not going to be able to help much on the Canadian conventions for now, I've got two article overhauls in limbo that I have to get done, and the sources for a third that I have to look into. I've noticed that some of the Canadian articles have large amounts of IP edits, as a heads up. I know in the United States conventions section, some of the articles that are going to need attention are the larger conventions in Texas and California, as I haven't gotten to them yet, but intend too, and many lack updates (guests lists are so old they have to be rechecked).

A few questions I wanted to throw at you. With several major conventions now having sub conventions (Japan Expo & Otakon), eventually those articles will have enough sources to justify there own articles, should they be split out or remain as parts of the main article?

Also, Tekkoshocon is eventually shortening it's name to "Tekko", it just hasn't been officially done yet. With Tekko already having an article about an entirely different (more notable) subject, would the proper rename of the article be Tekko (convention) or Tekko (anime convention). I've poked around the renaming pages, and I'm thinking it would be Tekko (convention). Esw01407 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I chose to handle the Canadian conventions first as I did not want to do everything at once, as for your questions, yes Japan Expo & Otakon Vegas are going to need their own articles if and when enough info and sources come forward. As for Tekkoshocon I agree move it to Tekko (anime convention) when the name change is official. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

goodraise
Issue isnt whether there is consensus or not, the issue is whether goodraise even needed consensus at all to put that page in WP:ANIME's namespace. The fact that Goodraise insist consensus was never needed., suggest this editor plans to spearhead the entire thing....and im not comfortable with that.Lucia Black (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I would assume good faith and just see what happens, if you are right you can point it down later down the line. As for the consensus bit here is what I saw:

"I guess its unanimous. Goodraise can move the proposed page to the wikiproject space" - You "Done. (Not that I needed anyone's permission...)" - Goodraise

You used the word "can" and as a reaction Goodraise pounced on it. Now as for my opinion Goodraise did not have to make the comment and could have just said a simple "Done" but thus was not the case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Two more lines, and you can see that I clarified, it wasnt my permission that was needed but the majority's permission. In which still insist goodraise didnt needed majority vote. Again, suggesting, this editor was determined to do it regardless if consensus was against it.Lucia Black (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I will reply to his comment then about that. I would not worry though you have what you wanted and right now you are already pointing fingers at Goodraise I know what he did was not in the best faith but it is not a good way to start this. if he does take control and spearhead things as you fear then take it as a bigger issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ill take a break under if you help me with music of dragon ball and dragon ball z.Lucia Black (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay sure, tomorrow though it is late here (23:50 here) =) hope you feel better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. You can find the link to my project page. I dont think you need that much help making the article. Just coppy and paste info onto the project and format the tracklists. Finding sources will be done later, so dont sweat it.Lucia Black (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the 2013 protests in Turkey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican People's Party and AKP (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) 12:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Negiho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romantic Comedy (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) 11:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Help a new user?
Hiya! I have a question: would you mind mentoring someone that's very, very new to Wikipedia? His username is User:Semo4499 and his big issue was that he was trying (in good faith!) to upload templates and data from another website to make it look more like that wiki. He seems to honestly mean well, but could use an editor experienced in anime and manga to take him under their wing. I had to nominate a lot of his articles for speedies, so I don't want him to think that we're trying to scare him off! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I will help starting on monday, I am currently using an old computer at parent's house. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

See Me, Feel Me, I'm right
Ok, maybe it's not banned, but I don't remember seeing on Cartoon Network, the original version anyway. Go look up the episode on YouTube and Ill promise you you will see why I put that edit there. And about the series finale thing, It disguised the fact that its the last episode, but the ending of the episode will convince you.

- This is my profile ( I've had sort of a rough past, so please excuse all of the deletions) 13:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Youtube is not a reliable source. Please read WP:V the only case it would be reliable is if it were from the CN Youtube channel. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565561934 your edit] to The Powerpuff Girls may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)