User talk:Knucmo2

User talk:Knucmo2/Archive 1

Off-wiki personal attacks poll
Since you have previously participated in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy, I wanted to let you know about a quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated!


 * Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks

Strom 21:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusion?
Hey, you sent me a message about my contributions.

I am sorry, but you had me confused with another member, although I was looking through the test page recently.

I may have changed the Missouri Compromise, but I don't remember. If I did, I'm sorry. It may have been my brother :)

Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.65.104 (talk • contribs)

Karl Marx
Do you have a reference for this thing about Marx thinking that the replacement of capitalism by communism is 'inevitable'? I mean, I know "everyone knows" that Marx thought that, but do you actually know where he might have said it? Because I've never come across it. mg e kelly 12:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, see the talk page at Marx. --Knucmo2 12:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Pac-Man
Thanks for your automated comment, it made me chuckle. Who knew a one-letter difference could cause such a fuss over time... Check the talk page. 82.92.119.11 22:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!
Thanks for the vote in my RfA! It didn't gain consensus, but I'm really glad I accepted the nomination. - Amgine 15:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on my RFA
Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, don't be too hard on yourself by calling your action "immature". Premature perhaps. --Knucmo2 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger Hedgecock
I believe the article states taht Hedgecock's conviction for perjury was overturned. He therefore does not belong in the "Perjuror" category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.123.210.241 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 12 May 2006


 * Hmmm, I was unsure. Plus I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia - it is a tertiary source of information - I'd look it up elsewhere.  If you've got a source overwrite my change  --Knucmo2 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi ,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What kind of cleanup?
Dear Knucmo2, criticism always should be concrete. You demanded a cleanup of my (my=unfortuneately nobody else contributed). What exactly do you want me (or others) to do? (Brush up my English? This had better be done by a native speaker). Please let me know. Thanks and greetings hjn 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which page are we talking about? --Knucmo2 08:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hans_Albert hjn 09:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah right yes. Well, it's not written in a professional level, but I understand that you are not a native speaker of English, in which case you've done a good job writing it in your second language.  The size of the picture needs to be reduced, and moved to the right.  His biography needs to be put into prose format rather than a series of bullet points.  Also, the other sections containing bullet points have to be gotten rid of (don't remove the content associated with them, just incorporate it into the article - its dead easy).  The article is missing external links and citations.  Finally it needs copyediting for proper grammar, tone, style etc. --Knucmo2 09:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This was my idea too. Please have a look on the Version of 02:14, 23 January 2006. Maybe this is what you want and what some other friendly helper didn't like. Who is the mightier god I like to obey willingly? (if it is of any use to the reader). OK, I need some exercise in English so I will try to follow your intententions as far as I understand them correctly. Give me, please, some days and if you could specify further criticism be so kind as to put it on the discussion page of "Hans_Albert". I assure you I like criticism (it is just the kernel of Hans Albert's philosophy). Greetings hjn 10:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The easiest way is always to copy what other did better. Please, could you possibly tell me an article of this kind? hjn 10:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As you can see on Hans_Albert I made a lot of what I hope are improvements. Therefore I think me entitled to remove the admonition. If I left some language problems please alarm a native speaker. Hans Albert is a very important German thinker translated in many languages and earned to be handled both professonally and elegantly. Thank you. hjn 08:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Rmrfstar's RfA
Concerning your recent oppose vote in my RfA: You're right that there is a lack of typical "administrative actions" in my Wikipedia history, but does that mean I'm too irresponsible to use of the admin tools themselves? I don't plan on engaging in too many "administrative actions" if I become an admin; I simply am not that sort of editor. So what exactly leads you to believe that I might not be a responsible administrator? -- Rmrfstar 17:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Steady now, can you please quote where I said you would not be a responsible admin? That's right, I've said no such thing.  But your lack of administrative actions implies a lack of familiarity with the policies that admins are required to follow, and also a lack of experience in areas where the going can easily get very tough for unexperienced admins (e. g. AFD).  You've done hardly any reversion of vandalism (20 reverts, to my knowledge) which admins are expected to do, and admin tools give you the power to block users which non-admins have (one reason why so many rc patrollers are keen to become admins).  In fact, admins are advised to keep WP:AIV on their page to assist non-admin users at RC patrol. The fact that you've brought this directly to my talk page rather than on the adminship page itself implies to me you've took this oppose vote too personally, and you've accused me of something I did not say. --Knucmo2 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You're claim that I commited vandalism is pure non-sense
Your message regarding my changes to Karl Marx entry is pure non-sense and you must be clearly insane believing that my actions constituted vandalism. To make your derogatory statement clear I would like to point out to your lack of common sense the following: There were such remarks as "Fuck You" and other abusive language under one section of Karl Marx which I promptly deleted. I do NOT consider deleting derogatory statements or comments as vandalism. If you believe that saying such things as "Fuck You" is OK under any entry then you should check your head with your shrink, pal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.72.134 (talk • contribs).

Descartes Problematic Idealist
I am in no way disagreeing with your assessment that Descartes was an Idealist. But his cogito leads him to what Kant specifically calls problematic idealism - which by the way is the best way to go about philosophy according to Kant. he also makes a similar "GEM" (tautological/beggin the question) mistake in his cogito.

As such, whether he really wanted to be an idealist or not his cogito leads him to these conclusions.

cf. Descartes situation to Kant's; Kant's position could just as easily be called transcendental empiricism; many see his epistemological distinctions as almost equivalent to the popperian fallabilist/critical rationaist position which is ANTI IDEALIST in just about every possible way. Professor Michael Devitt characterises kant's position as a Weak-Realist with a negative solution to epistemology (cf. Fallabilism a positive solution to epistemology).

Any how we'll sort this out because there's no point editing and re editing the same paragraph till we sort it out amongst ourselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.80.123.40 (talk • contribs).


 * I don't know what your talking about, but your misinterpretation of Kant is one for starters, and you seem to be applying fashionable epistemological labels to Kant's thought, which is really quite anachronistic. Kant was a transcendental idealist and an empirical realist, unlike Descartes, because Kant believes we are directly acquainted with objects. You can interpret it to mean whatever you want, but you must have read a different Kant to me if you think he's a transcendental realist.  He's a transcendental idealist because he argued that things such as moral data do not lead to direct knowledge of things so we are able to conceive of it, and so we also have a subjective understanding of such things. If Devitt believes he is a pure realist, then he is wrong. It is also a grave mistake to compare him to Popper, who was a transcendental and empirical realist AFAIK.  Descartes was a transcendental realist, believing our knowledge of objects is independent of subjective experience (God wants us to see the objects) and experience (reason detects the ideas).  I'm not sure whether his cogito leads him to being an idealist; this needs more thought. --Knucmo2 11:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Chaunteathumb.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chaunteathumb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
, thank you you so much for validating my RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

Deizio talk 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!
Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available
 After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal 199.246.2.11
vandalised another article. . Notifying you as you gave them a "last warning" and I am not an admin. -999 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

About Petrejo
Can't deny Paul's been fairly consistent (even as far as his seemingly trollish behavior), but if you wish to read my views on his latest contributions, then search no further. I agree with your reply to him about his suggestions to the introduction - but his aims to say Nietzsche was "anti-Christian" obscures some points he mentioned in Ecce Homo and elsewhere (that genuine Christians would not object to his thinking, how he doesn't aim to change morality but put aesthetics above it, etc.) and many other details that simply amounts to no conclusion about his supposed anti-Christian stance, except that it isn't clear and/or it is much more complicated. Least of all is it clear based on the "burgeoisie" nonsense he writes (and is therefore POV to state). Anyway, I look forward to when you decide to contribute more often - I know from a first hand basis how irritating this whole situation has been and will continue to be.Non-vandal 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw Petrejo's reply to you, and I have a simple objection to make: nowhere is Nietzsche posed as a "moralist", he was an "immoralist" (a position which goes beyond "anti-Christian", ie., it goes "beyond good and evil"). This trivializing view of Petrejo's really deserves no chance in the article, and is an obvious confusion of Kaufmann's "burgeois" position (as Petrejo likes to call it, falsely), because Kaufmann thoroughly noted this in his writings on Nietzsche. Can one say "troll" and not be considered correct here? Well, best of luck,Non-vandal 00:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

fsdfsd (I knucmo 2, wrote this)

hello Knucmo2 sorry if your busy is theBlackbay here :)
Help From fellow Wikipedians against censorship!

Thank you for your time I was wondering if i could ask your opinion?? :)

Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin here is the Article on G. Edward Griffin that I have just reconstructed and am still in the process of doing, But it's been put up for deletion?.

I was wondering if you could pitch in a comment in any direction you feel but I believe this man is very notable having Authored such books as The Creature from Jekyll Island a history of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, but also many many more films as well, also being a member of many organisations.

Me being an inclusionist of sorts I would rather see changes made rather than a wholesale deletion, what do you think?

The man is very notable he has been doing this sort of work since the 60’s when he created the “The Capitalist Conspiracy” one of the first and most documented histories of Political Corruption in film that I know of.

Thank you for all your help, I’m just starting out in Wikipedia I have created the Benjamin H. Freedman, article and reconstructed the The Money Masters article and some others but I need help here! Any help of mine you may need or want in any regard in the future just ask :)

Also any contribution you would like to make to improve the article please consider!

Really i wouldn't ask if i did not really think this article worthy.

-Theblackbay 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[http://www.theblackbay.com/ .theblackBay. sample site]

Dizzy Gillespie
noticed you did some edits there a while back - check it out now, lot's of changes and a touch of controversy about the opening paragraph.--Smkolins 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Masterless men
Ah, yes, well, one problem with reading too much in the 18th century is that one can not notice how words change. What I had wanted to write was "magisterial satire" for A Tale of a Tub, but I figured that might be a bit too Latinate. At least I didn't say that it was filled with lucubrations. Geogre 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award originated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer) ♠  TomasBat  ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 21:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Threepointsymbol digitalindustry.jpg
Hello, Knucmo2. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Threepointsymbol digitalindustry.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Knucmo2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:MilesDavisRoundAboutMidnight.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MilesDavisRoundAboutMidnight.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to and/or  status. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU. Thank you. Delivered on behalf of user:xaosflux 01:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Blakey Freedom Rider.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Blakey Freedom Rider.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hank Mobley Soul Station.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hank Mobley Soul Station.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jackie McLean Let Freedom Ring.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jackie McLean Let Freedom Ring.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SonnyStitt.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SonnyStitt.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MilesDavisRoundAboutMidnight.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:MilesDavisRoundAboutMidnight.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject National Basketball Association June 2008 Newsletter
 The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.

Rationalism
Please contribute to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Rationalist movement. It's fallout from a 2006 discussion that you participated in. Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Anatoly Karpov
"While it is a fact that he lost 10kg, and suffered a physical collapse". Do you have a reference to these facts? SunCreator (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am returning to editing Wikipedia after a lengthy hiatus. This is one of the edits I am following up and have placed this fact back on the Karpov page, since it is pretty illustrative of the stress Anatoly suffered and since it is true. - Knucmo2 (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Please review these proposed changes
See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music. Thank you. --Jubilee♫ clipman 15:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CTM election notice
WikiProject Contemporary music   Hi and hello! We are currently electing our first coordinator, see Election: Coordinator for 2010. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at WikiProject Contemporary music/Coordinator. P.S. You are currently listed on the project participants list. Are you still active on the project? If so, please reconfirm your name on the Members list. Thanks and good editing!

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Knucmo2! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Frank Strozier -
 * 2) Jesse Davis -

Articles for deletion nomination of Michael Levin
I have nominated Michael Levin, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Michael Levin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. .אבי נ (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Akadi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Akadi 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/Akadi 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. Claritas § 15:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  03:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grumbar


The article Grumbar has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable fictional character"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chauntea


The article Chauntea has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fictional character that fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not an in-universe fictional biography summary. Could be soft deleted by redirecting to List of Forgotten Realms deities."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Silvanus (Forgotten Realms)


The article Silvanus (Forgotten Realms) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

3O request declined
Hi! I've declined your 3O request regarding Paula Vennells, as I don't see that any substantive effort at resolution has been made on the talk-page. In general, your aim should be to de-escalate any disagreement rather than the opposite; ensuring that you remain courteous at all times is a first step towards that. If you're not sure what our recommended practice is for quotations, you could consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I do not see that the other user will come to any sort of agreement at this stage. But I live in hope. Knucmo2 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Pigsonthewing, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The adjectives 'daft' and 'idiotic' are indeed abusive when applied to another editor, as is the noun 'stupidity'. RexxS (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Daft is not abusive, 'idiotic' could be though it was applied to the content produced. You will note I said, "Don't be daft", which is hardly used in an aggressive sense in the English language. 2) I take issue with the brusque and threatening nature of the comment above, which seems hypocritical given the nature of the issue at hand. WP:PA states that the user (I note that it is not Pigsonthewing) should leave a 'polite' message - the above is not that in the least. Knucmo2 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a standard warning, given in an attempt to avoid having to sanction you for you incivility. You obviously have no intention of heeding it, as you refuse to accept that "daft" is abusive and so is calling another editor's post "hypocritical". I'm therefore blocking you until you can sort out what is and isn't acceptable in your interactions with other editors. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. RexxS (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any comments regarding the request? 331dot (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not very happy with it. Here's the diff of the post that I objected to. In that post Knucmo2 called another editor "daft" and that editor's version of an article "idiotic", then used the edit summary "stupidity". Knucmo2 could have made the point about style guides without any of that offensiveness. I considered that a strong warning would be better than an immediate block, so I used a standard template. Instead of an acknowledgement, I was met by an defence of the attacks, compounded by calling my post "hypocritical". The response convinced me that the warning had no effect, hence the block.
 * The request begins by claiming that "I did not call the above post 'hypocritical'." yet you can see that's exactly what they did: "I take issue with the brusque and threatening nature of the comment above, which seems hypocritical ....
 * Knucmo2 calls my choice of template "provocative".
 * Complaining that the application of "idiotic" to the version of the article, but not the editor of that version is wikilawyering. The intent is quite clear.
 * Being "happy to admit that better words than 'stupidity' and 'idiotic' (these were applicable to the edit, and not to the editor) were available at time of writing." is well short of any assurance that the episode won't be repeated, and again contains the counterfactual assertion that the attacks were on the edit, not the editor, which I don't accept. They also fail to accept that they cannot call other editors "daft".
 * I certainly wouldn't unblock if I were reviewing that request.
 * Nevertheless, I would like to see Knucmo2 getting back to editing again, although with some circumspection about how they treat other editors in future. --RexxS (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I accept the above comments from 331dot and I also observe the speed with which it was done, so for that, I thank you. What needs to happen from here so I can get back to editing? I ask as I do not wish to presume. Knucmo2 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd unblock you immediately if you simply gave an assurance that you'll try your level best never to approach another editor again in the manner that you did. --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course. You have my assurance on that. Knucmo2 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've unblocked your account. Please ping me if you still have any problems editing. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, all systems go. Knucmo2 (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The WikiLoop Battlefield weekly barnstar

 * Many thanks! It's good to be back...Knucmo2 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Penderecki
Look, you are editor No. 5 for Penderecki, - thank you, and see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This made me feel pretty wistful, but thanks very much Gerda. Knucmo2 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 13:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear Knucmo2,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Hi , you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly! María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

User:2405:6E00:2F0A:2500:E5F3:D1DC:8AFA:F48A & User:119.154.183.131
Hi, FYI: You posted messages on user namespace instead of user talk namespace, I have fixed for you. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks man, eyes well & truly off the ball there! Knucmo2 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest
Some apples left for you, with thanks for all the music. See my talk today for an expressive image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2465 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Gerda for this, though I am mildly curious as to why "Thanks again, all systems go", is in there? Knucmo2 (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I try to stick to three lines, so have to shorten often, - the phrase is just above, and I thought you'd remember. For me, it stands for starting forward in good faith. Correct me if wrong ;) - RexxS is a friend of mine, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The episode leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Best just to leave it at that. --Knucmo2 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
HI , I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users. Thanks and see you around online, María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC) If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mazurkas, Op. 24 (Chopin), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accidental. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In friendship
Jerome Kohl was on the Main page today, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Gerda; a lovely gesture. Thanks for letting me know. Knucmo2 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review
Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Criticism of Microsoft, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages MP and Labour Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda! Thank you for this. Hope you are keeping safe and well during the pandemic. Knucmo2 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much Gerda! Knucmo2 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Velsharoon" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Velsharoon&redirect=no Velsharoon] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)