User talk:Knox490/Archive 1

WOT Services - ANI
Please have a look. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * Not sure if you are a bot or a person, but thanks for letting me know. I didn't invest much time in that entry. I merely removed uncited material which was subsequently added back and cited by another person or others.


 * I have lost interest in WOT Services. The popularity of their service has waned somewhat and I have moved on to other interests of mine. But thanks for letting me know. Knox490 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reread the WOT Services article. I think they may have decided to police their reviews to weed out the input from immature people/bad apples. The service seems better know. I may try their service again. Knox490 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please Look at Justin Haskins page
Hi Knox490, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the Justin Haskins article I created. It has been nominated for deletion for notability and I, along with another editor, have been trying to argue this writer is notable. I'd like to get your opinion on the matter, if you have the time! LibertyEditor (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to get your message too late. I haven't been very active at Wikipedia. But I have some time now to do some edits so I am making a return. Knox490 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:John Hawkins (columnist).jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Hawkins (columnist).jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kaleida Health, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible COI edits on hospitals
I'm afraid I'm away from home on business at the moment and it's a bit difficult for me to do much from here. I'd suggest reporting this to WP:COI/N, which is a venue for reporting problematic behaviour by people with a conflict of interest. If it is just one or two isolated edits then I doubt much will be done about it but if there is a sustained pattern of abuse then that would be different.  Hut 8.5  19:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem appears to be solved for now. Knox490 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

DRV Comment
Hi you commented on the Nextiva DRV, since you seemed to make an attempt or two in placing it, and ended up sticking it in the middle of other comments and responses, and it doesn't appear to be something in your normal field of interest, I'm not sure if it's what you intended to do or not. I've moved the comment to the correct place in the discussion, if you didn't mean to put it there but were trying to do something else (like add a new listing) it'd probably be useful for you to make that clear in the discussion, if it was meant for that discussion then no problem. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article had decent sources so I thought it should be kept. Knox490 (talk)

Parallel discussion on Dawkins and Craig Page
I noticed that there was a similar discussion to what you are having on the Dawkins page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Lane_Craig#Richard_Dawkins_refusing_a_debate. Interestingly, both you and Lionheart seem to agree that the quote is worthy of inclusion on the Craig page, but editors there think it is belongs on the Dawkins page only. Curious if you had any thoughts or insight. Squatch347 (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia has a pro-atheism bias and a certain degree of anti-Christian bias. This is not entirely surprising given that the atheist Jimbo Wales was a co-founder of Wikipedia. I don't believe this situation is going to change anytime soon. But it will change eventually because atheists are beginning to be a dying breed (Demographics of atheism and Desecularization), while religion is growing (Growth of religion).Knox490 (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is interesting how things turn out. The discussion on the WLC page of the quote eventually led to a mediation page you might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#William_Lane_Craig Squatch347 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The left and the anti-religious tend to double down on their irrational thinking. So mediation is futile. For example, Robert Mueller testifying before Congress annihilated the possibility of Donald Trump's impeachment due to Mueller's exceedingly poor performance. Yet, a significant amount of Democrats still prattle on about impeaching Trump.


 * But the left/anti-religious are beginning to lose power in the West (Trump, Europe shifting to the populist right, etc.). So it is inevitable that a culture war will eventually emerge in Wikipedia and/or that a serious rival Wiki will eventually emerge. This is already happening (The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia).  Once France/Germany fall to the right, there is a serious possibility that a full blown culture war will break out at Wikipedia. The culture war will first start out due to right vs. left politics and then later spread to religion vs. irreligion.Knox490 (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 14:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My interest in politics is mimimal. For example, I stopped following the political news and focus on other matters instead. I know that there are many people who obsess on politics post Brexit/election of Donald Trump/rise of Right-wing populism, Yellow vests movement, etc. but I am not one of them. Knox490 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Your nice suggestions on neutrality
The page protection on Peter Navarro expires on Monday afternoon, I think, and you should be able to bring in your neutral edits at that time. Cheers. CodexJustin (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to be very busy over the next month or so. Please make the edits for me. Knox490 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Brexit
Just to give you a heads up, there is a long history of people raising similar points to you about this page.....and a long history of people giving up due to the aggressive a relentless push back from a small group of editors. Not to discourage you, but be prepared to put in a lot of time and effort if you want to change anything. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-wikipedia-page-battles Jopal22 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wired article you just shared with me says: "While Westminster remains mired in endless Brexit deadlock, over on the Brexit Wikipedia page things are even less amicable. Editors are parrying death threats, doxxing attempts and accusations of bias, as the crowdsourced epic has become the centre of a relentless tug-of-war over who gets to write the history of the UK as it happens."


 * Those Wikipedia editors believe Wikipedia is more influential than it really is.


 * A 2019 poll relating to Wikipedia: Sunday on "Full Measure," host Sharyl Attkisson discussed a new poll showing a plurality of Americans think political media is more biased than it was five years ago. She talks with pollster Scott Rasmussen, who said: "We asked about national political reporters, are they credible, are they reliable? And you know, a little more than one out of three people say yes. When we ask about Wikipedia, we get the exact same answer. So what's happening is we have a world where people look at journalists like they look at Wikipedia. Gee, that's an interesting fact. I better check it myself."


 * So 66% of Americans think Wikipedia isn't credible/reliable - despite Wikipedia being founded by Americans. Trust in mainstream media is low around the world. Since Wikipedia mainly uses mainstream news sources for politics related articles, trust in Wikipedia's political articles must be low.


 * On top of this, these editors are swimming against a very powerful tide.


 * In 2019, John Feffer wrote at the left leaning The Nation: "In the Americas, the Trump tsunami has swept across both continents and the 'pink tide' of progressivism has all but disappeared from the southern half of the hemisphere... In this planet-wide rising tide of right-wing populism, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands — Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Uruguay... Worse, crafty operators with even more ambitious agendas stand ready to destroy the liberal status quo once and for all."


 * And right now about right-wing leaning websites are rapidly growing web traffic according to a Columbia School of Journalism study. For example, Fox News' website is getting 100,000,000 unique visitors a month and it has been growing at a very fast clip in the past few years. The traffic to right leaning political websites has far exceeded what is going to the liberal/left leaning websites.


 * On top of this, the secular left is losing power and Wikipedia's Growth of religion, Desecularization and Demographics of atheism articles clearly show this matter.


 * The situation for these relentless Wikipedia editors trying to roll back the tide of history is worse than people trying to plug a profusely leaking dam. Why? It's very clear the dam has already broken.


 * The Brexit article is bound to become less contentious. The stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Maybe I will edit the Brexit article at the acceptance stage.Knox490 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What often happens in communities that stifle dissent rather than adequately mediate dissent is a civil war often breaks out. That appears to be at its preliminary stages at Wikipedia as can be seen via this article: The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia.Knox490 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just telling a Wikipedia admin that I am less interested in politics now. I intend to take a political news fast and focus on other matters. The French historian Ferdinand Braudel argues convincing in his book Capitalism and the Material Life that technological/mundane changes in society are far more influential than individual actors and this dispels the "Great man" theory of history. The "small group of editors" trying to control the Brexit article are very misguided if they think they will make a significant change in history via the Wikipedia page on Brexit.Knox490 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rebecca Watson into Atheist feminism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I somewhat reworded the text but did not take significant attempts to entirely reword it since the clarity of the text was excellent in terms of the nuance. I spent additional time rewording it, but also mentioned that the original text came from the Rebecca Watson article.Knox490 (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! I appreciate the barnstar.Knox490 (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Epic Barnstar

 * Thank you for the barnstar. I appreciate it.Knox490 (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Liberty Alliance LLC for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Liberty Alliance LLC 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/Liberty Alliance LLC until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I concur with your decision to keep. it meets GNG and people have been updating the article. It makes no sense to throw out people's past work. Plus, the company now supports a disabled veteran which is nice. Knox490 (talk)