User talk:Knowpedia/archived1

Archive of old posts

You've been blocked indefinitely for vandalizing userpages and user talk pages. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've shortened this to one week, since you had good contributions before your recent vandalism spree. You know this was wrong, and you know why, so I expect much better from you in the future. I will watch this page. Chick Bowen 01:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm Back
Welcome back you CMF. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 03:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

redirect deletion discussion
Please see Redirects for discussion. — coe l acan t a lk  — 06:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont have a problem with contaxt of the comment. Consider the User who left it. Clearly there is problem. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Say what? I don't undertand you. — coe l acan t a lk  — 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the argument that is offensive is false. I meant nothing offensive with the Swastika in fact it was a referance to (Hinduism) my own self spirituality. I find Thomas Jefferson offensive. For his part he played oppressing black people. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln
First, I'd glad that you take a look at the article and agree with me that it violates WP:NPOV. Also, I thank you for being one of insubstantial delete voter who supported me in the AfD, which wretchedly failed.

And about the cleaning up work, I think it's very difficult because the article itself is full of PoV language which misleads the readers to the thought that AL is "truly gay". After getting failure in the AfD, I also had the intention of cleaning up those stub tabloids and adding a new section about feedback raising from the speculation, but I decided to give up since I saw Rjensen's endless effort editing and then crucially reverted. I don't have much time to take part in argument and I want my given effort should be respected rather than being swept away. Thus, in the end, I decide to ignore it and presume there's no existence of such article.

I wonder why you need full protection for it. I'm sorry that I couldn't help you because it's really impossible. Even request for semi-protection is very difficult, only for seriously persistent vandalized pages, let alone the full protection as you suggest.

Lastly, I have reconsidered about writing a new section in that article. If that'll the case, I hope you'll back up me and we'll collaborate to make it a more rewarding article. Best regards. Causesobad --> (Talk) 09:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. When I read your edits, at first I was inclined to merely nip and tuck here and there, but as I read it became clear that your edits had the intent to weasel the language.  The language Lincoln uses in his writings is fairly clear.  He was a person who was extremely blunt and crude at times, enough to shock ladies of his time.  Earlier historians had tended to overlook that part of his character, later historians have pointed that out.  The other part of your edits tends to try to water down the actual facts as we know them.  We know that he was distraught at the marriage of his "most intimate friend".  He is called his most intimate friend, he is not called his "best friend", that is a gloss by prissy historians to mask what is actually said.  I have quoted my source on his main article page.  Lincoln had statements and opinions that were quite colorful, not weasly at all.  I would encourage you to actually read some of the works by historians on the issue of his sexuality, so you can see the full arguments.  There are many web sites sure that will water it down, but check to see if they actually quote from primary sources or not.  If they don't they are worthless, merely puff opinion pieces, not scholarly research. Wjhonson 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also want to point out, that the user User:Rjensen has been accused and has evidence of being a puppeteer Case notes. And has been banned eight times for 3RR, see here. These facts greatly color his *contributions* in my opinion.  The main one to AL's page seeming to be to try to remove *any* mention of this known controversy whatsoever. Wjhonson 17:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beaver.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Beaver.JPG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln
Hi Knowpedia, I notice you wrote the following:
 * The sexuality of Abraham Lincoln proposes that Lincoln is gay. This controversial suggestion is contended.

We can't actually say this. We can't propose anything, as this is saying a POV. The article is also not just about whether he was gay, but all aspects of sexuality. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image use
I've removed a number of copyrighted, fair use images from templates you have been working on. For example, I removed Image:Monroe County mi seal.jpg from Template:Cities in Monroe County, Michigan. Please note that the use of fair use tagged images in templates is not permitted per our policies as written at Fair use criteria item #9. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is acceptable for a copyrighted image to appear on an article if it contributes significantly to the article. It is not acceptable for it to appear on a template. I removed the images you added to the templates. I did not touch any articles in removing those images. Per our policies at Fair use criteria item #9, copyrighted images may not be used on templates. Does that help clarify? --Durin 21:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

REDIRECT
Redirected talk to User talk:Butseriouslyfolks

Why did you move my response to my own talk page? I don't need to be alerted to the fact that I have responded to you. Butseriouslyfolks 04:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I only asked because there are some administrators that frown upon removal of threads from talk spaces.  Sorry to use 'that word'!  Take care, Butseriouslyfolks 06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I moved it were the conversation started. Considering it made no sense on my talk page. Also I reserve to remove any conversation on my talk page. I thought you were being comical; otherwise your questioning my move would have been harebrained. That is why I answered so cleverly. Nothing was removed. Moving discussion to its proper place is not frowned upon. Its cheered by the wikignomes and wikiferies. Good luck. --Masterpedia 07:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I could tell
In every other succession box succession (hehe) I have seen, they have always gone right at the end, before the categories. In any case, no need to be rude. My mistake, you can point it out nicely. &mdash; mrmaroon25 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject Illinois Collaboration Division
Hey, saw you were a participant in the Illinois WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)