User talk:Kkj11210

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removing unnecessary space[edit]

I noticed you have edited several redirect pages, removing a blank line before the disambiguation template, with the edit summary "Removing unnecessary space". For what it's worth, many Wikipedia editors insert extra blank lines before stub templates and disambiguation templates for a better page appearance. I haven't found anything in the manual of style that advises either way on this, but I do see a trend in favor of inserting these blank lines. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: I agree that there should be a space before the stub/disamb templates, but my removal concerned an additional space before the templates (example). My belief was that the second space was unnecessary. Is that what you mean/ KJ Discuss? 15:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Kkj11210: You are right that the second space is not necessary. The question is whether Wikipedians are putting in the second space because it improves the visual appearance of the page. See, for example, the stub templates on Haemulon chrysargyreum, Ambastaia nigrolineata, Anguilliformity, piscicide. At one time, Wikipedia had an explicit policy calling for a blank line before stub templates; that policy was changed but it never said not to do this. I had thought that the reason for the extra blank line was to "improve" the appearance of the page with a visual break above the stub notice. It seems that the original reason for the extra blank line had more to do with creating a visual break in the editing screen. The topic was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 11#Lines before stub template and again at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 14#Two blank lines prior to stub templates - revisited. Regarding disambiguation templates, my practice has been not to change the spacing above the template unless I change the template, e.g. by changing {{disambiguation}} to {{geodis}}, in which case I have been inserting an extra blank line, the same one you have been taking out. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Anomalocaris: I'm not particularly concerned with the stub templates either way, but I would agree on having an additional line before the template. I'm more interested in the disambiguation tag, as the extra space changes the look of the entire page. My experiences leads me to believe that there should only be a single space between the content and the tag, with the sample of the first ten entries in CAT:DABP#Pages in category "Disambiguation pages" following that format. Do you know any prior discussions or consensus concerning the extra spaces? KJ Discuss? 00:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Kkj11210: No, I'm not aware of any discussions or consensus. Seems like the extra spaces are relatively rare. I guess I'll stop ever inserting them, but I'm not sure if I'll start taking them out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomalocaris (talkcontribs)

The Links at Monck's Landing[edit]

Hello KJ,

I received your message concerning my deleting (except for the header) the Wikipedia entry concerning "The Links at Monck's Landing Golf Club". I will attempt to explain to you the reasons for this somewhat drastic editing I have undertaken. The Links at Monck's Landing was my business (my life work, truth be told)--I took a 100 year old farm, and over the course of 12 years, built a golf course on it. Unfortunately, the recession and the attendant collapse in the North American golf industry forced my business to go bankrupt in October of 2014. I lost my life's work, The Links at Monck's Landing Golf Club, ten months ago.

If you look at the history of this entry, you will see that I (Suitebriar) am the person who solely created this entry on April 16th of 2010. The layout, the wording, the concepts, the photographs are all mine (except for the last mangled sentence added several months ago). They are, for lack of a better phrase, "my intellectual property" and I no longer agree to their display on and/or dissemination via Wikipedia.

It is very difficult for me emotionally to see such evidence/reminders of my lost life's work on the Internet, and I am therefore in the process of removing as much of it as I can - one part of this process being the deletion of The Links at Monck's Landing Golf Club entry on Wikipedia.

Recently, my golf course was bought (for 10 cents on the dollar) by a group who has proceeded to attempt to piggyback their new business on my already-existing Monck's Landing website, Facebook, Twitter etc. They have also attempted to do so by editing the Monck's Landing Wikipedia entry that I worked very hard to create.

I do not want my words, photographs, ideas being used any longer to advertise (and let's call a spade a spade.....nobody has any intellectual curiosity in an eight year old 9-hole golf course in the middle of nowhere......this entry is an ad for the golf course on the internet) a business that was torn away from me 10 months ago. This stuff is my intellectual property (check the history of this entry and you will see this is true) and I no longer consent to its use on Wikipedia. I do not care if the header "The Links at Monck's Landing Golf Club" remains (although I would prefer the ENTIRE entry to be deleted), I just want my words, ideas, concepts, photographs etc. permanently deleted. These people did not buy my thoughts posted on a 3rd-party website when they bought my golf course. Let them describe their new version of The Links at Monck's Landing Golf Club in their own words. Please do not force me to do so for them.

Thanking you for your time, Suitebriar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitebriar (talkcontribs) 14:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Suitebriar: Thank you for your reply. While I understand your viewpoint and sympathize with your situation, there are several reasons for the difficulty of your request.
While I understand you are one of the major editors of the article, the article was created by the User Againme, with some contributions from other editors. While the article may be deleted with the discretion of the sole author who is the only major contributor to the article (See WP:G7), in this case this is difficult as there is at least one other major contributor.
Wikipedia policy also states that there can be no 'ownership' of an article (See WP:OWN). To summarize the policy, the editor cannot control the usage of content after submitting the content, and neither can the subject of the article. For instance, even if you remove all the content, there is nothing to stop another editor from copying and pasting the previously existing content (with proper attribution).
Furthermore, while articles can be deleted for violation of policy or guideline following Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the article does not seem to fall under any of the possible reasons. There seems to be adequate notability and corresponding reliable sources to keep the article. The content of the article also does not seem to be unambiguous advertising or promotion to warrant that reasoning (WP:G11).
While I understand that this can be frustrating, I don't believe that there is any action that could be done. While you might nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD, the reason for deletion cannot be the content of your message but must be one of WP:DEL-REASON. However, I advise against this course of action as I believe that the article seemingly does not fall under any of the reasons. If you have any further questions, you can post it here. KJ Discuss? 15:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, KJ.
If you could just do me the favour of looking again/a little closer of the history of The Links at Monck's Landing Golf Club entry in question, I think that you will see that you are mistaken about the authorship of this Wikipedia entry. I have only ever created, contributed or even edited one entry in Wikipedia, and that is the Monck's Landing entry. Since I didn't know how to go about "writing the code", and had no real desire to learn how to do so (since this was going to be a 'one-off' deal to market my golf course), I simply copied the code from another Ontario golf course's already-existing Wikipedia entry (i.e. Settler's Ghost Golf Club) and changed the text, photos, statistics etc. already embedded in the code in order to describe Monck's Landing, thereby using Settler's Ghost's entry as a template with which to create my Monck's Landing entry. Perhaps this user Againme you attribute the creation of the Monck's Landing entry to is the one who created my Settler's Ghost template (which are two totally separate and unrelated entities in terms of the discussion we are having about the removal of the Monck's Landing entry)? More likely, I do remember that I had to submit my entry to "a higher being in the Wikipedia foodchain" back in 2010 for review before it was uploaded from the "sandbox" I had created it in to the Wikipedia site proper (where it could be seen by the public). It is very, very probable that User Againme is the editor who reviewed my submission, approved it, and then uploaded it from my sandbox to Wikipedia proper. I can assure you that Againme did not write one word of The Links at Monck's Landing Golf Club article. I can further assure you that, apart from one or two minor edits concerning punctuation & capitalization, I, the very same Scott Kuschnereit mentioned in the article, I, Username Suitebriar, created every single word, photo, footnote etc. etc. etc. of this article (except for the last sentence added in the past several months), and if you would be so kind as to take another look at the history of this entry I trust you will see that I am, in fact, telling the truth. I am not asking you to delete the entire entry, I am not asking you to delete that final sentence recently added that I had nothing to do with. All I am asking is for you to delete everything I have created/edited, which is everything above that final sentence in the article. I am not asking you to do something as "drastic" as to delete the entire entry, I am merely requesting that my recent edit (i.e. removal of the vast majority of the text, the text I alone created) be allowed to stand. Please take another look at the history of this article, I beseech you.
Thanking you for your consideration,
Scott Kuschnereit ("Suitebriar") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitebriar (talkcontribs) 16:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Suitebriar: I cannot find any evidence that you are the author of the article. If you look at the article's history as located here, the first entry and the author by definition is User Againme, with this version as the article that Againme created. I don't see any evidence of a previous draft, either at User:Suitebriar, User:Suitebriar/sandbox, or Draft:The Links at Monck's Landing Golf Club which are the most likelist places where a draft would be created. Thus, WP:G7 cannot apply here. Even if you can prove that you are the author, I must oppose any nomination or deletion of content since the article content does have encyclopedic value and your actions (see WP:OWN) would be against policy. KJ Discuss? 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Correcting typo's[edit]

Until I learn more about this editing on Wikipedia, I will stick to editing typo's and minor edits without clicking on Minor Edit. Thank you very much for you help and guidance. Orangecones (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Cardcaptor Sakura Clow Cards[edit]

The reason I cleared the page List of Cardcaptor Sakura Clow cards was because it served no purpose and was only a redirect page. I would have deleted it if I could but I do not know how. If you know can you please delete it? Sillycap (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Navy day in Iran[edit]

Why do you set redirection from Navy Day (Iran)) to the article Public holidays in Iran? O_o There is no word about Navy Day in the target article. With other words, you send everybody, who was looking for Navy Day, to learn about Ramadan. Why? 07:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro917 (talkcontribs)

@Retro917: Per WP:BLANK, but you are free to WP:RFD if you wish. KJ Discuss? 16:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kkj11210![edit]

Charles R. Knight New Years's Card.jpg
Godt Nytaar! 1916.jpg
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call[edit]

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of RFC for Korean MOS in regard to romanization[edit]

Hello! You contributed in some capacity to at least one of the recent discussions concerning romanization of Korean for historical topics. Should we use McCune-Reischauer or Revised for topics relating to pre-1945 Korea? If you are inclined, please contribute here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)