User talk:Knowledgekid87/Archive7

Hello, I just noticed that you have restructured the history section of the article Ocean liner and removed many images. Just so you know, the big expansion of the article that I did was done by translating from the French Wikipedia's article. So, the word choices (such as those of the headers and ″golden age″) are translation of the words in the French article. Also, before your removal of the headings, the paragraphs under each heading were not short, and they are paragraphs, not single sentences. One can include sufficient number of illustrative images if one has those headings.

By writing the above, I am not trying to own the article or anything like that.

VarunSoon (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@VarunSoon: Thank you for translating the French Wiki article but the headers were just screaming of WP:PEACOCK language. Take phrases such as the "golden age" or "Famous and infamous", this is according to whom for example? I don't know who the article got to FA on the French Wikipedia but the wording is just terrible in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Would the following changes be okay (it is okay for me)?

• The birth of grand companies (1838 - 1845) → The founding of shipping companies (1838 - 1845)
• The first golden age (1897 - 1914) → Early 20th century (1897 - 1914)
• Interwar period: the second golden age and crisis → Interwar period

The new British giants seems okay to me, since the word giant only refers to the fact that those liners were the largest in the world at the time they entered service and does not have any positive connotation. I am in favor of restoring some, if not all, of the removed headings (and the images).

VarunSoon (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@VarunSoon: No as it gives praising labels such as "grand", and "golden", this is by whose standards? The concern I have is with WP:NPOV namely WP:STRUCTURE where it says "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarifies: there is an arrow between the two versions of each heading above. The version on the left is the original, POV heading. The version on the right is the one that I want the heading to change to. VarunSoon (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I added the $200 bill to the Counterfeit United States currency, where it fits better, if that works for you. If not, would you suggest a consensus? --Aang Le (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Its fine, no worries! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your greeting. Yes, I edit here since late February 2014. --Lord vom Ork (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Was it really necessary of you to revert the edit I was making while you closed the bias discussion? And if it was, why didn't you revert the other edit that was also after your close? It's not like it even give me an edit conflict notice.

It seems to me that the "don't make changes" notice should apply after it's posted, not before. Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't catch both as why, once a discussion is closed its usually closed. The topic was drifting into rights versus wrongs rather than Wikipedia policy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I think it would be courteous to leave all edits that were underway when you started to close; it is certainly inconsistent to revert just mine.

And on the merits, I think my contribution was thoughtful and relatively uninvolved, so I'm fairly miffed that you reverted it. I'd appreciate a self-revert. Newimpartial (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Link me the other edit and I will revert that one as well, you guys had plenty of time to see that I had closed the discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It was <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=846584592&oldid=846584448>. But I don't know why you say we had "plenty of time" - both edits were posted within 10 minutes of your close, and I certainly didn't get an edit conflict message when I did. Newimpartial (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit reverted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi KK87,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Knowledgekid87,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of Magical Girl Site characters for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Struck/undone as it looks like the text from Magical Girl Site came first. When splitting out a page or otherwise copying text across from another article, please provide attribution in an initial edit comment. Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! You made a dab page for 1 October shooting and then moved it to 1 October shooting (disambiguation), which is backwards (the title with “disambiguation” in it should point to the base title).

But that isn’t the only problem. You moved the page even after a move was reverted by Suffusion of Yellow, who said in the edit summary, “High visibility page, please obtain consensus first.”

And after that, it isn’t really a valid disambiguation page, because none of the articles linked refer to “1 October shooting” as another name of the incident. Entries on a dab page must be at least mentioned in the linked article to belong on the page.

Given all this, would you please go to requested moves and ask to have the pages put back the way they were? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gorthian. Some clarification is needed here: The "high visibility page" move I reverted was a move (by a different user) of the longstanding title 2017 Las Vegas shooting to 1 October shooting. I was not suggesting consensus was needed before making changes to, or moving, 1 October shooting itself, which didn't even exist as a redirect before yesterday. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I struck out my comment above. It’s still not a valid dab page, and WP:MALPLACED even if it were. — Gorthian (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I left a message on the Legends of the Hidden Temple talk page and contacted a few Wikipedians asking when in 1995 Legends last aired. As you can see on the page, there’s no exact date given and no one seems to have an answer. Don’t know if you know when in 1995 Legends last aired. IMDb and other sources are completely wrong about Legends last airing on June 27, 1995 as a few airdates after June 27 have been confirmed. Let me know if you have an answer.

Alec Borden (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alec Borden: Sorry but I was kind of driven away from the article after dealing with ownership issues from another editor. I hope you find what you are looking for though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Would it be "2018 Caracas Bombing" or "2018 Caracas bombing"?----ZiaLater (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would go for the latter title, I went with the title that was on the Spanish wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Regarding film production companies. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Fairy Tail characters#New consensus for characters. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Real Girl. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Howdy. There's nothing wrong with pointing out how high (Democrats) & how low (Republicans) could end up, in their number of seats. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess you're going edit-war over this. So may as well let you have your own way. Sometimes, it's so frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I just want to know where you are getting 33 from? The source used says 31. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

193 going up to 226, is an increase of 33. Likewise, 235 going down to 198, is a decrease of 37. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

We have to go by the WP:RS though, 11 races are yet to be called, it will even out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I know that 11 races haven't been called, that's why I used the word potentially. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That is fine....but per [[1]] it is 31 and 31. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

See discussion at House talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Sorry if it seems like heated editing, I just have the feeling that the "Seats before" number in the infobox could also be wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Do what yas want. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thanks you too! ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You have reached 3RR with this edit [2] and you are editing against consensus. Further the edit summary on your last edit is misleading as the GRG labels the photo ad Yvonne, the medium source does, and the printed biography says it is Yvonne. Wikipedia had it as Jeanne for years. I don;t know why you are pushing so hard to minimize the new hypothesis but it only takes several sentences out of a long article full of the claims to reaching 122 and other assorted unlikely claims like living alone to an advanced age, walking unassisted at 114 etc. Legacypac (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It has been 2 reverts, and you aren't paying any mind to the objections raised. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You changed the caption 3 times. I don't see you discussing it at all. All I see is other editors who discussed the photo and how to present it, and agreed with how it was shown. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

There was no agreement, I already responded to you on the talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Jonathunder (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Knowledgekid87,

Regarding the Anime Boston event history table, how does WP:MOSDATES make the location column non-redundant? Or were you just trying to revert the changes to the date column?

Thank you, ―MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

There are two different locations, and the article seems to follow MDY format. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the dates, they were not my main focus and I'm fine with leaving them MDY.

Regarding the Location, which in this case is highly repetitive, what's wrong with the sentence I added "Since 2005, Anime Boston has been held at the Hynes Convention Center. The 2003 and 2004 events were held at the Boston Park Plaza." Which covers the same information, and allows the Location column to be removed (making more space for the detailed guests column). ―MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Black Clover (season 1)#Possible FL push?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

But maybe I'm losing my mind and "00:39, 26 March 2014 Knowledgekid87 uploaded File:Millenium Tower artist drawing Boston.jpg" means something else who knows. Odd bit of revisionism that is, but logs are never deleted EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: My memory must have slipped me then, I am fine with its deletion as we now have alternatives. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion [3] --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 10:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Eng.M.Bandara: Thank you for the notice, I think I am just going to let this debate go though. Its clear that some on Wikipedia are thinking through their hearts (which isn't a bad thing) rather than through policy and guidelines regarding inclusion criteria on some of these articles. I mean if I saw breaking news on a dramatic event like I have done in the past I would want to make the article as soon as possible. It pays to wait though as we aren't a news source but an encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

1. If you haven't already you might want to think before leaving passive-aggressive comments on people's talk pages. I've been an editor here since 2005.

2. If you haven't already you might want to delete the dozens of unsourced items already on that episode list, as well as the commonplace and similar sections on hundreds of other episode lists on Wikipedia, instead of singling out my edits. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: Please calm down, this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I simply asked you to source your content is all, you don't need to jump on WP:POINT just because someone mentioned something to you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I heard that you established a page for the Casagrande family that first appeared in The Loud House and will have their spin-off where it's page hasn't been established yet. To make the page noteworthy on Wikipedia, you might want to make the page similar to how somebody established the pages for Howard and Harold McBride. I'm just letting you know that. In the meantime, I suggest keeping the brief information on the family members on the page for The Loud House even if it's gets a character page. I'm just making a suggestion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It will be fine, character pages are made frequently on Wikipedia in order to clear up clutter on the main page. The page needs secondary sources which can be added over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Casagrandes (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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Casagrandes (characters) 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. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe your recent project to convert List of clipper ships to a table is ill-considered. Doing so has deleted much informative and factual text from the entries. In addition, splitting them between "extreme clippers" and others is somewhat artificial, as the "extreme" designation is ill-defined. Please consider reverting the tabulation to the original list format. Disclosure: I wrote the Bald Eagle (clipper) article and its entry in the list, which is one of the many entries adversely affected by the tabulation. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Craigthebirder: Can you tell me how the entry is "adversely affected"? The list article is a large block of unreadable prose, and the removal of intricate detail encourages the reader to click on an article to read about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to point out WP:WHENTABLE, prose works great for articles and not so much for lists that have dozens of entries. If you want to help then the list could really use a lead section, which can be in prose to summarize build locations and such. The tables are also sortable so that informative info can be sorted, and rows can always be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bald Eagle list entry was not a large block of unreadable prose, it was a single sentence. Many of the other entries now tabulated also lost only a couple of sentences, not large blocks. I believe that those sentences act as teasers which might prompt someone reading this list to then read the ship's full article, while the bare bones table misses that opportunity. Entries with larger blocks of prose, like that of Sir Lancelot, would be better served by judicious editing of the entry. WP:WHENTABLE says "If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." I maintain that not only is there no obvious benefit to the table, but actual detriment.

Perhaps this discussion should be carried forward at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships? Craigthebirder (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is a list and not an article. We already have an article on Clippers that sums up the role of these ships. Looking at the talk-page I noticed that the idea of placing the entries in a table goes back to 2011. Can you point out a list that is rated "FL" that presents the information in the style that you want to keep? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a table was proposed in 2011, but not acted on until now. I don't know what an "FA" rating is, so I can't look for a list with it. Again, I suggest that this discussion include additional interested parties since the format conversion is such a significant change. Do you want to open it as a new topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships or shall I? Craigthebirder (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I opened up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#List of clipper ships. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Yesterday, I was attempting to add more facts to the pets on the List of The Loud House characters page. If you want to maintain the prose, I am suggesting that the type of dog and cat that Charles and Cliff are be maintained so that the people would know what type they are. I'm just letting you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: Are there any reliable sources saying what type of pets they are? This can easily be disputed by editors insisting that x is a particular breed of y and amounts to WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

So far, those who have contributed to The Loud House Wiki were able to figure their type out even if they compared their bodily descriptions to their animated forms and their real-life counterparts. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It still amounts to WP:OR though as fans are guessing what type of pets they are. Believe me I have seen this before, it does not end well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I haven't played around with the ship infobox before, but you might want to take a look here, there are quite a few images that would illustrate that article nicely. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks! Yeah I don't have the time to work on the article right now, but will expand and improve things later. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

OK - I had a bit of a play with it (couldn't help myself, those images were so interesting), I've inserted a couple into the article. By all means move them around, change them to whichever ones you think best etc. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, thanks for "tidying up" the info. Some of it was actually only temporary info I ran across as I was creating links for the future article SS Panama. Removing the extra still retained it in the history. Otr500 (talk)

What is your rationale for removing my images from list of clippers? Images that give a lot of information of these ships. Where is the policy? Broichmore (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Broichmore: The MOS is MOS:PERTINENCE, namely "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic". In this case the article is talking about clippers, not posters talking about them. Some of them I retained as they at least show the ship the list line is talking about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to fall out over this, while I agree with what your saying on the face of it... But... Clipper cards are extremely high quality, pertinent images. John Gilpin for example has on it the the very flag of the shipping company, captain named, details of voyage etc. The cards are so intimate to the history of the ship, they are pretty much unique in that way. Also they are provably authentic in a way some ship images are not... You can only get closer to a ship by standing on the deck. I have to say that the effort to obtain these cards can be considerable, and we should use them especially when the ship is not notable enough for a article or there is no ship image anywhere available to us... Broichmore (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Okay I will relent, images of the actual ship though should take preference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I now, agree totally with you. I saw you have a discussion going on at the moment on tabulating the article. Mention has been made of the lack of referencing! Of course, clipper cards are references in themselves. Should this conversation be copied on the talk page there? Regards. Broichmore (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You can copy this discussion to the talk page if you want, I just feel that we should use the best images we can for the ships. For example, a black and white photograph is going to be better than a "clipper card". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously. What I meant was, where there is no referencing and or ship image, then cards would do... Broichmore (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah sure, sorry it is in the middle of the week and the morning here... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add your signature to the headers of content you hatted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia. It is important for users to be aware of who actually hatted the content; otherwise, people would have to go through the page's revision history to figure out who performed it. Transparency is important. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating List of Japanese coinage patterns.

User:Onel5969 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Very nice list article. Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Earlier today you reverted my changes to the Wikipedia page on the legal status of pornography depicting minors and tagged it for "vandalism". Nothing was vandalized. The changes that were made were to correct both factually incorrect statements and article bias. As it currently stands after my changes were reverted, the article does not give an accurate view of US law in this topic. It is also littered with bias and incomplete information that does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality standards.

The article opens with a biased and unnecessary paragraph that should, if anything, be in a separate "Opinions" section; "Some analysts have argued whether cartoon pornography that depicts minors is a victimless crime.[1][2] Laws have been enacted to criminalize "obscene images of children, no matter how they are made", for inciting abuse. An argument is the claim that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the fact that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a non-criminal outlet for desires that could motivate crime.[3][4]" This paragraph not only presents two pro-pornography arguments, it provides **four** pro-pornography sources and zero to the contrary. This is not even an attempt at a balanced framing of the issue.

The next major problem is in the United States section; Despite US obscenity law being critical to this issue, particularly 18 U.S.C. § 1466A which reads; " Section 1466A of Title 18, United State Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene." https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity Nowhere in the article is this line stated. The statute itself is only mentioned in passing in relation to Dwight Whorely's conviction later in the article. The fact that this very important statute is effectively left out of the article is unacceptable.

Next, the line: "In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was facially invalid in prohibiting virtual or cartoon child pornography." Nowhere in the Ashcroft case does the word "cartoon" ever appear, this was an invention by the Wikipedia editor.

The next line of the article that's factually inaccurate is one of the worst of all; it reads "Response to "18 U.S.C. § 1466A" has been met with legal challenges on a number of fronts. On May 19, 2008, the SCOTUS again applied the holding of Ashcroft, supra, to virtual child pornography via United States v. Williams (2008). It was ruled that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed...Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever." Except 18 U.S.C. § 1466A had absolutely nothing to do with United States v. Williams. To state that US v. Williams was a "legal challenge" to 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is completely inaccurate, as the statute it challenged was not only completely different but even upheld. The case ultimately had absolutely no effect on US obscenity law, and the way this entire paragraph is worded is both misleading and intended to give the view that 18 U.S.C. § 1466A was "overturned", though that is completely inaccurate.

Finally, the article closes by listing "thought crime" and "victimless crime" in the See Also section. This is utterly biased. Many would argue that this issue is neither a victimless crime (the UN has stated it's used in child grooming, for example) nor a thought crime. Neither of these two things should be listed as they present a starkly pro-pornography bias.

So why not find sources that are anti-pornography arguments? Don't delete sources just because you disagree with them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The Illustrated London News was published on a Saturday and refers to the Atrato being launched Tuesday week ie the Tuesday of the previous week. I have provided 2RS which confirms the correct date. Keep up the good work Lyndaship (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I got your message yesterday and looked at the page. Following the "Back in Black" episode, Lucy's other love interest is Silas. Though he and Lynn's love interest had voice actors that went uncredited while Richard Steven Horvitz has voiced Leni's love interest Chaz, Lisa's love interest David, and Lana's love interest Skippy. Though on the page, Bobby Santiago and Sam Sharp currently have their bios there because they played major parts in certain episodes. We need to keep an eye on the developing relationships in the episodes to come. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The first one is for a mistaken report at the edit-warring noticeboard about something that wasn't worth either you or User:Mark Schierbecker edit-warring about it.

The second one is for trying to set up a portal metrics table without knowing what the meaning of one of the metrics was.

Be sure to archive them in two different places, or they may behave like tribbles. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Requesting block review: Katfactz". Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Thank you so much! ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [yak] || 02:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Knowledgekid87,

I hereby invite you to discuss a possible new rule on whether or not the name of victims should be included on various articles (i.e. Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting.

The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Victims'_names_proposal_workshop

TheHoax (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to send you a quick note that I hope you weren't discouraged by my message about your recent portal proposal. I thought that it was a valid concept (having different guidelines for broad portals vs. narrow portals), but I think that it would have to be fleshed out a bit more before people could get an idea for what it would look like, and decide if they support it. In other words, you'd need to propose some specific differences in rules for broad/narrow portals. Feel free to develop that idea out further if you're interested. I just want to make sure that I didn't discourage or insult you, because otherwise your participation has been valuable. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [speak] || 19:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Scottywong: - Thanks and no worries, the idea came to me but I didn't have time to properly see it through. I really think we should take some community straw polls per Britishfinance's suggestion on his talk-page. This way we can settle the argument if the community favors more or less portals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your recent participation in this discussion, I'm not sure about the wisdom of pinging to a discussion an editor currently being brought before Arbcom due to concerns about their interactions with respect to discussions in that specific topic area. BD2412 T 00:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: Like it or not she still makes a valid point which is only going to come back later on. I think its helpful to get as much input as possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The validity of the point is not the issue, as you have recognized in your own response in the discussion. BD2412 T 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Its more evidence against BHG then, she was initially invited by Scotty. I thought reaching out in good faith for an opinion wouldnt involve another editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, I am part of a research project at the University of Westminster, London, that looks at contentious Wikipedia articles and would like to interview you about your work and the issues and intricacies within collaboration practices in article development.

We have observed that you are an active editor in the Wikipedia community and that you have contributed in an article of our interest for several years (War in Donbass 2014-2017 period) and you a currently contributing to other Ukraine military-related articles. This experience is of great interest to us.

If you would be interested in participating in this research or would like some more information, please do not hesitate to contact me through the Wikipedia mailbox or my personal talkpage. It would be a great help. Best regards and thank you in advance. Etchubykalo (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

An article you recently created, List of Lepidoptera of Massachusetts, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! An update comment is needed, since video game and OVA are split now in nomination (because the video game disambig implies that it's the primary topic, which it isn't). Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thanks! Sorry for the late ping, 2020 has been good so far! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: This is a belated thank you! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: Thanks! 2020 is turning out to be good so far. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Thanks, I may not always agree with others when it comes to portals but some good progress has been made out of all of this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You were a major contributor to Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. Do you operate the Wikipe-tan twitter account? Do you know who does?

• https://twitter.com/Wikipetan

I like Wikipe-tan and I would like to keep this character in Wikimedia community control. I think there is new and recent interest in a character face of Wikipedia.

Is this you? The twitter account has no activity since 2011. I am writing to seek the owner to ask for the account to use for Wikimedia community shared control through an organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: - No this isn't me, I didn't even know Wikipe-tan had a twitter account. It seems like a fun thing to do! I would guess the account could belong to Wikipe-tan's creator User:Kasuga~enwiki. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I emailed that person as they have not edited English wiki in 10 years or Japanese wiki in 3. If I find someone to give me account credentials I will set up a shared community process for account management. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, can you help me here? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.24.139 (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I see you recently moved some material from 2050 to 2050s. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey...

I think I should just give up on Wikipedia.. All I have done is just get bytes removed from me...

I just don't think I'm a very reliable person...

I feel so dead... BiRDiE16 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, thank you for caring about WikiProject banners. The scope of WikiProject Wikipedia is described at the top of the WikiProject's page:

Scope

• The Outline of Wikipedia and everything listed in it.
• Articles on subjects directly related to Wikipedia.
• Articles on each edition of Wikipedia.
• Articles on Wikipedians who are notable for being involved with Wikipedia.
• Other Wikipedia-related articles, especially in Category:Wikipedia or its subcategories.

Thanks. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Knowledgekid. Could you please provide an explanation as to why you undid my removal of dates from Template:Clipper ships? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I provided two, one in the form of an edit summary [4] and the other on the template's talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I am new to this. I understand what you mean about Find A Grave. What about the Social Security Death Index? Or Newspaper Obituaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luna9B16 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Luna9B16: Social Security death indexes and obituaries are okay to use. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Have you seen the commercial for the upcoming crossover that would debut this Saturday? As I don't know which show will be mainly holding this event, what can we do to make it a notable page on this website like they did with the "Overnight Success" episode? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Sjones23#Re: WikiProject Anime category scheme. — Goszei (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Knowledgekid87 -- I received your message on my talk page. I was surprised. Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. Please see the 2040s talk page, and the polite exchanges respecting the entry for 2043 in recent times on that talk page. I have responded to the concern about original research. When any other concerns have been raised, I have responded kindly to them, and not rushed to repost anything. I think I have exercised good faith and pleasantness in the dialogue. I think that every concern was discussed kindly and amicably. Whereupon I proposed to resubmit the posting. But even then I waited for further comment -- when no objection appeared, I notified them again, and after another delay proceeded. There was nothing rushed or insistent.

Perhaps the concern comes from the fact that some editors are not much concerned about what the Hebrew Old Testament either does, or does not, say about the subject. In other words, it is the question itself that seems odd. Bear with me a little for some explanation, please.

The subject is not one that most are familiar with -- that is, the end of 6000 years according to the Hebrew Old Testament. But this subject has actually been at the heart of thoughtful and diligent research by very bright and concerned persons for centuries. Deep scholars, such as Isaac Newton and many others, have given serious attention to this question. It has deeply influenced large Christian movements from the time of the Reformation forward. The Adventist movement of the early 1800s, and later the Bible Student Movement of the late 1800s and the duration of the 19th century, have been deeply impacted by this question. The Jehovah's Witness organization, a world wide movement with millions of members, long held that 1975 would be the time. I am not a Jehovah's Witness, or an Adventist. But I have followed the subject and read about the various views on this subject for a long time.

The original research that at last provided the key for the solution came from Edwin Thiele, who discussed his view in a series of articles in scholarly journals, with a running discussion with other notable scholars of his day. He later published his well-accepted thesis in his book "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings." I was given a copy of this book in the early 1980s, and spent three years of thoughtful investigation into his findings -- his original research. I think his research is correct -- but it is not merely my view. The more or less famous Egyptologist of England, Kenneth Kitchen, argues with forcible scholarship on behalf of the Thiele's conclusions. The NIV Bible carries the essence of Thiele's conclusion -- namely that 1 Kings 6:1 dates to 966 bc.

So there is nothing novel, or unattested, about Thiele's original research.

On the 2040s talk page all of this has been considered.

If there is something deficient here, please specify, and let me interchange and explain further. Thank you -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is good and all but we still need a source to cite for the information. A book.... a news source... something.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  User:Cloud668/UBX/Waifu, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cloud668/UBX/Waifu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cloud668/UBX/Waifu during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Hey, Knowledgekid87. There is currently a MfD going on for the waifu UBX I made years ago which you have transcluded. Personally I don't really mind if it gets deleted since I am inactive and it was just made as a one-off joke, though I am wondering if you would like to chime in, seeing that you have it transcluded. Thanks. -- クラウド６６８ 20:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2090s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel like an admin should've found a consensus for the AFD discussion at Red Bluff shooting by now. Love of Corey (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Knowledgekid87 -- I think that you did see my note to you from 2 July, 19 days ago, on the 2040s talk page. Is that correct? I ask, because another editor was concerned that you might have been unaware. I think that you probably did see it, because you seem attentive. I endeavored to respond properly to your concerns, and I modified my proposed posting to include sourcing, as you said should be supplied. I think it is ready to proceed with. Please advise. Thank you -- David RiceDavRice (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

@Ad Orientem: - Thanks. I don't think this is over though as the deletion has the potential to give way to others. The key thing of worry is that editors are thinking with their hearts and not their minds. This issue has never been about what you believe in... it's been about being fair and balanced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this has the potential to set a very dangerous precedent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 - Thanks for your input in all this. What they have done is said that religious beliefs can and will be censored because they can be the thought police/userbox police. But yes, already another box has been re-created, believe it or not. Ad Orientem is correct, a bad precedent has been put into motion. I suspect even simple sentences on userpages will be next. Talk about kicking a beehive, they have done it... JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

the Merge TS Arthur had the wrong closure. Please fix or give a reason here. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks that means a-lot, I try my best when I can. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello K. I wanted you to know that it did matter to me. I was preparing a reply to AL's post but stopped after reading your message. I did take to heart what you said. I know that the direction things went is unpleasant so thanks for your efforts. Please feel free to remove this as well. MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RECOG for customization options

• Portal:Anime and manga/Recognized content
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Quality articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

So, the reasons for my edits include making them uniform throughout the project. While we usually don't compare to other articles, I know almost no other articles that list cancelled years or cancelled guests in the Event history section. They are usually removed as they didn't happen. A few cancelled guests get mentioned in the conventions regular history, such as when Anime Midwest received independent coverage due to guest visa issues. I'll be no doing no other work on Anime Boston at this time, you seem to have a specific vision for that article and that's fine. Esw01407 (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Knowledgekid87! It appears that you have been increasingly involving yourself with us recently, so please consider joining us. Thank you. SMB99thx my edits! 07:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. BiRDiE16 here. Look, I'm very sorry about all of my disruptive editing that is causing lots of editors to do more work. I honestly don't know what is wrong with me.

I don't have any reasons on why I kept doing this, it could be because I don't like seeing something without a full date on it.

Whatever the case is, I'm sorry. BiRDiE16 (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ever checked this site? Chibiyuto collected a lot of Clamp interviews and they mention the original source. I've been comments about Chii here so I hope this helps with the article. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Thanks! I will look into it. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)